Where in Marx's corpus does he talk about money being a commodity in it of itself?i.e deflation if new money is not createdTy
no idea, sorry
>>23322115>Where in Marx's corpus does he talk about money being a commodity in it of itself?A lot of places. Anyways here's one:https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/ch02_1.htm>i.e deflation if new money is not createdEven in the crudest version of a quantity theory of money and criminalizing gold mining deflation isn't a necessary correlate of that since velocity can change?Marx knew "fictitious capital" could elevate the price level but had to introduce obvious cope to stop from abstracting away from commodities with social labour regulating that in the long run.
>>23322115You're supposed to only read secondary sources for difficult writers
>>23322115In Kapital he floats the idea that an excessive issuance of fiat currency would inevitably lead to general price increases. At the time he was writing he used the British currencies for his example iirc, and offered an example in the way of saying that if some item cost £4 and the British government decided to arbitrarily double the amount of fiat currency in circulation then in theory the same item would now cost £8 since the relative weight of the item to gold (backing at the time) would not have changed due to other factors (i.e. increased production cost due to scarcity or wage, and no increased demand) but rather based on the idea that now you need twice as much fiat to represent the same amount of gold. He also states that a currency with no backing would certainly fall into disrepute at some point. This is not a total capture of his views, which your first question is seemingly asking for, and you need to read Marx to answer that for yourself, I am unaware of any other authors who have represented them in the entirety post-Marx, which is not to say they do not exist but rather I am unaware of them. Your i.e. is not something Marx stipulated in these terms, you are likely trying to apply a modern understanding retroactively. Marx was proven correct in his assertions about 'inflation' in the long run, but to say he had verbiage that more modern thinkers did when western economies shifted to Keynes is patently absurd. In the early 1900s a definition for inflation was actually posited which is stipulated as something along the lines of: "high prices caused by an over-issue of inconvertible paper money" and this definition is honestly the only real universally accepted definition of it that I have encountered, even to the people who like to claim it does not exist. Keynes posited inflation over deflation and introduced a western friendly version of socialism which has been patently and universally accepted by all economies of the west, most of his assertions on your i.e. have been independently verified and confirmed by other Marxist economists and there are for the most part few irreconcilable differences left. You likely should just read Keynes, and maybe Cannan if you want to understand more.
>>23323028I didn't ask about inflation i asked about deflation. in modern economies if the banks do not lend new money into existence then the money supply will shrink.
>>23322115IIRC, a lot of that is covered pretty early on in Das Kapital. I think it might be in the first few chapters no lie. Also peep Karl flashing the Hidden Hand. I see u papa
>>23323101>i.e deflation if new money is not createdYou asked what you asked and received the answer that is valid. Keynes and Cannan.
>>23322115Money is a social fiction based on agreement
>>23322115Marx is 100% transcore
>>23322142>you are supposed to read paraphrased biased shit by le political analysts No, thank you.
>>23323101Usually when the interest rate is relatively high, commercial banks stop borrowing newly issued units of currency from the central bank, but encourage people to deposit their money in saving accounts for a relatively high yield (which is actually minuscule).
>>23323101Inflation/deflation being mainly a function of the quantity of money circulating in the economy is a myth.
>>23323028>In Kapital he floats the idea that an excessive issuance of fiat currency would inevitably lead to general price increasesWhat the hell are you talking about? Marx explicitly assumes money is a commodity (gold) in volume 1 of capital. There's no talk of anything like "fiat currency", all circulating paper in the end is a IOU for a quantity of said commodity, until volume 3 where he introduces "fictitious capital" but tries to emphasis why "fiat currency" could never take over>>23323101> in modern economies if the banks do not lend new money into existence then the money supply will shrink.I have no idea what you mean by "modern economies" but mainstream econ assumes money is exogenous and controlled by institutions like central banks. The idea private commercial banks, or other institutions, can create money or control the money supply by fiat outside government control is heterodox.>>23323370It's not exactly a "myth" but we exist in a world of lots of free floating currencies, not one universal money. Marx obviously understood the price level in terms of a crude version of the quantity theory.
