Economists
of left, right and centre, have misstated the nature of the problem
in Greece. At the heart of this misstatement, even amongst those
economists that claim adherence to Marx, is a failure to proprly
understand the nature of value, money and capital. It is an example
of what Marx calls commodity fetishism, or seeing what is actually a
social relation between human beings, as being merely what it appears
to be, a relation between things.
So, for
example, the whole emphasis of the problem facing Greece today has
been placed on a lack of money, most visibly portrayed by the
imposition of “capital controls”, and the limit put on
withdrawing “money” from cash machines. Sections of the Marxist
left have swallowed this analysis hook, line and sinker. For
example, the Weekly Worker has carried articles about the idea that
if Greece does run out of “money”, ie. Euro notes and coins,
because the ECB stops supplying them, then it would have to revert to
the Drachma, or else issue I.O.U's, as a form of second class Euro.
This shows a
complete lack of understanding about what money is, and its role in
the Greek crisis. Let me try to explain it simply from a personal
perspective. For about 95% of my life, currently, it would not make a
scrap of difference to me if every £1 coin and every banknote
disappeared from existence. If it became impossible to print them,
or to mint them, I could not care less.
The reason
is simple. I have never used an ATM, and I can't remember the last
time I used notes or coins to pay for anything, or in turn was paid
in notes or coins. Yet, like everyone else who will have a similar
experience, it makes absolutely no difference to my ability to go
about my life. My rent, my energy bills and other regular payments
get paid by direct debit, from my bank account. Various other
payments for food and other items, like petrol, are paid for using
credit cards. Income is similarly paid directly into my bank
account.
The issue
then is not at all whether any £1 coins or notes of various
denominations are in existence, to make these payments, because today
far more efficient means of achieving that goal are available. It
does not stop for one minute the prices of all these commodities
being denominated in £'s. It is not whether any such notes and
coins are in existence, which is the real issue enabling or
preventing payments from occurring, but whether those doing the
paying have the required funds in their account, so as to make the
payment.
The real
issue in Greece, was demonstrated on Channel 4 News tonight, which
visited the the docks in Piraeus, which was once a thriving heart of
the Greek economy. It is not a shortage of money that has left it an
empty hulk, its workers now unemployed, and so without wages paid
into their bank account, and so without funds to pay their rent etc., it is five years of Troika induced austerity, on behalf of
conservative economic dogma, and in the interests of a small number
of money lending capitalists.
Moreover,
its quite clear that if all of these prices can be denominated in
pounds, and if all of these money transactions can be effected
without a single note or coin being used, there is nothing about
those notes or coins that makes them money! In fact, as Marx long
ago demonstrated they are not money, they are merely tokens
representing a money commodity, such as gold, which in itself is
merely a physical manifestation of value, a representation of a given
quantity of labour-time. Money, as Marx defines it is merely the
universal equivalent form of value.
These new
payment methods not only effectively remove the need for “money”
in the shape of notes and coins (currency) but also speed up the
transmission of payments, which is itself beneficial to capital and
profitability.
If we go
back 200 years or more, currency took the form of precious metal
coins such as gold or silver. To put this currency into circulation
a country first had to obtain the gold or silver by mining it, or
buying it from some other country in exchange for commodities. The
gold then had to be minted into coins which could be put into
circulation, which had its own cost because the coins wore out
through use, and because they were deliberately clipped so as to
obtain some of the gold or silver from which they were made.
But, use of
the coins themselves limited the speed with which transactions could
be undertaken. On the one hand, if all payments are made with such
coins, everyone must keep a hoard of these coins for everyday
transactions in their purse, or for businesses in their cash box.
For all the time these coins simply sit there doing nothing, they are
not in circulation, not acting as currency, and so for any given
value of commodities to be circulated, in an economy, a greater
quantity of these coins must be minted. In other words, the velocity
of circulation of the currency is curtailed.
One of the
problems that occurs in an economy that uses a lot of such currency
is that when a situation like that in Greece arises, people will
hoard even more of this currency. If we take the notes and coins
that people are taking out of the ATM's, and from the bank today in
Greece, the normal thing would be for them to spend this money in
shops and so on, and the shops would then deposit that money once
more in the bank. The question of the bank running out of such notes
and coins does not arise, it just circulates, which is where the term
currency is derived from, i.e. from it being a current, like a flow of water.
In the diagram above, this is represented by the flow of money from "Bank Deposits" to C'. Notes and coins come out of the bank and into the hands of consumers, who use it as currency to buy commodities (which is why it is shown as a green line.) The value of these commodities is labelled as C', because it already includes the surplus value that has been created in production, i.e. during P. Capitalists, thereby exchange these commodities with consumers for money. In the hands of the capitalists, this money now becomes money-capital. What was the commodity-capital of the capitalist has metamorphosed into money-capital. The capital-value has remained but its form has changed from that of commodities to that of money.
