On 5/9/2011 11:20 AM, Jim Devine wrote: > In anti-Duhring, it's true that Engels suggested the need for > socialization of capitalist losses. But there's nothing like fiscal > policy in either Marx or Engels that I've seen. > > Somewhat in line with Brad's point (but not concerning gold), in > CAPITAL, vol. 3, ch. 30 > [http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch30.htm], Marx does > criticize the government's debt: > You mean that in that chapter, Marx quotes Sismondi who you think is therein criticizing the government's debt?
> "The accumulation of the capital of the national debt has been > revealed [where? by whom?] > N.P. II, pg 230... by Sismondi. > to mean merely an increase in a class of state creditors, who have > the privilege of a firm claim upon a certain portion of the tax > revenue. [jump to footnote] The public fund is nothing but imaginary > [fictitious?] > See below. > capital, which represents that portion of the annual revenue, which > is set aside to pay the debt. An equivalent amount of capital has > been spent; it is this which serves as a denominator for the loan, > but it is not this which is represented by the public fund; for the > capital no longer exists. _New wealth must be created by the work of > industry_; a portion of this wealth is annually set aside in advance > for those who have loaned that wealth which has been spent; this > portion is taken by means of taxes from those who produce it, and is > given to the creditors of the state, and, according to the customary > proportion between capital and interest in the country, an imaginary > capital is assumed equivalent to that which could give rise to the > annual income which these creditors are to receive. (Sismondi, > Nouveaux principes [Seconde édition, Paris, 1827], II, p. 230.)" > [emphasis added] > > Marx [[Sismondi?]] seems to assume that "industry" must be done by > the "private sector." Under state capitalism, industry could be > organized by the government. > Could it be that you're missing the point? Could it be that Sismondi isn't criticizing the debt per se, but (not so?) simply saying that the funds loaned to the government from a "surplus" are imaginary _after_ having been disbursed by the government to government income earners? In other words, as soon as the shortfall in direct spending, loaned to the government, is directly spent by government income earners, _nothing_ is left. From that point onwards, bondholders are periodically getting paid from imaginary capital. You were right in emphasizing what you did though. It is crucial to understand that the income disbursed during the creation of new wealth _by work_, always suffices to distribute that wealth. If the moneys aren't there, these can be created out of thin air. They aren't causal in any way. In other words, accumulated funds are always bogus. They were accumulated in the past through deprivation of some kind, and should be treated as such by government fiscal policy. __________________ On a related note: Could someone please make available to me the unpublished chap. 7 of Duncan Foley's recent book. I asked Julio Huato, but without result; he may have me in his kill file for all I know. My stake in this is that I recently posted a critique of Randy Wray's thoughts on money on my website: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/~vertegaa/MMT_Critique.pdf and I'd like to compare lines of thought. John V > Julio Huato wrote: >> I wrote: >> >>> But the part that comes to my mind is one from the 1859 >>> Contribution (a footnote?), in the context of monetary and >>> banking crisis, were >> >> Just to add that in Anti-Duhring (part 3, Socialism), Engels kind >> of touches on the issue Brad raises (why didn't Marx note that >> public spending can prevent or alleviate a crisis?). > _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