>>23323504>If the paper money is in excess, if there is more of it than represents the amount of gold coins of like denomination which could actually be current, it will (apart from the danger of falling into general disrepute) represent only that quantity of gold, which, in accordance with the laws of circulation of commodities, is really required and is alone capable of being represented by paper. If the quantity of paper money issued is, for instance, double what it ought to be, then in actual fact one pound has become the money name of about one-eighth of an ounce of gold instead of about one-quarter of an ounce. The effect is the same as if an alteration had taken place in the function of gold as a standard of prices. The values previously expressed by the price £1 will now be expressed by the price £2.-kapital vol 1
>>23323834What point are you trying to make? That quote's saying "paper money" only has something to do with a universal money commodity (i.e. gold) and is regulated by that relationship. The labour theory of value in the end kind of had to reduce things down to stuff like gold mining to explain relative prices in the long run obviously.That quote seems to be from some hard money crank butthurt over Keynes in the 1930s not even Marx. The point is very long run prices don't actually matter today, the price of corn measured in gold in the year 2200 isn't a serious issue opposed to general solvency and keeping an economy running today
>>23322115Would Marx have been as impactful if he didn't have his beard?
>>23324043Did you read the OP?
>>23323370How is it a myth? Any kind of commodity money can be hoarded. This is what used to happen with gold.>>23323504>The idea private commercial banks, or other institutions, can create money or control the money supply by fiat outside government control is heterodox.But that's exactly the case in real life.
>>23325033Money is made up. Money is just a conduit of soft power. It was even that back when it was gold. That's where Marx and all other economists get it wrong. >gold has a stable valueWho sets it?>the market Who determines the value judgement of the market?
>>23325050This has nothing to do at all with anything I was talking about. If we assume all commodities are social relations then money itself being a commodity is no exception. If money itself is a soft power than it is only natural that the amount of money in circulation affects the social power of individuals. This does not even get into the fact that if no new money is created, then there would never be enough money to pay back all debt as all money is created as a loan due to be paid back in a particular time.Imagine if you were in a crowd with of people and the only money in existence is a 20 dollar bill. Some people will not have accrss to certain goods because the money is supplgnis extremely limited. Now just scale this up and this is exactly the situation of today.So again, what does anything you say have to do with anything I said?
>>23325149My point was the people overcomplicate what is basically just a power game and your point buttresses the same idea. But you used more words
>>23325158And your point is wrong. The OP states that commodity money results in inflation and deflation and I am asking where I can read more about that from a political economist. All commodities are subjecy to both inflation and deflation in value.
>>23324560Ya but I still don't understand what your point is?>>23325033>But that's exactly the case in real life.Obviously money is more endogenous in reality but the point is mainstream academic models and popular understanding is more exogenous.>>23325149>does not even get into the fact that if no new money is created, then there would never be enough money to pay back all debt as all money is created as a loan due to be paid back in a particular time.Most historic debt was defaulted on in one way or another, prices have always been pretty stable in the long run traditionally. A system of global free floating currencies never existed before the 1970s, many still refuse to believe the US government can just roll over dollar debt in perpetuity and meet any interest payments on it's monopoly money>>23325176Look into the history of mining metals lol
>>23325176Yes but why? How does inflation and deflation occur?Magic?
>>23325269He's oblivious as fuck lmao>You're still wrong I'm asking about deflation and inflationDeflation and inflation occur through human action aka market manipulation What a fucking n00b
>>23325269This still has nothing to do with anything I was talking about. >>23325285No one said otherwise.No wonder I don't post on /lit/ anymore.>>23325282Inflation and deflation is the relation to the money commodity and total goods and services available, i.e production.
