Let’s get a little technical now. The recent upheaval and
gyrations of capitalist industry and finance are now unequivocally attributed
to the “secular stagnation” of “the economy” - not, as you can see, of the capitalist economy, but of “the economy”
tout court, as if the only economy possible had to be a “capitalist” economy.
Thus, bourgeois economic pundits of every hue, from Lawrence Summers to Paul
Krugman, admit that there is a stagnation of “the economy” and that this
stagnation is likely to endure and may well be terminal, which is what “secular” signifies – something that lasts per saecula, for centuries. But they
fail to make the all-important connection between secular stagnation and capitalism
– as if the only kind of “economy”, the only kind of human social production
possible was and had to be capitalist
in essence.
At the heart of this secular stagnation, its manifestation
is the inexorable decline of “the natural rate of interest” in “economies”
across the world. Now this is the kernel of the question: what exactly is “the
natural rate of interest”, is it really “natural”, and why is it in
irretrievable decline? Keynes said famously in the General Theory that -
Practical
men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence,
are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear
voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of
a few years back.
Behind every entrenched economic policy there lies a totally
unknown and obscure economic “scribbler”. But the interaction runs both ways:
in other words, it is always essential for us “scribblers” to understand and
try to make sense of the “madness” of frenzied politicians. So it is essential
that we understand what kind of socio-political presuppositions and realities
lie behind these seemingly harmless “scientific” expressions adopted
uncritically by both economists and politicians.
In seeking to define “the natural rate of interest” as the
centerpiece of his theory of value and capital, and therefore of his monetary
theory, Knut Wicksell adopts wholesale the most insidious principles of the negatives Denken that, after
Schopenhauer, had allowed Eugene Bohm-Bawerk (known in his time as “the
bourgeois Marx”) to develop his theory of interest (in Capital and Interest). Life is essentially “suffering” (Leid), it is “strife” (Streit) or “work” (Arbeit) seen as toil. Human beings are fundamentally and thoroughly
selfish. Human being is not a common condition, an ineluctable community (Gemeinschaft). On the contrary, only the
intellectual abstraction from the daily struggle for survival can induce
feelings of “com-passion” or “shared sorrow” (Mit-Leid) between human
individuals. It follows that only those individuals who can “abstain” from
pleasure, who can “renounce” the illusive search for happiness – only those
superior souls can gain an advantage over other hedonistic spirits. The Askesis is an ascending of the mound of
sorrow, it is akin to climbing a mountain (Nietzsche’s Zarathustra ascends to
the mountains at the inception of his magnum opus). Every ascetic renunciation (Entsagung) therefore, must lead to a reward in the struggle for
survival, in the universal Eris that is social life. There is no community of
inter-ests (literally, inter homines esse,
to be among human beings, to commune with them): there is only self-interest.
The State therefore – the “public thing” or res publica - is not the highest expression
of community (contra Hegel) – far
from it! The State is the necessary instrument required to avoid the war of all
against all (Hobbes), to control self-interest so that it does not lead to
internecine conflict, to the destruction of human society (Gesellschaft). Self-interest and property are prior to the
establishment of the State, and therefore the task of the State is to protect
the “natural rights” of individuals in society. These natural rights relate,
first, to the preservation of private property through free market exchange;
and, second, they relate to freedom of expression. Political economy is the
science of ensuring that the State acts in accordance with the laws of the
market because only the guarantee of the free exchange in the market will
ensure the preservation of freedom of expression. This is the essence of
liberalism as the paramount political ideology of capitalism. Liberalism and
Neoclassical economic theory go hand in hand.
