Re: Putting Chartalism In Its Place?

[Gunnar Tómasson <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bill:

Re. the following:

> similarly, if you read the same books you will not find any reference to
> profit reflecting
> surplus value which might be a reflection of the tendency of economists to
> examine
> things at the exchange level (superficial) and not understand the
intrinsic
> causalities.
>
> a majority of pkt's probably don't even relate sv to profits. so what that
> does tell us?

Comment:

It tells us that "a majority of pkts"

(a) agree with Paul A. Samuelson:

"It is quite clear that in the real world net revenue is not zero for all
firms, nor is it tending towards zero.  This is true under pure competition
as well as impure competition.  It is clear that this residuum must be "due"
to SOMETHING, and it may be labeled by any name we please (rent to
institutional advantage, etc.)." (_Foundations of Economic Analysis_,
Atheneum, New York, 1979, p. 87);

(b) have overcome the problem of which Joseph A. Schumpeter wrote:

"I have not been able to convince myself, for example, that such questions
as the source of interest [on Production Credit and/or Profits - insert GT]
are either unimportant or uninteresting.  They could be made so, at all
events, only by the fault of the author." (Preface to _The Theory of
Economic Development_, Oxfored University Press, 1961, p. x); and

(c) keep their fingers crossed that the profession's decades-long disregard
of this SOMETHING will not prove to be the root cause of the sorry state of
modern monetary theory which, by Goodhart's reckoning a few years back, is
"less satisfactory" than that to which Keynes and Robertson had advanced it
by the early 1930s.

Gunnar



----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Mitchell" <ecwfm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 12:18 AM
Subject: Re: Putting Chartalism In Its Place?


> At 14:59 15/09/2003 -0400, you wrote:
> >      All that I have been objecting to here
> >is the scattered use by some folks on the
> >list of the idea that it is paying taxes that
> >DEFINES what money is.  I am perfectly
> >amenable to the idea that in modern fiat
> >economies, this is a very important part
> >of what money is.
> >      When I pick up an intro textbook or a
> >text on monetary theory, I never find the
> >chartalist theory put forward as the definition
> >of what money is.  One can easily lapse
> >into sneering that well these are all just
> >neoclassical mainstream garbage books.
> >But I would note that such a view is not
> >universal even among Post Keynesians,
> >not to mention many other heterodox
> >economists, much less among the
> >mainstream.
>
>
> similarly, if you read the same books you will not find any reference to
> profit reflecting
> surplus value which might be a reflection of the tendency of economists to
> examine
> things at the exchange level (superficial) and not understand the
intrinsic
> causalities.
>
> a majority of pkt's probably don't even relate sv to profits. so what that
> does tell us?
>
> also, the overwhelming majority of economists including PKTs still offer
> dialogue
> in their books about there being financial constraints on government
> (federal) spending
> and that spending beyond taxes (income??) must be financed by debt. If
> there are no
> financial constraints on government then what do taxes really do as
opposed
> to what
> we (superficially within the GBC framework) think they do?
>
> best wishes
> bill
>
>
> ------
>
> William F. Mitchell
> Professor of Economics
> Director, Centre of Full Employment and Equity
> University of Newcastle
> New South Wales, Australia
> E-mail: ecwfm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Phone: +61-2 4921 5027
> Fax:   +61-2 4921 6919
> Mobile: 0419 422 410
>
> WWW Home Pages:
> http://e1.newcastle.edu.au/economics/bill/billeco.html
> http://www.billmitchell.org
>
>