Marxian economics w/o the gold standard

[harte.beest]

The definition of money has changed considerably. Since 1971 America no longer uses the gold standard, today no country in the world operates using a gold standard either. A lot of recommendations Marx made have already been applied, many problems Marx points out, concerning economics no longer exist.

How would Karl Marx and his fellow comrades feel about today's current money system? Are there any credible, modern, Marxian economics authors? Since Marx said "Paper money is a token representing gold" is it fair to say that we live in a moneyless world already? If not, why not?

[Prometeo liberado]

If you think that money is not a token of, at least allegorically, gold then I don't know what to tell you. I won't even get into the whole "credible, modern, Marxist..." thing with you, troll.

[vagrantmoralist]

Well, not exactly. The Gold Standard was a way to peg a manmade idea - in the case of money, a quantitative value that can be exchanged for goods - to something concrete. In the 70s, governments slowoly realised that the growth of the modern economy could not produce capital quickly enough if it is pegged to a physical money, so we moved to a fiat system. Essentially, it was agreed that the value of the paper dollar was implicit, not explicit.

The end result was that we still had money - we just agreed that its value shouldn't be tied to a physical good. Of course, gold doesn't have an intrinsic value (outside of being relatively rare) in any case, modern monetary systems simply move that idea to the abstract. A moneyless economy, in my opinion, isn't even viable in our world, simply because you cannot allocate resources without some way to quantitatively define the value of good A vs good B. It is a viable (and preferable) system in a post-scarcity world, but that is a long time coming.

As for current Marxist economist, none exist to my knowledge. Though I think Marx would have seen little distinction between our fiat system and the gold standard - both give intrinsic value to something that doesn't actually possess it.

[Prinskaj]

Paper money is merely a token for capital. Marx talked a lot about what money is, mainly in it's relations to things (Other members on this board are far more familiar with this topic than I, so they will be able to give a more satisfying answer in relation to Marx). Money is means by why we acquire goods and services, plain and simple. It is a medium of exchange, as to make capitalism more flexible and dynamic than previously with barter, so what backs up the value is irrelevant to understanding what money is.
If I remember correctly, then it was David Harvey who has touched on this subject a few times.

[harte.beest]

If you think that money is not a token of, at least allegorically, gold then I don't know what to tell you. I won't even get into the whole "credible, modern, Marxist..." thing with you, troll.
Why am I troll this is an honest question?

[jookyle]

It doesn't really matter what form money takes(paper, shiny metal, beads, etc.) it's still money and would be treated such.

[Revolution starts with U]

Why am I troll this is an honest question?

"Troll" = anyone I don't like :lol:

[Prometeo liberado]

Why am I troll this is an honest question?


Are there any credible, modern, Marxian economics authors?

This look familiar^? By asking this backhanded question I am pretty sure you are actually making a statement that there is no such thing as a credible, blah and blah Marxist economics author. Can you give evidence of all the bad ones you have read? What is your criteria for credible and modern? Your "question" is framed to set up or refute any answer. This isn't asking it's trolling.(That was a statement of fact, not a question)

[vagrantmoralist]

I don't see a problem with asking if there are credible, modern Marxist economists. Credible meaning people who use facts to support their assertions, or at least well-formulated theory, and modern meaning someone in the last 20-30 years. How is that a trolling comment?

[Rafiq]

I don't see a problem with asking if there are credible, modern Marxist economists. Credible meaning people who use facts to support their assertions, or at least well-formulated theory, and modern meaning someone in the last 20-30 years. How is that a trolling comment?

There are countless ones. Harvey comes to mind.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[vagrantmoralist]

Then, there is the answer.

[Lucretia]

Do my lying eyes deceive me, or do we have here a Ron Paulite asking questions about Marxian economics?

[vagrantmoralist]

Do my lying eyes deceive me, or do we have here a Ron Paulite asking questions about Marxian economics?

