Platskuldir Íslendinga...fjármálakerfið á villigötum?

Ég er hrifin af kenningum sem Gunnar Tómasson hagfræðingur setur fram á Gang8. Ég skil þessar kenningar þannig að peningar eigi sér tvennskonar rætur. Þeir eru annars vegar framleiðslupeningar og hins vegar snýkjupeningar. Framleiðslupeningar verða til við verðmætasköpum þar sem auðlindum er umbreytt í verðmæti. Snýkjupeningar verða til í fjármálakerfinu og valda verðbólgu vegna þess að það eru engin verðmæti á bak við þá.

Gott væri að fá komment á þennan skilning minn frá spekingum

Mér hefur oft dottið í hug að eina vitið væri að hafna þessum mælingum sem eru að mæla þjóðina til fjandans. Hafna útreikningum fjármálakerfisins á skuldum okkar. Enda eru þetta að mestu platskuldir.

Amen

Þetta hefur Gunnar Tómasson hagfræðingur um peninga að segja:

In principle, there are two kinds of money - productive and parasitic.

By productive money I mean the IOUs which link Owner/Suppliers of Factor Inputs, on the one hand, and Entrepreneurs/Buyers of Factor Inputs, on the other hand. 

Such money represents what Adam Smith termed “the great wheel of commerce” (or “circulation”).

In practice, Entrepreneurs/Buyers of Factor Inputs exchange their IOUs for IOUs issued by commercial banks alias legal tender money.

Legal tender money conveys a “guarantee” to Owner/Suppliers of Factor Inputs that they can redeem them in the Final Output equivalent of Factor Inputs supplied.

By parasitic money I mean the IOUs which non-Owner/Suppliers of Factor Inputs exchange for IOUs issued by commercial banks alias legal tender money for the purpose of acquiring part of the Final Output equivalent of Factor Inputs supplied by Owner/Suppliers of Factor Inputs.

Thereby parasitic money becomes a vehicle of Final Demand Inflation, whereby the ownership rights to Final Output of Owner/Suppliers of Factor Inputs are diluted.

In the Market for Final Output, Productive + Parasitic Money = Aggregate Demand become the “source” of Profit and/or Interest on Production Credit.

Athugasemdir

[Gunnar Tómasson (IP-tala skráð) 11.4.2009 kl. 23:46]

Sæl Jakobína.

Þetta er rétt skilið hjá þér.

Ég fór aðeins nánar út í þessi mál á Gang8 fyrr í dag - sjá hér að neðan.

Kær kveðja,

Gunnar 

*** 

In going back to basics in monetary economics in the 1970s, I was guided by the maxim noted by John Stuart Mill in his mid-19th century essay on outstanding methodological issues in economic science:

What is true in the abstract in economic science is also true in the real world given appropriate allowances.

I.

A case in point.

It is true in the abstract that all production in entrepreneurial market economies is predicated on a creditary relationship between Owner/Suppliers of Factor Inputs and Entrepreneurs, beginning with the Supply of Factor Inputs and ending with the Supply of their Final Output equivalent.

In the real world, the banking system transforms IOUs of individual Entrepreneurs into general Money/Bank IOUs.

When paid to Owner/Suppliers of Factor Inputs, Money/Bank IOUs represent a claim on their Final Output equivalent.

In the real world, this relationship holds true below the surface of observable monetary/economic phenomena.

This abstract view of production in entrepreneurial market economies is reflected in those parts of the General Theory where Keynes argued (as did Pigou) that the value of an economy’s work in progress can only change through net change in its factor content.

Samuelson (in ‘The Rate of Interest Under Ideal Conditions’, 1939) and Klein (in ‘The Keynesian Revolution’, 1947) challenged this axiomatic proposition of Keynes and Pigou on the grounds that the proposition might remain true at any given instant in time but false over time.

Klein held his and Samuelson’s argument to be obvious to any student of elementary calculus.

The point of their argument was to rationalize a non-zero rate of interest on production credits and/or net entrepreneurial profits.

II.

Final Demand Inflation.

But the attributes of the calculus do not impact axiomatic propositions in economic science.

Hence my own proposition that Final Demand Inflation is a necessary and sufficient condition for the phenomena of a non-zero rate of interest on production credits and/or net entrepreneurial profits.

That is to say, an economy's banking system must issue IOUs/Money to borrowers for financing their acquisition of Final Output for such phenomena to arise.

III.

Savings out of Factor Incomes.

Owner/Suppliers of Factor Inputs to the production process may save part of their Factor Incomes rather than exchange them for Final Output.

In principle, a Savings-and-Loans system can serve as an intermediary to ensure that Aggregate Demand will not be affected by such Savings.

IV.

Direct and Indirect Parasitic Credit Creation

Credit Creation in a market economy comprises

(1)    Production Credit;

(2)    Final Demand Inflation; and

(3)    Other Credit.

Final Demand Inflation "robs" Owner/Suppliers of Factor Inputs of part of their Final Output equivalent.

Thus, interest on production credit over and above the factor cost of the banking system's production credit operations is directly parasitic.

Other Credit serves non-productive activities of all kinds.

If the latter impact productive activities adversely, they are indirectly parasitic.

[Jakobína Ingunn Ólafsdóttir, 11.4.2009 kl. 23:58]

Þakka þér fyrir Gunnar

[Helga Þórðardóttir, 12.4.2009 kl. 01:00]

Hrikalega er ég fegin að heyra að þetta eru bara platskuldir. Ekki veitir af að fá einhverjar jákvæðar fréttir þessa dagana. Nú er bara að boða fagnaðarerindið.

[Arinbjörn Kúld, 12.4.2009 kl. 13:56]

Forvitnilegt. er erihvern með slóðina á gang8 ?

[Jakobína Ingunn Ólafsdóttir, 12.4.2009 kl. 14:33]

http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/gang8/