Skip to main content

Commons Futurity chapter pg. 390-395

 Commons Futurity chapter in the book "Institutional Economics" is very long - over 200 pages and very complex.  However, I believe a thorough and careful reading it will yield considerable benefits.  In this blog series, we will read through Commons chapter on Futurity in Institutional Economics. This first post covers pages 390-395 of the chapter. I am using the Transaction Publishers third edition published in 2005.

The chapter starts with the claim that political economy and economics in general started with a false set of assumptions form Rousseau and Locke.  The basic idea was that people were free but in chains because of government.  This meant that all rules were irrational and were a problem for humans and their behavior.  Commons did not see rules as irrational but rather as structures were based on need to organize society. Instead, Commons viewed the release of rules as a form of debt release over time that helped change and develop the economy and society.

A key point is that commons argues that the classical economists, as smart as they were, had serious problem in a contradiction in meanings and definitions.  The notion of the commodity was there as both a tangible thing and a legal thing. This contradiction was critical and would be come a major problem and an opportunity for a new brand of economics in the middle of the 19th century.

Commons credits Macleod with developing the proper understanding a commodity which he called an "economic quantity". It contained the ideas of scarcity and use value as with the classical economists but also the idea of futurity or that the future use of the commodity was what drove its underlying value. This new idea allowed Macleod to expand the idea of thing owned beyond corporeal property to incorporeal property and intangible property as well.  Macleod also made exchange the main thrust of the idea behind a science of economics, exchange of the ownership of things as opposed to the things themselves.

Finally, Macleod called all of this related to transactions of duties or debt to one another in the exchange process. This was his explanation for the so called "debt market" Commons next turns to the idea of the debt market in the 20th century economy.

Next up - debt markets and property rights (pg. 395-400)



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Commons Futurity pg.526-528

Commons Futurity VII. The Margin for Profit pg 526-528  In this section, Commons turns to thinking about a specific aspect of modern banker capitalism addressing the question of profit's role in the economy. He starts with some terminology regarding profit share - the share of national income that goes to profit earners and the profit margin - the dynamic aspect that drives a going concern forward. We then move into another set of terms that are rate of profit and profit yield.  The rate of profit is related to the par value of stock and yield is related to market value of stock or outstanding equity. The social question to Commons is what the role of profit in keeping the overall economy and does society or community pay too much or too little for this service. Economists have long thought about the role of profits in driving the economy up or down.  Commons believes there are profit share theories and profit margin theories as two diction categories in economic thinking...

Commons Futurity pg. 510-526 VI. The Transactional System of Money and Value

VI. The Transactional System of Money and Value  The overall objective of this section is to understand money and its role and relationship to economic value in the institutional economics of John R. Commons. Commons writes that, "It is because Value is a two-dimensional concept (omitting futurity)—with two different causations, the one being the scarcity-value, or price, determined by supply and demand, the other being the greater or smaller output of use-value which will be created in the labor process that follows the transaction. " (Commons, pg. 517, 1934). The point here is again Commons is fighting against what he observes are the limits of other definitions of economic value such as simply individual utility or the classical case of exchange value only.   In this section, Commons make an important move on pages 520 and 521. He states that for a thing to be objective it needs to be independent of any objective will as opposed to other competing definitions. He will ...

Commons commenting on Marx and Proudhoun

Commons provides a short discussion to contrast Karl Marx (communism) and Pierre Joseph Proudhon (anarchism) in Institutional Economics.  His point in writing about these two authors is to continue to flesh out the idea of theory of efficiency versus an economic theory of value. This is section eight in the chapter of efficiency and scarcity pages 366 to 378.  Commons wants us to understand that Ricardo and later Marx led us to a theory of efficiency and not a theory of value.  This is not in itself a negative as a theory of efficiency is important to Commons. However, Commons wants us to understand that a theory of efficiency as espoused by Ricardo and Marx is only half the story of a theory of value.  Marx is the real part of the story in this section with some attention paid to Proudhon. As usual, Commons points out both the advanced and faults in the various thinkers he is addressing. Marx, Commons writes, did improve on Ricardo and others by replacing a subjec...