Tuesday, February 19, 2019

Peter May — A communist manifesto for money?

I am reposting the article below by Wally Mooney (with permission) which was an indirect reply to Paul Mason’s recent article.
I thought it was a very lucid and well-argued piece on why Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)’s conclusions as to how money is created is factually correct and that is the case whether you are a Marxist or a Capitalist or somewhere in between. For me it also illuminated Marxist ideas (with which I have to imagine, Paul Mason presumably agrees).
Must-read, IMHO.

Wally Mooney has this essentially right.

Opponents rightly fear the job guarantee as a step in this direction through increasing labor bargaining power by termination the buffer stock of unemployed that the ownership and managerial class uses to "discipline" workers and the central banks employs to control inflation using NAIRU (non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment).

Aside: Peter may writes: "I was rather surprised that there was so much to agree with here – yes there are a few controversial and, for me, dubious ideas such as 'there can be no capitalist system without money' which I’d suggest should be: no proper economy without money…."

While there may not be a proper economy without money, isn't arguing that. Marx is saying that money — a monetary production economy — is the basis for capitalism since capitalists use money to produce goods for sale for more money — investment is for return, that is, profit. The profit comes from the wage being less than the market price of commodities produced by wage labor. The end-in-view is not to provide a rationale for abolishing money but rather for terminating the extraction of economic rent in the form of "surplus value," profit accruing from unpaid labor time. 
Unpaid work is a form of slavery. The argument that workers agree to it is bogus, since in a monetary economy in which goods are rationed by ability to pay for them, income from a job is necessary for those without other income or assets, which is most workers. So there is no choice but to accept a job offer in which the work is at a disadvantage.


This is similar feudal land lords extracting economic rent from agricultural. Capitalism is a continuation of feudalism in another guise, with the factory being substituted for the manor and the capitalist standing in for the land lord.

Progressive Pulse
A communist manifesto for money?
Peter May

2 comments:

Magpie said...

@Hickey

I'm surprised by how well-read you are on Marx's Capital. Either that or Michael Roberts' post and the replies it originated were useful.

https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2019/02/03/mmt-2-the-tricks-of-circulation/?unapproved=147661&moderation-hash=5f5d3727986923d87eeb0d9634c45476#comment-147635

You are welcome.

AXEC / E.K-H said...

Dear idiots, Marx got profit and exploitation wrong
Comment on Peter May on ‘A communist manifesto for money?’

Peter May recaps: “Marx is saying that money ― a monetary production economy ― is the basis for capitalism since capitalists use money to produce goods for sale for more money ― investment is for return, that is, profit. The profit comes from the wage being less than the market price of commodities produced by wage labor. The end-in-view is not to provide a rationale for abolishing money but rather for terminating the extraction of economic rent in the form of ‘surplus value,’ profit accruing from unpaid labor time.”

Marx’s definition of profit is ultimately based on the Labour Theory of Value which does not relate to the economy as a whole.#1 But Marx applied also macroeconomic reasoning: “How can they continually draw 600 p. st. out of circulation, when they continually throw only 500 p. st. into it? From nothing comes nothing. The capitalist class as a whole cannot draw out of circulation what was not previously in it.”

This, indeed, is the crux of Profit Theory. To come to the point, Marx got the answer wrong.#2 Here is the short proof.#3

(i) The objectively given and most elementary systemic configuration of the economy consists of the household and the business sector which in turn consists initially of one giant fully integrated firm.

(ii) The elementary production-consumption economy is defined by three macroeconomic axioms: (A1) Yw=WL wage income Yw is equal to wage rate W times working hours. L, (A2) O=RL output O is equal to productivity R times working hours L, (A3) C=PX consumption expenditure C is equal to price P times quantity bought/sold X.

(iii) The focus is here on the nominal/monetary balances. For the time being, real balances are excluded, i.e. X=O.

(iv) The monetary profit of the business sector is defined as Q≡C−Yw,

(v) The monetary saving of the household sector is defined as S≡Yw−C.

(vi) Ergo Q+S=0 or Q=−S.

The balances add up to zero. The counterpart of household sector saving S is business sector loss −Q. The counterpart of household sector dissaving -S is business sector profit Q.

For a start, the household sector’s budget is balanced, i.e. C=Yw. From this follows that macroeconomic profit is zero. The market clearing price is given by P=W/R and from this follows W/P=R, i.e. the real wage is equal to the productivity. The workers get the whole product.

Now, the owner of the single macroeconomics firm can do what he wants, i.e. lengthen the labor time or cut wages, nothing happens to profit and the real wage.#4 In Marx’s impeccable logic: “From nothing comes nothing. The capitalist class cannot draw more out of circulation than they throw into it.” They throw Yw in and get C out and because of C=Yw macroeconomic profit is zero.

The business sector can only get more out of the circulation if the household sector throws more in, that is, if the household sector deficit-spends/dissaves. This is what the most elementary version of the Profit Law says, i.e. Q=−S. The logical minimum condition of deficit spending is a banking system that lends money to the households.

So, profit does NOT come from exploitation but, in the most elementary case, from the growth of the household sector’s debt. And this, in turn, means that Capitalism does not end with a revolution of the exploited workers but as soon as the growth of private and public debt ends.#5

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

#1 Basics of Value Theory
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2019/02/basics-of-value-theory.html

#2 Profit for Marxists
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2414301

#3 Profit Theory in less than 5 minutes
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2017/07/profit-theory-in-less-than-5-minutes.html

#4 Capitalism, poverty, exploitation, and cross-over exploitation
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2018/04/capitalism-poverty-exploitation-and.html

#5 MMTers make capitalism work
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2018/07/mmters-make-capitalism-work.html