Obsession with the gold standard isn't the only thing that defines a Paulite/Objectivist moron! There's also historical revisionism, ecological disdain, whining about being disenfranchised by minorities, and more!

I mean, it's a relevant question, if just an uninformed one.

[Luís Henrique]

Why am I troll this is an honest question?

Maybe people are reacting to some other of your posts. I wouldn't know, I haven't checked them. But you are right, your question is an important one:


The definition of money has changed considerably. Since 1971 America no longer uses the gold standard, today no country in the world operates using a gold standard either. A lot of recommendations Marx made have already been applied, many problems Marx points out, concerning economics no longer exist.

How would Karl Marx and his fellow comrades feel about today's current money system? Are there any credible, modern, Marxian economics authors? Since Marx said "Paper money is a token representing gold" is it fair to say that we live in a moneyless world already? If not, why not? Money is, by definition, a token. Even gold money is a token, though of course money has a value of itself. Paper money, consequently, is a token of a token; it is only logical that the intermediate form of gold money is eventually suppressed:

* an X amount of gold represents an X' amount of any given commodity.
* an X'' amount of paper tokens represent an X amount of gold.
* ergo, an X'' amount of paper tokens can perfectly represent an X' amount of any given commodity.

The Keynesian reasoning is that the material laster of circulating paper money is the gross product itself. Indeed, even when gold is the current money, there must be a correspondence of some sort between the "monetary side" of the economy and its "real side": each time some commodity changes hands, an equivalent amount of money necessarily changes hands in the opposite direction. In this sence, the use of gold (or silver, it doesn't make any difference) as general equivalent is arguably a problem, for the expansion or retraction of general production of commodities does not necessarily matches the expansion or retraction of the amount of circulating metal. For this reason, paper money is a far more practical solution, as the amount of circulating currency can be far more easily adapted to the variation of the total production of commodities.

Of course, fiat currency relies always in a tacit fantasy: that banks, or the central bank, would be able, at any given moment, to exchange its notes for actual wealth, which is not possible if all bank note carriers decide to call the bluff at the same time. Ergo, it is a system based on trust: as long as most paper money users trust it to be solid money, it works; at the moment trust fails, a bank run is unavoidable (either in the form of an actual bank run, that will prompt immediate government intervention in order to make currency inconvertible, or in the form of hyperinflation, with consumers avidly trying to get rid of their notes in exchange for commodities as fast as possible), and the demise of the system becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

But getting back to a gold standard system is no longer an actual possibility; it would put a straightjacket on the accumulation of capital, and consequently would attract the systematic opposition of each and every capitalist. Capitalism needs credit as aerobic life needs oxygen, and credit presuposes advancing money before the creation of the corresponding material new wealth.

Concerning Marx and paper money, whether paper money makes Marxian economics obsolete, it depends on whether you believe paper money actually solves the problems prompted by the limitations of metallic money, or merely postpones or conceals them.

Luís Henrique

[Conscript]

Paper money is still treated like a commodity for other commodities to be measured against, value-wise, just rather than gold itself. It's a quantitative difference.

[Raúl Duke]

gold, fiat...
"value"
it's still all an abstraction, a construct.

[ckaihatsu]

Capitalism needs credit as aerobic life needs oxygen, and credit presuposes advancing money before the creation of the corresponding material new wealth.





Paper money is still treated like a commodity for other commodities to be measured against, value-wise, just rather than gold itself. It's a quantitative difference.


Capitalism explicitly *shows* that it's outlived its usefulness, by having to resort to abstractions of abstractions -- if everyone's going to implicitly 'trust' in this hyper-abstracted and mega-managed routine of value representation then why don't we just have communism instead -- ?

Communism would at least allow all valuations to be *democratically* controlled, in more of a flat-level way, over *tangible* production outputs and supply-chain / consumption inputs.

I mean, are we all adults here, or what -- ??!


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

http://tinyurl.com/mtspczpcpe