It splits into two parts. One part equal to M simply replaces the commodities previously consumed in the production process (or for the retailer the commodities they bought from the producer). The other part equal to the surplus value, can be used either as revenue to fund the consumption of the capitalist, or else used as productive investment to increase the size of their capital.
But, in a credit crunch, people, such as the shops, instead hang on to the notes and coins paid to them, rather than putting them it into the bank. They try to hold on to the notes and coins as much as possible, but to shift as much of their own purchases of materials and so on, to payment by credit, payment by cheque and so on. So this currency circulation is frustrated.
In the diagram above, this is represented by the flow of money from "Bank Deposits" to C'. Notes and coins come out of the bank and into the hands of consumers, who use it as currency to buy commodities (which is why it is shown as a green line.) The value of these commodities is labelled as C', because it already includes the surplus value that has been created in production, i.e. during P. Capitalists, thereby exchange these commodities with consumers for money. In the hands of the capitalists, this money now becomes money-capital. What was the commodity-capital of the capitalist has metamorphosed into money-capital. The capital-value has remained but its form has changed from that of commodities to that of money.
It splits into two parts. One part equal to M simply replaces the commodities previously consumed in the production process (or for the retailer the commodities they bought from the producer). The other part equal to the surplus value, can be used either as revenue to fund the consumption of the capitalist, or else used as productive investment to increase the size of their capital.
But, in a credit crunch, people, such as the shops, instead hang on to the notes and coins paid to them, rather than putting them it into the bank. They try to hold on to the notes and coins as much as possible, but to shift as much of their own purchases of materials and so on, to payment by credit, payment by cheque and so on. So this currency circulation is frustrated.
Where the
currency is comprised of precious metals that is real value, representing the expenditure of real social labour-time that is
effectively being made sterile. It is being used neither as revenue,
in other words, it is not being consumed to produce articles of
consumption, like jewellery, not is it being used as capital to buy
means of production and labour-power, so as to increase social
wealth. It is not even being used as currency to facilitate
consumption or the creation of capital.
In essence,
it is as though social labour-time was used to dig up gold and silver
from the ground, mint it, and then stick a portion of it back into
the ground!
But, the use
of precious metal coins is inefficient also for very large
transactions. No business or individual would want to keep large
amounts of gold or silver on their premises to cover very large
purchases, because of the risk of theft. Large currency hoards are,
therefore, kept in the bank. This has advantages also for the bank,
as it lends out this gold and silver at interest. However, the
person who wants to buy some expensive item cannot immediately do so,
because to make payment for it, they must first make arrangements
with the bank, to obtain all of the coins required, and have them
transferred to the seller's bank.
Until such
time as that occurs, the money is not in the seller's account, and
not available for them to use for any purchases of their own.
One of the
reasons that the arguments about Greece issuing Euro denominated
IOU's to pay its employees, and what a catastrophe this would be,
shows a lack of understanding about what money is, is that precisely
in order to avoid the cumbersome procedures, described above, banknotes developed as precisely such IOU's, so that the transfer of funds
could be effected much more quickly and at less cost.
Buyer A
simply obtains a banknote, or several, from their bank, for the
amount of the payment to be made, and hands it to the seller. The
banknote is nothing more than an IOU, which contains the words, “I
promise to pay the bearer the sum of x.”
What the
bank promises to pay to the bearer is the stated quantity of gold or
silver, equal to that specified on the bank note. The reason this
speeded up the velocity of circulation, and so of commodity
transactions, as well as significantly reducing the cost of those
transactions is obvious.
Firstly,
much less actual gold and silver is required in circulation, and as
less is circulated, less of it was lost to wear and tear. Less
social labour time was required to be expended to mine and mint
coins, and so this social labour-time was released for actual wealth
creation.
Secondly,
the banks were able to create a system whereby they could collect all
of the banknotes together and pair them off against each other.
Suppose Bank A has issued banknotes to its customers with a value of
£1 million. Those customers have handed these banknotes to sellers
of commodities, and those sellers have then deposited these notes in
their bank. Meanwhile Bank B has issued £1 million of banknotes to
its customers, who have likewise, bought commodities with these notes,
from sellers, who deposit those notes in Bank A.
Now Bank A
has banknotes drawn on Bank B entitling it to £1 million of gold
from Bank B's vaults, and Bank B has £1 million of banknotes drawn
on Bank A entitling it to that amount of gold from Bank A's vaults.
The two cancel out, so that, in fact, no gold need move an inch! It
was for this purpose that the Banks' Central Clearing House was
established.
I will
continue to examine this tomorrow in Part 2.
No comments:
Post a Comment