The natural rate of interest is that profit on the part of
the capitalist that is consistent with the pre-political state of nature and
possession without the interference of the monetary rate of interest set and
regulated by the banks. Profit is the just reward in the form of future “consumable output” to the
capitalist for postponing the immediate
gratification of endless wants: the natural rate of interest is the average
profit of all capitalists combined expressed as a rate. Here is how Shackle
neatly and accurately summarises Wicksell’s neoclassical theory of the natural
rate of interest:
The more highly articulated, specialized and elaborate the
system of equipment becomes through which men apply their effort to their
natural environment, the larger the ultimate reward to a given effort, but to carry the elaboration from a given
degree to a [10] still higher one
implies the foregoing of, say, N units of consumable output which would have
been available in year T in exchange for the prospect of an extra m units
per year in perpetuity, beginning in year T + 1. The ratio m over N then
represents, nearly enough, what
Wicksell called the natural rate of interest. It is a measure of the
'worthwhileness,' at any stage of the development of the economy's total
assemblage of productive equipment, of adding one more 'unit* to that
equipment. How are such units to be defined? In making such an addition
to their total equipment the people composing the economy are, in effect, postponing the consumption of some of
the output which their current input of productive services entitles them to consume. The average
time elapsing between the moment when a dose of work or of the services of
nature is put into the productive process, and the moment when the dose of
consumable product attributable to that dose of work comes out, is thus
lengthened, and this average time, Bohm-Bawerk's 'average period of
production,' can serve as a measure of the size of the total capital equipment.
It is quite
obvious what the non-sequiturs in Wicksell’s reasoning are. He was a
mathematician easily deceived by Bohm-Bawerk’s intricate metaphysics. The first
non-sequitur is that products for immediate consumption may take a longer
production period than products for future consumption – they may involve more
“sacrifice” than future products. This is the opposite of the thesis sustained
by Bohm-Bawerk and uncritically adopted by Wicksell. Both fail to see that
production is also a form of consumption: no production is possible without the
consumption of existing resources. The problem then is not one of “sacrifice”,
but rather one of “substitution” or choice over which social resources to utilize
for which production. If I choose to build a house rather than to plant a tree,
I am not in any way “sacrificing” immediate consumption (the tree will yield
fruit for immediate consumption) for future production (the house satisfies a
less immediate need than the fruit). There is simply no real meaningful
connection between the vast variety of human needs and the time it takes to
secure their satisfaction! Lionel Robbins’s later redefinition of economic
science as the science of the use of scarce means for alternative uses in his
famous Essay involves an implicit
critique and refutation of Bohm-Bawerk’s theory of interest because, for
Robbins, it is not “the average period of production” that matters to economics
but rather the “choice” over the use of resources. Robbins sees the absurdity
of Bohm-Bawerk’s “metaphysics”, yet his “pure logic of choice” turns economics
into a pure disembodied formal “logic” wholly removed precisely from those “choices”
that involve material human needs!
The other
non-sequitur, underlined unwittingly by Shackle when he enucleates Wicksell’s
theory, is the wholly groundless assumption that production is an individual
pursuit where the proprietary right to a product is determinable. Shackle says
that producers “postpone” immediate consumption to which they are “entitled”.
Yet no such entitlement exists in reality because human production is entirely co-operative
and it is absolutely impossible to draw any link between the diversion of
social resources to alternative uses and any “entitlement” to the consequent
product.
Let us now get
back to the natural rate of interest. M then stands for that part of “consumable
output” that is diverted to production for future needs: m is “profit” which
divided by N over time, a given year, gives the rate of profit or “natural rate of interest” which in turn, as is
apparent from Wicksell’s elaboration, is really the average rate of profit for
aggregate capital investment. But Wicksell does not consider that under
capitalism it is not m that is important. Rather it is m/N, that is, the rate
of profit itself! Capitalists are not
interested in “ultimate consumption” or “consumable output” as Wicksell puts it
above. They are not interested in the physical
pro-duct for its use value and least of all for its personal consumption. Or
rather, the capitalist is interested in “consumable output” not for personal
consumption as a concrete object, as a
use value, but rather as a pure
exchange value for the political power it may give her or him over the
productive capacity of a society, or its “consumable output…in perpetuity”. That
is to say, the capitalist is “interested” only in the product as abstract wealth that can be used to
perpetuate profit and to accumulate capital. The accumulation of capital on the part of capitalists – their aim to
increase the rate of interest or the average rate of profit – has nothing to do
with the eventual consumption of “consumable output”. Instead, it is the
pursuit of greater production of consumable output with the aim of obtaining
growing political control over the social resources involved in production
through its exchange.