>>23325269>many still refuse to believe the US government can just roll over dollar debt in perpetuity and meet any interest payments on it's monopoly moneyImagine believing this unironically.>teh crisis will never happen!!!!xd
>>23325308Ok so good then we agree: the relation of money to commodities is manipulated through human action aka market manipulation aka power gamingRemember when I said that earlier and you freaked out about how I wasn't understanding your super profound point
>>23325316>Ok so good then we agree: the relation of money to commodities is manipulated through human action aka market manipulation aka power gamingYou are legit braindread. That is quotr obviously what was said in the OP.>i.e deflation if new money is not createdYou still didn't answer my question about where in Marx I can read about this.
>>23325321I answered that question a long ass time ago. It's in Das kapital pretty early on, supergenius
>>23325332It doesn't talk about debt
>>23325308The most obvious issue is there's no universal "money commodity" (in the sense Marx abstracted) today obviously. There exists a large mass of pure financial liabilities that free float. Try explaining the exchange rate between gold/bitcoin//USD/Yen/Pounds/etc>>23325346Volume 3 does
>>23325346Chapter 25: Credit & Fictitious Capital
>>23325364>>23325367>Chapter 25: Credit & Fictitious CapitalNow this is exactly what i was looking for and the only thing i was ever interested in
>>23325376They told you that early as fuck in the thread dude
>>23325376SighTo add more to the point: the reason I was being a dick to you, besides your little hissy fit and besides the valid point that I'm also innately a dick, is because in my view, its not an economic problem. Reading the theories can be interesting if you are inclined. But it will all amount to a simple concept, it's about power and perceptions of power. The axioms that inform economic theory are always based on power, who deserves it, who doesn't, how to aportion it. Therefore economics is really more like propaganda or after the fact analysis of an axiom playing itself out writ large. Most people's axiom is they have no burden to care about one another beyond dependents, and the rest is optional, so we live that out. That's why I think Marx falls short in some respects. Or at least. Marxists do. It's not something that can be solved by talking about political and economic theory like a fucking freak all day (not you, I'm envisioning most "smart" people) it comes from healing the disease within one's self, which is selfishness, man's original sin The elites are just most people, if most people had their means
>>23325395I didn't get a chapter>>23325411>But it will all amount to a simple concept, it's about power and perceptions of powerMoney *is* social power. Your point is moot.
>>23325427My point was missed. Yet again. This world is so blindingly stupid.
>>23325485You have no point and money creation is an important part of understanding the way the economy works.>le POWERAnd? So what?
>>23325556So nothing in the world is fair or will ever improve or get any better if the axiom most people rely upon is that no one has the burden to care, therefore, all economics are backed by blood and oppression by a power bloc, who gains it through corruption; the suppression of another's will through violence, for violent intent. If you want to study the mechanics of that and pretend it's something else, go the fuck ahead, but don't bullshit yourself.
>>23325269Inflation is generally defined as in increase in the prices of goods and services, and a depreciation in the purchasing power of money. If you want to oscillate between fixed currencies which frankly do not exist anymore and making extrema oriented long run arguments about how inflation does not matter because we all die that is perfectly fine. You are likely already Keynesian. The OP asked about the link between Marx and Keynes's famous conclusion, so if you feel long run arguments are valid then you agree Marx was right, and you were not really making an argument of any substance, when Marx wrote a number of currencies were backed by gold so his language was limited to what was available at the time. You are welcome to try and make some sort of token argument that inflation does not exist if you like, but you are also cognizant that a country like the US can just print more monopoly money, which means you have already agree that inflation does exist. The answer in my first post answered the OP, and unless you have a better answer to provide I suppose it is now my turn to ask what point you are trying to make?
