-->Michael Hudson, ein Mitglied der der hier schon häufiger erwähnten 'gang8' hatte hat heute eine Erkenntnis proklamiert die ich hier mal posten will, weil die sie die geldtheoretischen Diskussionen, die hier im Forum gefĂźhrt wurden berĂźhrt. Man muss hinzufĂźgen, dass Hudson ein äuĂerst gebildeter und bewanderter Historiker - speziell zum Thema: Mesopotamien und frĂźhes Geld - ist:
Hier nun sein Posting:
Dear Gunnar,
At first when you proposed to view profit as a residual, fueled by credit expansion, my knee-jerk reaction was to reject your idea, as it ran against my classical economic fundamentalism that profit was a normal cost of production, and hence was part of value.
But yesterday, in a long discussion with Joe Hyde, I came around to a different view. Finally, I think we have made explicit something which, in retrospect, I know I felt all along.
Profit as economists understand it, as the reward for enterprise, is what is left after all the rent-takers take their rake-off. Merchants and other agents take their percentage, the government levies its taxes, rentiers take their interest charges and levy rent, and wages must be paid. The proprietor -- the property recipient -- takes what he can find left.
Rentier returns are not a monetary phenomenon, they are a demand -- often one to which credit and money creation responds rather than causes. But profit is made by enterprising individuals or companies finding a market in which they can make a surplus after giving all the vested interests their rake-off.
The conclusion is that rent comes before profit rather than being a drivative of price less value.
Ricardo and other classical economists did not properly address the property issue and hence the all-pervasive character of unearned revenue (land rent and other such returns to property) beyond agriculture, beyond even urban land, to all parts of the economy.
An economic history of civilization could be written along these lines -- which, of course, my ISLET group is engaged in.
Michael
Ende des Postings
|