Skip to main content

Commons Futurity pg 407-409

 This subsection is basically asking the question what are we to make of the past, all of the wealth and property that was created in the past.  Commons acknowledges that the past had value but his focus is on the future and futures from the present moment we are in now.  Commons argues that economics is about the future value of the things that now exist that were created in the past.  All of the economic values such as assets, liabilities, debts are based on future uses.


Commons believes the past is only useful for justifying a certain pattern of ownership in the present based on past activity and practices.  The owners of today's future value may need to argue before a tribunal or court that they do in fact have rightful ownership over some object or even intangible item.Perhaps most importantly, commons identifies this problem of thinking about economics and the economy as a “prime difficulty”.


Commons says too often people try and do economics by appealing to a past action or activity but that in his mind is not economics.  He writes that “ economics asks, What is that right to do as one pleases now and hereafter? What is the value of that right in the present? What ought to be the right or its value in view of conflicting rights of others, and of the social consequences of exercising that right? “ (Commons, 1934, pg. 409).


On page 409, Commons continues to refer to a table “The totality of transferable property” that is taken from Macleod’s book “The Elements of Economics 1” that is reproduced in Commons page 402.  .The table has two columns, the left column is for “past property” and has a plus sign. It includes land, money in the bank, inventories, promises, machines in the factory, etc. The right column has future property in the form of incorporeal property such as  annual income, credit, goodwill, etc. Commons criticizes Macleod for the plus or left side column. He argues that these items are not economics but justifications for past actions and practices. It is the future value or futurity of these items that matters looking forward not what happened in the past that matters to economics.


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...