>>23325556>You have no point and money creation is an important part of understanding the way the economy works.The ASSUMPTION in Capital was that money in the final analysis was a commodity, gold. Gold is "created" by the mining industry and has "socially necessary labour time" from that process. Thing is something like pure fiat currency obviously doesn't and can expand at any rate, stuff like bitcoin has operational costs but it's free floating against infinite other crypto playing the same grift game. If cost of production matters in the way the labour theory of value thinks than (digital) dollars costing noting to make means they should quickly become worthless, but they keep circulating at a much higher exchange rate obviously.>>23326335The point is Marx ASSUMES the price level can't just keep going up ad infinitum. Marx is very similar to hard money Mises cranks, the system of floating exchange rates that exist must be a mere temporary aberration which will collapse any day now just you wait and see and a universal medium of exchange will be once again agreed upon
The problem that Marxists make is that money as a commodity makes sense, but only in certain contexts. They always just assume money is always a commodity. That’s just objectively not the case.
>>23326891It can be done ad infinitum in theory, if there is some sort of backing to the currency then you are just subdividing it further and further. In actuality this is closer to ad nauseam, no person regardless of ideological affiliation will tolerate such a practice forever, or in amounts that become too excessive to make the currency worthwhile. I am not in disagreement with your second point.
>>23327309>It can be done ad infinitum in theoryIt is in practice, prices constantly have been increasing for decades... last time America experienced prolonged deflation was in the 1930s.> if there is some sort of backing to the currencyExcept there isn't. Every currency peg in history failed. Anything that was ever "backed" by something turned out not to actually be in the end.>no person regardless of ideological affiliation will tolerate such a practice foreverThe only thing you could mean by that is long run price stability will be established again because everyone wants it... except you don't explain how. People with different ideologies will come up with different answers to that question except all are equally unrealistic.
>>23326909Okay anon.You are saying ABC=DYet there is no D in your post in the following argument.>money is always a commoditySee? No elaboration, and then the post goes to die in a ditch
>>23327398That is not ad infinitum, and one of the reasons there are continual issuances. That creative destruction was just too much, and Americans embraced socialism instead.Yes, I did include an 'if' there, and if I am not mistaken you previously took issue with my use of the term fiat currency, now you seem to understand why I used the term, to me all paper currency is fiat, and you have elucidated why, at the end the rules are always dictated by the issuer, and no one gets to show up at the treasury and collect their gold or silver en masse. IF there is a backing, then the further issuance of paper is just subdividing the backing further, and prices still go up. If there is no backing, then the prices still go up, but the difference now is that most everyone is forced to participate instead of trying to hoard cash waiting for prices to reach a theoretical floor, since there is no hard limit to issuance beyond what people are willing to tolerate.You are more than welcome to read about past currency failures if you desire. In the long run you will die, and you will not outlast the printing press. I can tell you right now that if the USD were to fail today, the government would issue a new currency and begin the process again. Americans are already using a currency that has no real backing, other than some infinitesimal stake in an expanding governance, and I mean this literally. You are already in acceptance of this at a social contract level, all Americans are, and all the nations of the west that made the switch for that matter are as well, so I am not singling out Americans per se. I suspect the west will accept a new currency with no backing, I am also sure there will be plenty of complaints. That seems entirely realistic.
>>23322115>in it of itselfEmbarrassing
>>23327714>That is not ad infinitumIt is if you keep projecting onwards. I don't know if it's worth discussing any "cost of living" calculation for a Jew in Babylon circa 550 B.C. vs. a Jew in New York today >Americans embraced socialism insteadNot in any meaningful sense, all social programs are designed around humiliation rituals and conditional>to me all paper currency is fiatIt's more of a spectrum. Plenty of people claim that paper wasn't fiat when the government insisted it was worth a fixed weight of gold and only became fiat when the government stopped saying it was worth anything in particular.You can see with stuff like crytpo any individual can even use maths to create new money out of the void based on rules and push the costs of operating the scheme onto others. Satoshi Nakamoto was of course anti-"fiat" but got first dibs on bitcoins and made others pay to operate his network
>>23327787You seem to be equivocating more and are relying on more absurd notions to try and make whatever it is you think your point is. I believe it safe to infer that you do not have an alternative answer to the OP, and the one I provided was sufficient.
