Re: Schumpeter&Equilibrium

[boddhisatva <kbevans@xxxxxxxxx>]

                Mr. Bhandari,



        You wrote:

"a.  why is it that even with Schumpeter's observance of evolution and flux,
all economic categories (exchange value, wage labor, profit, etc) but
interest seem universal?

b. didn't the NAZIS also claim, however demagogically, that interest should
be abolished while they fetishized the entrepreneur, profit and the dynamic
new combinations he organized?"




        I'm not sure that this will help, but, I think that all the other
economic categories can be quantified quite exactly in a closed equilibrium
situation, but interest has an unavoidable element of probability in it.
Increased alienation of capitals from one another create the need for interest
to give "present" exchange value.


        In that different historical periods have different levels of
alienation of capital (by which I mean), interest as the "social" elastic
holding them together, has relatively different importance among the periods
of development.


        The primitive hunter/gatherer lives hand-to-mouth, communism creates
immediate community control of capital, therefore the community "organism"
lives hand-to-mouth.




        The Nazis could not tolerate the necessary dissipation of power in a
"spread-out" interest-dependent economy.



        I don't know if it is interesting to you, but by comparison,
pre-revolutionary America was a vast network of debt.  The wills of departed
colonist reveal huge lists of lending and obligation that created a web
throughout the community.  Some had twice as much wealth in outstanding debt
as in liquid assets.  This debt was barter debt, not money debt, and was very
slow to be paid and collected, often waiting for the settling of the estate.
The items borrowed were also very often raw materials for subsequent
enterprises, and thus the "interest" had a speculative (floating?) nature.





        peace






     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---