Skip to main content

Commons Futurity pg. 487-500

 IV. Scarcity of Debt and section 2. Capital and Capitals


In this section, Commons starts with a discussion of Anne Robert Jacques Turgot. Turgot was the foremost of the physiocratic economics in France in the 18th century.   Importantly, Turgot unraveled the issue of what was “interest”. It was not the “price of money” but rather it was “the price given for the use of a certain quantity of value for a certain time,” (Commons, 1934, pg. 487).  Commons then turns to the idea that capital yield is a key concept.  The yield is how income in money terms is produced by any asset. The Price paid for that assert is a numerical ratio over and above the regular monetary income produced by the capital asset. This price will vary according to demand and supply. It is important to note here that it is unclear whether Commons believes this statement or is ascribing this view to others.


Turgot then moved forward with some important conceptions that predate Macleod.  He talked about the fact that future purchasing power was the key to property. Common writes that, “Thus Turgot's “pledge,” applied to money and all commodities, is the economic expected purchasing power equivalent to the juristic “intangible property.” It is not a debt—it is expected power to agree upon prices of commodities in bargaining transactions. And it is property in the sense of a right of non-interference with one's liberty of access to markets and liberty in fixing by bargains the prices and values of things. His landed estate, or corporeal property, becomes intangible property when the expected corporeal income of sheep or wheat becomes the expected prices to be obtained by selling the sheep or wheat for money.” (Commons, 1934, pg. 492). 


For Commons further, Turgot understood the concept of capitalization.  Capital assets prices are based on the underlying yield of income over time that they can produce.  If interest rates rise, the prices of capital assets must generally rise at least in the short term as the enterprise must be able to yield more to meet the interest rate.


Commons ends this section with a discussion of Turgot and Ricardo. Both ended at the same place that the landed aristocracy and landed interests were not productive for society but form very different paths. Ricardo stated and used the labor theory of value and Ricardo measured the capital value emanating from past labor investments. In contrast, Turgot used the capital theory of value where productivity was driven by money investments and future income to be gained.  Finally, Common is celery siding with Turgot in this intellectual battle. He talks about bond yields and stock yields as key measures of the capital theory of value.  Commons clearly sees this as a better pathway for institutional economics as compared to that of David Ricardo.


The next section is Scarcity of Waiting.


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...