Skip to main content

Commons Futurity pg 438-443 Section (10) from psychological economics to institutional economics

Section (10) from psychological economics to institutional economics

 This section lays out Commons views on whether we need to evolve from the psychological school or hedonistic school of economics that had become important in the 19th century and early 20th century. The basic outline is that Commons believes that the psychological school provides some important insights but is based on a non-exchange economy. 


Commons view on psychological or hedonistic economics is that its plays an important role in our understanding human consumption and even home production but only where there is no exchange involved.The psychological school doesn't focus on social conflict as institutional economics.  In this case you need an understanding of conflict and scarcity and ownership.  Commons also points out that we need an objective unit of measurement for exchange and courts or systems of arbitration to address conflicts over transactions.


The other major point that Commons wants to think about is physical commodities - which in his mind is the focus of psychological economics versus institutional economics which focuses on economic quantities.  At one point Commons talks about economic quantities - tangible and intangible items that are bought and sold for future use (Macleod). An economic quantity is not a physical thing in fact, it is a “power or force”.  This means in fact that these transactions are occurring with an eye to the future and the economic quantities are exerting social force and driving change in society.


The economic qualities are measured by present and future capital value in the modern sense of them.  The present value is based on cash and bank deposits.  The stocks and bonds and other forms of credit are future money or capital value.


In this section, Commons makes one of his most powerful statements about how the modern economy works.  He writes that, “This modern meaning of capital, as an economic quantity measured by money is both very powerful and very sensitive. Capital has solely a legal foundation and may disappear wholly if that foundation is revolutionized. The magnitude of capital reflects every change or fear of change in world economics. Yet this economic quantity is more powerful than governments. It sets labor to work or out of work. It pays debts and taxes. It makes wars.”  He makes the clear statement that capital can be altered and changed by human action and will be very sensitive especially to legal changes.  He also makes a point which many would echo today that money or economic quantity is more powerful than many going concerns including the governments that issue the money.


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...