Progressive Economics <pe...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Have the new money-credit-derivitive instruments fundamentally changed things?
http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/pen-l/2010w10/date.htm must ask for your patience at what may seem to economic experts an impossibly naive question. Perhaps it is also an impossibly awkward answer to give in a snippet of an email, but whatever hints you may have, I am interested in. I acknowledge that I have also have not been able to watch all the posts (nor those on Louis's list) over the last two years. Perhaps you all addressed this in detail - and pointing to the relevant post(s) will be fine. Alternatively if there are key analyses/books that you could recommend, I would be very grateful. Simply put I am asking the following. I believe that Marx and Lenin had certainly considered the role of credits etc, and this seems not anything different except in scale and in speed. Is that correct or is that rather stupid? Do the modern systems demand fundamental revisions of M or L in terms of their economic main fundamentals (as opposed to their political anlayses). If so which ones warrant this updating, and what are these updates? Thanks for considering, Hari Kumar ^^^^^^^ Jim Devine : in very terse terms, I think that Marxists can make their understanding of credit and financial instruments more complete, more concrete, and more sophisticated by learning from Keynes and the Keynesians (such as Minsky, but not "new Keynesians" such as Mankiw) without sacrificing the Marxian understanding of capitalism. The financial system represents M - M', the individual earning of profit (i.e., dividends, and/or capital gains) simply by trading money and paper obligations, which is totally parastic on industrial capital (M - C ... P .... C' - M'). The redistribution of surplus-value (in finance) is dependent on its actual production (via exploitation in the production of goods and services). Keynes and his followers provide more understanding of the complications of M - M'. However, I'd say that Marx's 19th century description of speculative booms and crashes remains remarkably descriptive. ^^^^^^^ Michael Perelman have to disagree a bit with Jim D. Marx had a better grasp than Keynes or Minsky of the importance of the delinking of finance and production as well as fictitious capital. In the specifics, the latter two were much more informed. ^^^^^^^^^ Michael Perelman wrote: > I have to disagree a bit with Jim D. Marx had a better grasp than > Keynes or Minsky of the importance of the delinking of finance and > production as well as fictitious capital. that's right. Minsky , for example, saw only financial crises arising from within finance, but not the ones arising from problems within the "real" sector. (I may be wrong here, since Minsky was influenced by Marx, especially in his early work.) > In the specifics, the latter two were much more informed. that was my point. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. ^^^^^ Michael Perelman -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minsky told me that he was influenced by Marx but seemed to indicate that he had left Marx behind. ^^^^^^^ just want to thank those who replied. Ted's reply was especially helpful for me, as my formal schooling has been in a biological discipline. Can I try to briefly summarise one core? It seemed to me that all three who replied were not impressed that the rapidity of turn-over of monies that have been made possible by the new instruments, relying upon electronic modelling and electronic communication - have made the current volume of trading-swopping-development of credit - into a qualitatively new phenomenon. (Just to be clear: It is irrelevant whether or not you believe in the Engels type of formulations of the laws of dialectical materialism is not at question - including a series of incremental changes into a nodal point at which there is qualitative change). I think all three of you seem to agree on that. Is that correct? I am not trying to put words into anyone's mouths, I just sincerely want to understand your perspectives. Again - many thanks for your considerations. Hari Kumar _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
