I have used this chart before. It shows that, presently, many of the most important economies of the world market have interest rates that have plunged below the zero lower bound.
This event is so unprecedented in economic history that no one knows what to make of it. Prior to a decade ago or so, no one even thought it possible that lenders would advance credit at a loss. But here we are.
If Marxist theorists need any further confirmation that fiat currency doesn’t behave like money, they need look no further than Germany bonds, where the yield curve out to 30 years is now negative. Just try explaining, on the basis of Marx’s labor theory of value, creditors who lend their capital to the German state with the firm expectation they will incur a loss.
The only explanation that makes sense to me is that they are trying to avoid bigger losses of capital elsewhere. They accept a loss on the capital they lend to the Germany state to avoid losing more, or even all, of their capital elsewhere. In a commodity money regime, this situation could not happen. Alongside interest rates falling to zero, gold would be withdrawn from circulation into hoards. The two movements are driven by the same phenomenon — the falling rate of profit, which produces an ever growing mass of superfluous capital.
In December of last year, I speculated that the Fed is playing games with the economy in order to tank it just prior to the 2020 elections. I further speculated that Powell may be doing this in order to ensure that Trump loses the election.
Now, former New York Federal Reserve chief Dudley adds his view that the Federal Reserve Bank has a duty to manage United States politics as well as its economy:
There’s even an argument that the election itself falls within the Fed’s purview. After all, Trump’s reelection arguably presents a threat to the U.S. and global economy, to the Fed’s independence and its ability to achieve its employment and inflation objectives. If the goal of monetary policy is to achieve the best long-term economic outcome, then Fed officials should consider how their decisions will affect the political outcome in 2020.
I have been reading a series of essays by the Australian economist Peter Cooper on the alleged compatibility between Marx’s labor theory of value and modern monetary theory, which he has given the title, Marx and MMT. In particular I have been studying this particular essay, Part 1: Three Kinds of Macro Variables, which purports to show consistencies between Marx’s approach and modern money theory.
Needless to say, I am not impressed.
Peter borrows heavily from the TSSI school, who employ the so-called MELT approach to money as a substitute for Marx’s own theory of money. Here is the problem with the so-called monetary expression of labor time employed by the TSSI school as a substitute for Marx’s theory of money:
In the United States, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, during the month of May, 2019, approximately 162.6 million workers were employed. The BLS also estimates that, on average, these employed workers worked about 34.4 hours each week. This amounts to a total of 5.6 billion hours of labor time per week.
Does this mean that the value produced by these workers amounts to the equivalent of 5.6 billion hours of labor?
Perhaps, but how would we know?
For the convenience of my readers, the full, uncut disaster that is the Sanders’s campaign in its full horrifying scope.
Here is an interesting post: Marx, Fiat Money and a Simple Business Card Economy, from the blog, Magpie’s Asymmetric Warfare. The motto of the blog is appropriate: “Maybe the world is going to hell. But I’m not going down in silence.”
The post is actually from February 2016. As things so often happen, it is only now coming to my attention. I came across this piece from the internet the way I come across most things I come across on the internet when it popped up on my blog as a link.
I usually ignore these referrals, but this one contained three words I cannot resist: Marx, Fiat and Money. So I went to investigate. The post began with a quote from one of my old posts and it seems the writer thinks my take on fiat money is wrong. My error appears to have something to do with my misunderstanding of modern monetary theory.
At the top of the page there is a category titled, “Marx + MMT“. Although I think MMT is a crock, I was intrigued by what possible connection this group thought existed between Marx and the modern money school. So I decided to check it out.
I have already said that if you want to make sense of the European elections, don’t look at the results in the UK.
Okay, the statement was a little bit cryptic and could even be said to be reductionist. So, let me expand on this argument briefly. Instead of trying to make sense of the European Parliament results, look instead at Fiat Chrysler. That’s right, Fiat Chrysler, not the Brexit Party, Labour Party or even the UK European elections results generally.
Don’t make the mistake of trying to make sense of the EU parliament election results. Remember, in Britain a party that didn’t exist a month ago managed to come from nowhere and capture the plurality. You can’t make sense of the complete collapse of the nation-state, because the nation-state was how you made sense of everything up until this point.
But there is a pattern if you are cunning enough to catch it. We have been here before. In 2015, SYRIZA, just three years old, swept aside the major parties in Greece and became the ruling party. It had all the appearance of a party in power. The reality turned out to be otherwise, of course. What SYRIZA actually had was the opportunity to bury the state — an opportunity it squandered foolishly in a vain attempt to hang on to state power.
I said at the time that SYRIZA’s failure would be to the benefit of the fascists and let me just emphasize that I was absolutely correct. The radical Left refuses to admit its mistakes, refuses to correct its errors. It paves a path for its political enemies. Even now radicals want us to believe that the results of the European election have no domestic political consequences, that business as usual, in the most literal sense of a continuation of wage slavery, can continue unhindered.
Suit yourselves, the nation-state is dead; stick a fork in it … and the radical Left.