Archive

Posts Tagged ‘transformation problem’

Gold and Exchange Rates (Random thoughts)

February 5, 2012 Leave a comment

This is very geeky, sorry. I posting it because I intend to revisit it sometime in the near future in the context of a review of the Euro-zone crisis.

My post on Moseley’s MELT paper (pdf) argues the so-called “price of gold” is actually the standard of price for a currency. I argued in the paper that dollars do not buy gold, gold buys dollars. Dollars are “sort of” a commodity necessary to convert gold into capital. I said “sort of”, because I really cannot describe it, except along the line of Marx’s argument on loaned capital:

M ==> M ==> C.

Where the first M is the bank’s money to be loaned, and the second M is the actual conversion of this loaned money into industrial capital. We could think of the movement of gold similarly as:

Mg ===> Mc ===> C.

Where Mg is a quantity of gold, Mc is a quantity of a particular currency, and C is the commodity.

The owners of gold, however, have a choice of currencies whose bodily form their gold can assume: euros, dollars, yen, yuan, reals, pesos, etc. And, each of these currencies have their own standard of price, i.e., their own specific exchange rate with gold. Each of these standards of price is an expression of the quantity of a given currency in domestic circulation to the quantity of domestic socially necessary labor time. Since, in each country, the relation between the total currency in circulation and total socially necessary labor time is different, the standard of price for each country currency must necessarily be different.It would seem to follow from this that the relation between currencies, their relative exchange rates, should be determined by the above. For instance, if country A has a standard of price with gold of 10 currency A units per ounce of gold, while country B has a standard of price of 20 currency B units per ounce of gold, the relation between the two should be:

one unit of currency A = 2 units of currency B

However, just as different industries have different composition of capital, so different nations have different compositions. The composition of capital in the US is far higher than that of the People’s Republic of China, or Zimbabwe. The movement of gold between currencies, I think, is determined much like the movement of capital between industries. On the one hand, the standard of prices in various countries arise from the domestic quantitative relation between the currencies and socially necessary labor time. On the other hand, for the owners of gold, these currencies are no more than forms gold must take if it is to become capital — and capital is self-expanding value, the production of surplus value through the consumption of labor power.

This suggests that although the standard of price of a currency is determined solely by the relation between the mass of currency and the mass of socially necessary labor time; it is also being determined by the rate of surplus value within each country as determined by their varying compositions of capital.

I think we are again face to face with Marx’s transformation problem, where the law of value confronts the law of average rate of profit. One law suggests the standard of price of a currency is determined solely by the relation between the total quantity of currency in circulation domestically and the total quantity of socially necessary labor time; the other law suggest the relative exchange rates among all currencies is determined by the law of the average rate of profit. The latter law suggests currencies are exchanging in the world market above or below their actual domestically determined standard of prices.

What use might this argument have?

  1. This might just offer an idea how, without violating Marx’s labor theory of value, imperialist super-profits are obtained.
  2. It could offer a way of modeling the emergence of world market prices, and the dollar as world reserve currency.
  3. It could also explain the empirical data, which shows neoliberal free trade policies produced a US expansion in the 1980s and 1990s.
  4. Finally, it explains why China’s currency appears undervalued on the world market and the US dollar overvalued against what we would expect.

The Trouble with Marxism (Part Two)

January 28, 2012 Leave a comment

The portion of the labor day that is socially necessary as a percentage of GDP

So, I got feedback from three people who, in one way or another, say they don’t understand my last post on my conversation with Andrew Kliman. One person posting on Reddit, complained it was too dense; another wondered if I was advocating a return to the gold standard; a third person, who I asked to read it and give me feedback, began to have difficulty with it about halfway through it. Specifically that person had difficulty understanding my discussion of the “transformation problem”.

This is three more examples of my “tin-ear”, which expressed itself in my disagreement with Andrew. I have not been able to explain “my point” in a way that is not abstract, or explain the relevancy of the various statements I make to real events within society. Part of this is because I am a “Marxist” in the same way I could be considered a “Darwinist” — I am not an expert on either. The theory makes sense to me, and I accept it as a reasonable explanation for how the world works.

But, if someone argued a eugenics distortion of Darwin, I could not argue against that person by quoting Darwin. And, if someone argued a Keynesian distortion of Marx, I probably could not argue back using quotes from Marx. Until recently I was more a leninist than a “Marxist”; having read a lot of Lenin, but little more of Marx himself than the Communist Manifesto. And, neither of them had I read for more than two decades.

Read more…

Why is the Bank for International Settlements interested in Karl Marx? (FInal)

January 20, 2012 Leave a comment

Paul A. Samuelson: bald-faced liar and propagandist for the fascist state

(Or, more importantly, why should anarchists, libertarians and Marxists be as well)

So, has any reader of this blog heard that economists have conceded Marx was right after all? Have you at any time during the past 40 years heard an economist admit that Marx was correct in his transformation argument? I am really confused by this, because although Paul A. Samuelson declared Marx’s labor theory of value irrelevant in 1971, it is still being studied by BIS economists today. If I told you Marx’s theory was being studied by economists because Samuelson was a bald-face liar and a practiced dissembler, you would probably just yawn.

Of course, he was lying — he’s an economist. Economists are paid to lie and distort reality. They are employed by Washington not to explain economic processes, but to obscure them. To call an economist a bald-face liar, is simply to state he is breathing — nothing more.

