Another
consequence of the fall in oil prices that will be completely at odds
with the expectations of orthodox economics, is that the fall in oil
prices may cause inflation to rise. The consensus view is that,
because lower oil prices cause input costs to fall, including wages,
this will result in lower prices. But, as Marx describes, prices are
not just determined by the value of commodities. That presents only
one side of matters. Price is an expression of exchange-value in money terms,
and that means that it is influenced not just by the value of
commodities, but the value of money.
If,
the value of all other commodities, on average, remains constant, but
the value of money falls, then prices, in general, will rise, and vice
versa. But, as Marx sets out in “A Contribution To The Critique
of Political Economy”, and in Capital I, Chapter III,
the amount of money put into circulation is determined by the amount
required to circulate commodities, as well as to ensure that payments
can be made, plus the amount required as reserves, so that this
circulation can flow smoothly. This also depends upon the velocity
by which this money flows through the economy, which is a function
both of the volume and rapidity of transactions, and of technical
considerations that determine how fast payments can be processed. In
short, the faster the velocity of money, the less of it that needs to
be put into circulation.
One
consequence, of conditions, in recent years, has been that, where more
money has been pumped into the economy, besides a large part of it
going to cause a hyper inflation of financial asset prices and
property prices, whose effect on reducing real wages is not measured
in the official inflation data, another large part of it has simply
sat in bank accounts for longer – particularly the bank accounts of
the banks themselves – rather than going into circulation to
stimulate economic activity. In the US, the economic growth that has
been seen, compared to the recession in Europe, after 2010, has been
due to the use of fiscal stimulus, rather than to monetary stimulus.
One
consequence of the fall in oil prices may be, therefore, to stimulate
consumer demand for a range of consumer goods, and with the same fall
in oil prices causing a rise in the rate of profit, and release of
capital, this may also stimulate additional capital investment to
accommodate this higher level of consumer demand. The increased
economic activity, in a range of consumer products, along with
increased investment activity, may thereby cause the mass and
velocity of economic transactions to rise. If that then causes the
velocity of money to rise, as the vast oceans of liquidity that have
been pumped into economies, via quantitative easing, begins to flow
out of bank accounts and into circulation, this may cause the value
of money to drop, and commodity prices to rise, leading to a sudden
rise in inflation.
With
bond markets in a seeming fantasy realm, whereby, in large parts of
the globe, yields are at very high levels, pushing up official
interest rates – 17% in Russia, 19.5% in Ukraine, India 7.75%,
Brazil 12.25%, Turkey 7.75%, South Africa 5.75% - whilst yields on US
10 Year Bonds have actually fallen to around 2.2%, and its official
interest rates remain at 0.25%, any rise in inflation is likely to
cause the long predicted bursting of the bond bubble, which will have
rapid and widespread effects on global financial markets, sending
stock, bond and property markets into a tailspin.
That
would itself be good for the real economy in the longer term. A fall
in the price of fictitious capital, would undermine the power of the
money-lending capitalists and the conservative political forces it
stands behind. It would mean the diversion of potential
money-capital into speculation in those financial markets would be
ended, freeing it up, for use in purchasing real productive-capital.
The rise in stock bond and property markets, has itself caused a
sharp increase in the value of labour-power. Astronomical levels of
house prices significantly reduces the ability of workers to buy
those houses without a large rise in wages. The huge rise in stock
and bond markets has meant that workers pension contributions have
bought fewer and fewer shares and bonds, to go into their pension
fund, whilst the same process has caused the yield on those funds to
be squeezed almost out of existence. Those pensions could only be
maintained at previous levels, if workers pension contributions
themselves increased substantially to buy these much more expensive
stocks and bonds. But, workers could only afford these higher
pension contributions if their wages increased substantially to fund
it.
A
fall in those financial markets, therefore, would mean that workers
would be more able to buy the houses they need, and to fund their
pensions without a rise in nominal wages.
In
short, the fall in oil prices will be good for the economy, but
terrible for financial markets.
No comments:
Post a Comment