Hi all,
This is a post to remind people about the resource for progressives we
have here at UC-Berkeley for progressives called the Economic Democracy
Information Network (EDIN) gopher.
We are looking for new sources of files and other gopher sites,
especially labor and economic-oriented
Jim Devine wrote:
Behind this were the limits
set by class society: interest rates couldn't rise so far as to
swallow more than the total mass of surplus-value (except perhaps
in a transitory liquidity crisis) and couldn't fall below zero
(except maybe in the very short run).
I don't know
On Thu, 24 Feb 1994 10:15:41 -0800 JGulick said:
I don't know what Marx said, but I do know _real_ short-term interest
rates in the 1970's were frequently _negative_ in real terms. That is,
the annual inflation rate was higher than the rate of profit for
finance capital. I think so anyway.
Loanable Funds and rentiers don't strike me as useful concepts
for understanding interest rate determination. Loanable funds
theory assumes that interest rates equilibrate investments and
savings. As such, it has nothing to do with Marx and is logically
inconsistent because of re-switching and
In a post dated yesterday, the assertion was made that the political limits of
interest rates (within the "supply-and-demand-for-loanable-capital" rubric)
were that interest could not rise high enough to consume the mass of surplus
value and could not fall below zero.
This is true, of course, of
On Thu, 24 Feb 1994 15:40:22 -0500 (EST) Dickens said:
Loanable Funds and rentiers don't strike me as useful concepts
for understanding interest rate determination. Loanable funds
theory assumes that interest rates equilibrate investments and
savings. As such, it has nothing to do with Marx and
Not to be a vulgar Marxist or anything, but the rentier class took to
monetarism because they saw it as a strategy to attack inflation and the
aspirations of an uppity working class. Of course ideology played an
important part in its triumph, but the politicians most identified with
this ideology
Real rates, after making the appropriate Keynesian observation that they
are not an observable phenomenon, were indeed negative in the 1970s, which
is why the rentier class insisted on Volcker's takeover of the Fed, etc.
In the late 1970s, long-term bonds, those of us over 40 may remember, were
I may be a bit rusty on this, but I thought loanable funds theory referred
to the supply and demand for loan capital, not savings and investment. To
cover my butt in my original posting I deliberately said LF or liquidity
so as not to take a side on that hoary controversy. I also used the term
The following may be of interest -- Jim Devine
Original message
I am interested in some of the brief comments that have been made
recently on participatory economic planning "from the bottom up"
in the context of a reconstituted socialism.
Hi all,
This is a post to remind people about the resource for progressives we
have here at UC-Berkeley for progressives called the Economic Democracy
Information Network (EDIN) gopher.
We are looking for new sources of files and other gopher sites,
especially labor and economic-oriented
Jim Devine wrote:
Behind this were the limits
set by class society: interest rates couldn't rise so far as to
swallow more than the total mass of surplus-value (except perhaps
in a transitory liquidity crisis) and couldn't fall below zero
(except maybe in the very short run).
I don't know
Loanable Funds and rentiers don't strike me as useful concepts
for understanding interest rate determination. Loanable funds
theory assumes that interest rates equilibrate investments and
savings. As such, it has nothing to do with Marx and is logically
inconsistent because of re-switching and
On Thu, 24 Feb 1994 10:15:41 -0800 JGulick said:
I don't know what Marx said, but I do know _real_ short-term interest
rates in the 1970's were frequently _negative_ in real terms. That is,
the annual inflation rate was higher than the rate of profit for
finance capital. I think so anyway.
This is in response to Mr. Henwood's message posted on Feb. 14.
If the personal details are irrelevant, then why did you bring them up?
I think it shows your bad taste to bring up Mr. Negroponte's father, as if
he had something to do with what his father did. You are also using a logical
In a post dated yesterday, the assertion was made that the political limits of
interest rates (within the "supply-and-demand-for-loanable-capital" rubric)
were that interest could not rise high enough to consume the mass of surplus
value and could not fall below zero.
This is true, of course, of
Real rates, after making the appropriate Keynesian observation that they
are not an observable phenomenon, were indeed negative in the 1970s, which
is why the rentier class insisted on Volcker's takeover of the Fed, etc.
In the late 1970s, long-term bonds, those of us over 40 may remember, were
The following may be of interest -- Jim Devine
Original message
I am interested in some of the brief comments that have been made
recently on participatory economic planning "from the bottom up"
in the context of a reconstituted socialism.
18 matches
Mail list logo