But this power
over production is not and cannot be expressed over “things” because “things”
do not bestow political power: things
are mere inert objects. It is proprietary or legal power over things as abstract
wealth, as a means to political control over people involved in production that
grants power to the capitalists. Mere ownership of things and consumable output
and means of production does not constitute capitalism. Capitalism is the use
of privately owned social resources for the sake of accumulating “value”
through profit expressed as a rate over time. The average rate of profit is
“the natural rate of interest”. But the capitalist’s aim in accumulating
capital is to ensure greater political control through production – in other
words, greater political control over means of production and their output. The essential element of producing for profit
is therefore control over living labour through the exchange of “consumable output” and the means of production used to
produce that output with that human living labour used in the process of
production of that consumable output. The “exchange” of consumable output or
dead labour with living labour – through money wages – means that workers are
legally separated from the means of production and from production itself, both
in terms of ownership and in terms of deciding what is produced and how.
Because Wicksell
does not see the difference between “consumable output”, that is, produced
“things” in capitalist industry, and profit as an end in itself, that is, money
as a measure of profit, he cannot see the difference between the “natural” rate
of interest and the “monetary” rate of interest – because he believes that
ultimately money can only stand for “consumable output” - because that for him
is the true aim not just of the capitalist economy but of every possible
economy! Wicksell cannot see that money does not just distort some “real,
natural” economy: instead, money is the expression of the fact that a
capitalist economy is a political reality that can be affected by the
manipulation of money as the most powerful immediate tool of capitalist relations
of production.
THERE is a certain rate of interest on
loans which is neutral in respect to commodity prices, and tends neither to
raise nor to lower them. This is necessarily the same as the rate of interest
which would be determined by supply and demand if no use were made of money and
all lending were effected in the form of real capital goods. It comes to much
the same thing to describe it as the current value of the natural rate of
interest on capital. (Interest and Prices, at p.102)
But then, why is money
different? Why does it make a difference? Indeed, if money is only a “veil”,
only a means of exchange and nothing more, pnly a “token”, why is it not
possible to eliminate it altogether and simply have an economy that transacts
“in kind”? Wicksell does not address this essential matter – despite the fact
that he realizes just how “essential” the question of money is!
It is
possible for a considerable difference between the uncontrolled rate and the
contractual
rate to persist, and consequently for entrepreneur profits to remain positive
or negative, as the case may be, for a considerable period of time. It has
already been mentioned that this
possibility arises out of the fact that the transfer of capital and the
remuneration of factors of production do not take place in kind, but are
effected in an entirely indirect manner as a result of the intervention of money.
It is not, as is so often supposed, merely the form of the matter that is thus altered, but its very essence. (Interest and Money, p.135)
Wicksell is saying
that the natural physical rate is
more “binding”, more “physiological” in terms of social resources and
individual choices than the artificial
monetary rate which can be altered through fiat money by central banks – and is
therefore more political or arbitrary or manipulable. The natural rate is
“uncontrolled”, whereas the money rate is “contractual” and therefore controlled.
Yet Wicksell still
does not even pose himself, let alone answer, the “essential” question: why is
monetary rate different from the natural or physiological rate? He can only
opine that
[t]he two rates of interest still reach ultimate
equality, but only after, and as a result of, a previous movement of prices.
Prices constitute, so to speak, a spiral spring [136] which serves to transmit
the power between the natural and the money rates of interest; but the spring
must first be sufficiently stretched or compressed. In a pure cash economy, the
spring is short and rigid; it becomes longer and more elastic in accordance with
the stage of development of the system of credit and banking. (Interest and
Money, pp.135-6)
This is rank and
arrant nonsense, of course, quite typical and indeed distinctive of all bourgeois economics. Because money is not this
or that piece of physical machinery or merchandise which economists loosely
call “capital” and “goods”, or of consumable output. Money is value itself, it
is the social cipher fungible for the control of social resources that can be
used as means of production and consumption by living labour – and therefore
for the political command over living labour on the part of the profit-seekers,
the capitalists.
No comments:
Post a Comment