But, to understand why Samuelson was lying, and why it was necessary that his lie stand unchallenged for forty years, we have to figure out the problem posed by Marx’s so-called “transformation problem”.

Read more…

Why is the Bank for International Settlements interested in Karl Marx? (Part three)

January 14, 2012 Leave a comment

In my previous post, I stated:

In reality, there was nothing in Bohm-Bawerk’s argument to be disproved. Bohm-Bawerk had indeed cited the essential contradiction at the core of capitalism. His problem, however, was to imagine the contradiction to be a defect of Marx’s theory, and not a fatal flaw laying at the heart of the capitalist mode of production itself.”

Bohm-Bawerk had inadvertently confirmed the rather grim future arrived at by Marx’s theory: Capitalism would kill the so-called free market, and in so doing, would destroy itself. It was, as Marx argued, creating its own gravediggers, a mass of directly social laborers who did not need it, and would see it as an impediment to their very survival, owing to obstacles it put in the way of its own operation.

By the 1970s, economists finally were forced to acknowledge there was in fact no inconsistency in Marx’s argument. Marx had, just as Bohm-Bawerk accused him, arrived at a theoretical description for why prices, although resting on the socially necessary labor time required to produce commodities, nevertheless appeared to reflect the prices of production of these commodities and not their labor times. It was not, as Werner Sombart feared, that from Marx’s labor theory of value “emerges a ‘quite ordinary’ theory of cost of production”, but precisely that Marx’s theory predicted from the first that the value of commodities must appear in the form of prices of production.

Moreover, Marx had demonstrated his proof almost in real time, so to speak, in front of his audience in a painstakingly detailed series of volumes — subject to the critical purview of his opponents. He had, as it were, made the elephant in the room — socially necessary labor time — disappear before the disbelieving eyes of his skeptical audience. It was a performance so dramatic and unprecedented, it took decades for the skeptics even to figure out what they had just witnessed with their own eyes.

The acknowledgement of Marx’s triumph took the form of a paper by Paul A. Samuelson, and was couched in the form of the complaint echoing that leveled against Marx by Sombart, as previously quoted by Bohm-Bawerk :

“…if I have in the end to explain the profits by the cost of production, wherefore the whole cumbrous apparatus of the theories of value and surplus value?”

Taking a cue from Sombart, Samuelson, in a paper titled “Understanding the Marxian Notion of Exploitation: A summary of the So-Called Transformation Problem Between Marxian Values and Competitive Prices”, introduced his so-called erasure method arguing,

It is well understood that Karl Marx’s model in Volume I of Capital (in which the “values” of goods are proportional — albeit not equal — to the labor embodied directly and indirectly in the goods) differs systematically from Marx’s model in Volume III of Capital, in which actual competitive “prices” are relatively lowest for those goods of highest direct-labor intensity and highest for those goods of low labor intensity (or, in Marxian terminology, for those with highest “organic composition of capital”). Critics of Marxian economics have tended to regard the Volume III model as a return to conventional economic theory, and a belated, less-than-frank admission that the novel analysis of Volume I — the calculation of “equal rates of surplus value” and of “values” — was all an unnecessary and sterile muddle.’

Samuelson gave a simple straightforward explanation of his “erasure method”:

I should perhaps explain in the beginning why the words “so-called transformation problem” appear in the title. As the present survey shows, better descriptive words than “the transformation problem” would be provided by “the problem of comparing and contrasting the mutually-exclusive alternatives of `values’ and `prices’.” For when you cut through the maze of algebra and come to understand what is going on, you discover that the “transformation algorithm” is precisely of the following form: “Contemplate two alternative and discordant systems. Write down one. Now transform by taking an eraser and rubbing it out. Then fill in the other one. Voila!

For all his genius, Samuelson argued, Marx had produced a theory which offered no greater insight into the social process of production than was already present in the form of mainstream economics. It could, for this reason, be entirely ignored.

Ignored also, however, would be the entire point of Marx’s “unnecessary and sterile” detour: namely, to demonstrate in comprehensive and theoretically ironclad fashion why the capitalism mode of production is doomed.

This only deepens the mystery of David Bieri’s interest in a theory routinely dismissed by economists as, at best, a vestigial remnant of classical political-economy. Why would this former bureaucrat of the Bank for International Settlements still be reviewing an obscure technical problem of a long dead theory?

Read more…

Why is the Bank of International Settlement interested in Karl Marx?

January 9, 2012 3 comments

I’m reading, “The Transformation Problem: A Tale of Two Interpretations”, by David Bieri.

According to his profile,

David studied economics at the London School of Economics and international finance at the University of Durham (UK). In 2006, he started his Ph.D. studies in SPIA.

From 1999 until 2006, David held various senior positions at the Bank for International Settlements, most recently as the Adviser to the General Manager and CEO. From 2002 to 2004, he held the position of Head of Business Development in which capacity he was responsible for new financial products and services and reserve management advisory for central banks. From 2004 to 2005, David worked as an economist in the BIS’ Monetary & Economics Department.

Prior to joining the BIS, David worked as a high-yield analyst at Banker’s Trust in London and in fixed-income syndication at UBS in Zurich.

What caught my attention is the notable resume of this author, which is quite unlike that of the typical Marxian economist. High-yield analyst, central bank bureaucrat, mainstream economist? This is not the sort of person you will find at your local Occupy campsite.

Why, I wondered, is the Bank of International Settlement interested in an obscure technical problem of Marx’s theory? So, I decided to give the paper a read.

Read more…