As an Amurrican, I have a hard time understanding other languages than American, so I didn't get this at all.
As for a "Marxist" or revolutionary interest-rate rule, I don't think there is one. The theory of (real) interest rates that Marx suggests in volume III of CAPITAL is basically one of supply and demand within the limits set by zero and the rate of profit. One might bring in institutions and say that the balance of power between industrial/commercial capitalists and banking capitalists could play a role. In any event, it's the rate of profit (akin to a Keynesian "average efficiency of capital") that's dominant. If the rate of profit (as measured at full employment, so that realization problems play no role) is depressed, low interest rates can stimulate demand only by encouraging faster inflation -- even if the economy has unemployment rates above the NAIRU or "natural" rate of unemployment (i.e., where it's frictions and mismatch problems in labor markets that limit economic expansion). I have a paper indicating the likelihood that a depressed profit rate makes the short-run inflation/unemployment trade-off worse: stagflation is the capitalists' way of punishing us for low profitability, as in the 1970s. The "solution" of course, would be to figure out how to raise the rate of profit, by ending the political/economic/technical problems that are depressing it. In response to the stagflation of the 1970s, and starting with the ascension of Paul Volcker to the Fed's throne, the US capitalists and their politicians smashed unions, instituted neoliberal policies, etc. To the extent that the problem is due to the over-accumulation of fixed capital and thus a capital overhang, a severe recession or depression can deal with by encouraging scrapping of existing capacity. Alternatively, war might play a role. Of course, neoliberal polices create new problems, e.g., the under-consumption undertow that characterized the US economy after the 1980s. nathan tankus wrote: > It occurs to me that I've never actually read any "marxist" interest > rate rule. This makes sense when the ultimate "policy option" > supported is "socialist revolution" (or heretically, evolution). > Despite this, I am still interested in what people think an "optimal" > interest rate rule would be from a Marxist perspective. > > Louis Philippe Rochon has a good overview of heterodox and orthodox > interest rate policies: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uBwUGbUI0I > > i find myself supporting what Rochon terms the "kansas city rule" > where the nominal interest rate is "parked" at zero. What do others > think though? -- Jim Devine / "In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the exact opposite." -- Paul Dirac _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
