Skip to main content

Commons Futurity pg 401 - 407

 In this next section entitled "Corporeal, Incorporeal and Intangible property", we look at a number of things and this is very long section of almost 50 pages so we will break it down over several weeks.

First, Commons is looking in subsection one at time and the measure of time.  Macleods problem was a confusion of definitions related to time and corporeal and incorporeal property. He seemed to define corporal property as of time now and incorporeal property as one year in the future, but later seems confused on this point. He seems to be saying corporeal property exists only now based on past value but then also has value in the future as well. in fact according to Commons, Macleod's double counting was not counting the physical thing and ownership of the physical thing but rather counting the ownership issue twice.

Commons tries to clarify by stating that corporeal property's value is based on future value and exchangeability.  It means I have property that is worth something base don what it can produce in the future and is based on the fact that I can withhold this property from others and then exchange it when they meet the conditions I seek. Macleod and Commons believes that the exchange value via money is the key thing measured based on future use and value. Commons writes that, "the right of corporeal property is the right not to use the thing but is the right to alienate ownership of the thing and give good title to the buyer" (Commons, pg. 405, 1934) and equally importantly he writes that, "thus both corporeal and incorporeal property begin at the present point in time and both are looking at the present valuations that look forward to acquisitions in the future" (Commons, pg. 405, 1934).

In the rest of this section, Commons tries to clarify his concept of measuring time.  The present time is simply a moving point between past and future.  the real issue for Commons is future time which is based on two conceptions. The first conception is the interval between the current point in time and future time.  The second conception is the interval between present time and an ongoing series of future points in time repeated constantly. Commons argues that this help us the time issues related with interest payments and profits.


Next up: subsection 2 justification and economics and subsection 3 duty and debts and rights an duties pg. 407 - 415




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...