Traditionally wealth was always defined in terms of tangible assets, gold for example. While the value of gold or for that matter machines may change nevertheless they are nothing like paper wealth (or fictitious capital), though I have to admit that these days all that is solid also melts into thin air. In fact when we talk about financial sphere are we not really talking about stock market (though there are other elements to this)? After all the speculative element in stock markets tends to decouple stock market valuation substantially from initial paid up capital. Is this not the emergence of fictitious capital, which reproduces itself in capitalist expansionary phase? From this angle it seems the Indian billionaires have lost FC not wealth.
Cheers, Anthony On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > is it right to think of "fictitious capital" as referring to cases > where Tobin's Q is greater than one? (One version of Q is > (stock-market valuation of real assets)/(actual value of those > assets), though Tobin uses the reproduction cost of those assets in > the denominator.) > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 8:18 AM, Anthony D'Costa > <[email protected]> wrote: >> India's richest men lose billions. Fictitious capital or wealth destruction? > > -- > 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 > -- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Anthony P. D'Costa Professor of Indian Studies and Research Director Asia Research Centre Copenhagen Business School Porcelænshaven 24, 3 DK-2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark Email:[email protected] Ph: +45 3815 2572 Fax: +45 3815 2500 http://uk.cbs.dk/arc www.cbs.dk/india xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