>>23327980MMT all but admits that modern money is a fugazi
>>23328202Hehehe that is a rather mild criticism of MMT amongst the range of them I have heard. In fairness to the MMT crowd, they are not quite so different from traditional Keynesians in that aspect, a sort of 'public mandate' through the government. I could say that was birthed from Karl Marx's own lips, but I will say that traditional Keynesians do have different priorities at different times. I usually make a joke about how some Keynesians decided to make extrema based conclusions using the same starting material, a sort of maxxed out Keynesian architecture that was likely born from the indolence/indulgence of their predecessors. My favorite is the traditional Keynesian claiming taxes need to pay down debts and MMT advocates claiming they are only useful for curbing inflation. At this point in American history though, I suspect the MMT crowd is winning, the notion of directly crediting consumer bank accounts and the normalization of extraneous stabilization is now more de jure than it is experimental. Most traditional Keynesians have accepted that the national debt is an impossible hurdle to surmount in terms of paying off, even with the hottest economy in world history and high taxes being implemented across the board, such a hypothetical scenario at this point would still pose a validation to the MMT crowd in terms of needing to limit inflation. The dual mandate is really the only thing the traditionalists have left at this point with major clout, and I would venture to say they only reason they still are in possession of it is likely because it is not something politicians directly manage in all candor.
>>23328202Crypto admits you can get in on ground floor>>23328265>My favorite is the traditional Keynesian claiming taxes need to pay down debts and MMT advocates claiming they are only useful for curbing inflationIf you actually mean Keynes instead of mid-century academic economics he can be excused for not thinking much about how sovereign debt would work in the modern world. Keynes at Bretton Woods actually advocated for a global monetary unit of account outside control of nation states along with institutions to FORCE balancing international trade by regulating deficits/surpluses before losing out to American interests who wanted the dollar used in international trade and to be allowed to run large post-WWII trade surpluses (which turned into large permanent deficits)
>>23328597>The restoration of the gold standard (whether at the pre-war parity or at some other rate) certainly will not give us complete stability of internal prices and can only give us complete stability of the external exchanges if all other countries also restore the gold standard. The advisability of restoring it depends, therefore, on whether, on the whole, it will give us the best working compromise obtainable between the two ideals. The advocates of gold, as against a more scientific standard, base their cause on the double contention, that in practice gold has provided and will provide a reasonably stable standard of value, and that in practice, since governing authorities lack wisdom as often as not, a managed currency will, sooner or later, come to grief. Conservatism and scepticism join arms—as they often do. Perhaps superstition comes in too; for gold still enjoys the prestige of its smell and colour.>Nevertheless, there does seem to be in almost every case a presumption in favour of the stability of prices, if only it can be achieved. Stability of exchange is in the nature of a convenience which adds to the efficiency and prosperity of those who are engaged in foreign trade.>This is a function which the State banks of such countries could usefully perform. For this they must either themselves command a certain amount of foreign currency or they must provide facilities for accepting short-period deposits in their own currency from foreign bankers, on conditions which inspire these bankers with complete confidence in the freedom and liquidity of such deposits. Keynes did advocate for a number of internationally binding and solvent measures, not unlike the socialist internationals. He also advocated for excessive spending and deficits in times of hardship, but not to the extent that MMT advocates argue. It is also worth pointing out that MMT advocates are also generally in favor of ensuring the dominance of the domestic currency and avoiding debts in foreign currencies and securing debtors and creditors in the domestic currency. This allows for total authority of the domestic fiat currency, since the domestic government cannot print foreign currency out of thin air it will always be at a disadvantage in repayment. If it can secure a creditor in the domestic currency then it can print its way to repayment which is effectively detrimental to the creditor, and it is always in need of new debtors to keep the dominance of the domestic currency relevant. So perhaps Keynes was the blind optimist and the MMT crowd are just rebranded realists?
