[OPE-L:1639] Re: Gold, credit-money and fictitious capital

glevy@acnet.pratt.edu (glevy@acnet.pratt.edu)
Fri, 29 Mar 1996 23:12:25 -0800

[ show plain text ]

Maria wrote in [OPE-L:1632]:

> I think that Marx and Keynes agree in some points about money as the
> endogeneity and the non neutrality of money, because of their conception
> of money as a rule of social cohesion: .... <snip>
> Comparisons between the two conceptions and analytical
> examination of their differences and resemblances are a good way to
> develop new ideas on money and monetary phenomenons.

I agree that comparing Marx and Keynes is useful and important. However,
I was suggesting that we examine more specifically *Post-Keynesian*
perspectives on monetary theory. As part of that, perhaps a comparison
between Keynes and the Post-Keynesians on monetary theory might be

> Marx spoke about fictious capital emphasizing its difference
> in relation to value produced by labour. He spoke about the public debt
> and the stocks, but in the two cases what is important is the absence of
> direct relation with labour value. However it's not a pure illusion,
> because its owners really earn money from the fictious capital.

I agree that fictitious capital, according to Marx, is not a pure
illusion. A parallel argument is presented in V1 regarding commodity
fetishism. [BTW*, I don't believe we've discussed commodity fetishism to
any degree. Does anyone have any thoughts on that topic?].

> I think that it's why Brunhoff says that the
> fictious capital "is at the centre of major economic problems: the
> relation of circulation and production, banks and enterprises and,
> fundamentally, the distribution of income"( Marxian Economics _ The New
> Palgrave).

Yes, I noticed that line from Suzanne's entry as well. She doesn't
explain its meaning though. What do you believe -- more specifically --
it means? [BTW*, there is an interesting comparison between Hayek,
Viner, Hilferding and Marx on this topic in her -- all too brief -- entry].

> The interest of some authors on the development of fictious capital in
> our days (Guttmann in USA, Plyhon and Salama in France, for example) and
> what is being called in France "financiarisation",.... <snip>

What are the works by Plyhon and Salama that you are referring to? How do
those works differ from Robbie Guttmann's work?

> Sorry by the English.

Your English is excellent. We all understood your meaning.

In OPE-L Solidarity,



* BTW = By the Way