me: >> I don't think it was Baker who talked about the "loss of wealth" in >> those terms, at least in this thread. He might have at some point, but >> I'm not going to do the search.
John V. > I'm not asking for any searches. It would just be nice to know your > definition of wealth, so we could perhaps clear the matter up. The definition of wealth depends on the context. are we talking about use-values or exchange-values? are we talking about capitalism, simple commodity production, or socialism? In practice, the capitalist economy we live in defines (net) wealth in terms of the market price of assets minus the market price of liabilities. me: >> I would agree with Shane: the high stock prices and the house prices >> in (say) August 2008 were totally on paper, a matter of promises and >> expectations. (Fictitious capital got way beyond the real thing.) > Do you know of a theory, Marxian or otherwise, able to approach (calculate) > the size of the "real thing"; so as to make a distinction as to what is > what? Or is it an "I know it when I see it" thing? You can get a good idea. For example, for housing: in 2006 or 2007, the asset price of houses was way out of line compared to the rental price of similar houses. (This is also true in terms of other measures.) We could estimate what the asset price of houses _should_ have been (their hypothesized underlying value) simply assuming that house prices should have moved in step with rental prices following the long-term trend (the historical record). that's enough for today; gotta work. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
