Marxist
Trigg Abstract
There is general agreement amongst scholars of Marx that his
monetary theory is incomplete, especially in his most detailed
writings on credit in the third volume of Capital. Moreover, in
these unfinished notes Marx takes sides with the banking school
approach, notable for its opacity compared to the clear axioms of
its currency school counterpart. A reconstruction is proposed
based on Marx’s step-by-step method, commencing with a
critique of Say’s Law under simple commodity circulation, these
foundations formalised here using the model of pure labour
developed by Pasinetti (1993). Piecing together the fragments,
and filling in some of the gaps in Marx’s writings on money, the
analysis builds from commodity money and private debt
contracts, to the modelling of pure credit and pure banking
systems. Adapting the Pasinetti model of a real economy, its
endogenous money requirements provide an alternative to the
exogenous money approach of the currency school: a
streamlined analytical core to the banking school approach, as
interpreted by Marx. In addition, the structure of payment crises
— as an extension of Marx’s possibility theory of crises — is
examined with money as a means of payment required to settle
debts between producers and the banking system.
Trigg (2021) Reconstructing Marx’s Theory of Credit and Payment Crises under Simple Circulation
(pdf)
Social Monopoly
Roberts on Stiglitz
After all, monopoly power is really oligopoly (a few large companies) and oligopoly can exhibit fierce competition, nationally and internationally. The real cause of inequality is not monopoly but the increased exploitation of labour by big capital since the 1980s in the effort to reverse falling and low profitability experienced in the 1970s. And the real cause of ‘stagnation’ and low productivity growth is not monopoly but the failure to invest, not only by large ‘monopolies’ but also by smaller capitals suffering from low profitability and high debts. In other words, it is not monopoly that is the problem per se, but the weakness of the capitalist mode of production where investment and employment is only for profit.
This Stiglitz ignores. As a result, his solution of government intervention to reduce inequality and create a more ‘level playing field’ for ‘competition’ among capitalist companies is utopian (you can’t turn the capitalist clock back) and unworkable (it would not achieve greater equality or better growth)
Ironically, there is another study that Stiglitz has not noticed that shows the rise in US inequality has coincided with the decline of large companies that used to employ hundreds of thousands or even millions of workers and their substitution by much smaller companies. The share of large employers in total US employment went down simultaneously with the increase in US income inequality. This study shows that is the decline in the power of labour through out-sourcing and globalisation that has driven up inequality in incomes.
The ‘internal’ break-up of large company (Fordist) employment into small contractors is the key feature of Stiglitz’s world of ‘monopoly’. In other words, what workers in America need is not the break-up of monopolies to create small companies in competition but trade unions. The monopoly power that matters is that held by capital over labour.
Yes, monopoly (more accurately oligopoly) power has increased in the last 150 years since Marx forecast that the capitalist mode of production would lead to increased concentration and centralisation of capital. And that shows that capitalism is in its late stage of development and so must be replaced by ‘social monopoly’.
Roberts (2016) Monopoly or competition: which is worse?
27.1 Social Monopoly
Roberts on Stiglitz
After all, monopoly power is really oligopoly (a few large companies) and oligopoly can exhibit fierce competition, nationally and internationally. The real cause of inequality is not monopoly but the increased exploitation of labour by big capital since the 1980s in the effort to reverse falling and low profitability experienced in the 1970s. And the real cause of ‘stagnation’ and low productivity growth is not monopoly but the failure to invest, not only by large ‘monopolies’ but also by smaller capitals suffering from low profitability and high debts. In other words, it is not monopoly that is the problem per se, but the weakness of the capitalist mode of production where investment and employment is only for profit.
This Stiglitz ignores. As a result, his solution of government intervention to reduce inequality and create a more ‘level playing field’ for ‘competition’ among capitalist companies is utopian (you can’t turn the capitalist clock back) and unworkable (it would not achieve greater equality or better growth)
Ironically, there is another study that Stiglitz has not noticed that shows the rise in US inequality has coincided with the decline of large companies that used to employ hundreds of thousands or even millions of workers and their substitution by much smaller companies. The share of large employers in total US employment went down simultaneously with the increase in US income inequality. This study shows that is the decline in the power of labour through out-sourcing and globalisation that has driven up inequality in incomes.
The ‘internal’ break-up of large company (Fordist) employment into small contractors is the key feature of Stiglitz’s world of ‘monopoly’. In other words, what workers in America need is not the break-up of monopolies to create small companies in competition but trade unions. The monopoly power that matters is that held by capital over labour.
Yes, monopoly (more accurately oligopoly) power has increased in the last 150 years since Marx forecast that the capitalist mode of production would lead to increased concentration and centralisation of capital. And that shows that capitalism is in its late stage of development and so must be replaced by ‘social monopoly’.
Roberts (2016) Monopoly or competition: which is worse?