Log in

View Full Version : Global Surplus Recycling Mechanisms (Guardian article on Varoufakis)



Die Neue Zeit
1st February 2015, 23:11
[Although this idea was suggested by Keynes himself, I don't know if it is now part of Post-Keynesianism / MMT or "Bastard Keynesianism." It was never adopted by the post-WWII consensus, and yet it isn't mentioned much in Post-Keynesian / MMT literature.]

Syriza’s finance minister has a big idea – but will Germany accept it? (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/30/syriza-finance-minister-big-idea-will-germany-accept-it)



By Linsey McGoey

Yanis Varoufakis wants to revive a Keynesian mechanism that may prove unpalatable yet from which Germany directly benefited in the postwar period

Since Syriza’s victory in the Greek elections on Sunday, it is the new Essex-educated finance minister Yanis Varoufakis who has been grabbing most of the headlines. Much of his appeal lies in his iconoclasm: in his 1998 book Foundations of Economics, a kind of bible for the growing alternative economics movement, he cites the British Keynesian Joan Robinson: “The purpose of studying economics is to learn how not to be deceived by economists.”

But what can we expect from this reluctant economist and reluctant politician intellectually? Announcing his decision to run for a parliamentary seat on Syriza’s ticket on his personal blog, Varoufakis stressed that he never wanted to run for office, preferring to channel his policy ideas across the political spectrum. But he grew tired of seeing his policies ignored. Above all he wants to draw attention to an idea that was first conceived by one of his major intellectual influences: John Maynard Keynes. It’s an idea that even ardent Keynsians often neglect; an idea that Keynes dramatically announced to a group of sceptical listeners at the 1944 Bretton Woods conference; an idea that runs diametrically counter to the current policies of Germany’s government. That idea is a global surplus recycling mechanism.

In his recent book The Global Minotaur, Varoufakis claims that the notion of a surplus recycling mechanism is simple in theory and revolutionary in its implications. It was first devised by Keynes while working as an unpaid policy adviser to the British Treasury during the early 1940s. The proposal was an outgrowth of Keynes’s frustration with the limits of the gold standard during the 1920s. At that time there was an outflow of gold from Britain to the US to pay for Britain’s trade deficit. Logically the inflow of gold should have expanded the money supply in the US, increasing the competitiveness of UK exports. But the US adopted policies to offset inflationary pressures. As the economist Marie Christine Duggan has suggested, the harsh lesson for Keynes was that the gold standard was ineffective at forcing creditor nations to increase domestic prices or reinvest their surpluses. Creditor nations were free to hoard as they liked, placing the burden of action on debtor nations who had very little choice but to act in ways that tended to depress their domestic economies.

Keynes’s proposal for curbing the problem was to create global rules that would place equal pressure on both creditor and debtor nations to adjust their respective trade imbalances, helping to ease the burden shouldered by debtor nations. He suggested that any nation that failed to ensure its trade surplus did not exceed a particular percentage of its trade volume would be charged interest, compelling its currency to appreciate. These interest payments would help to finance the second arm of Keynes’s proposal: the creation of an International Clearing Union. The ICU would act as a sort of automatic “global surplus recycling mechanism,” to use Varoufakis’s term.

As Varoufakis has emphasised, individual nations do this internally. They disperse their own wealth, either through direct transfers (paying unemployment benefits in Glasgow or Idaho through taxes raised in London or New York), or through direct investment – purposefully building more factories and infrastructure in depressed regions.

Keynes believed we needed something like this on a global scale. In recent years, the idea has received more and more support: economists such as Paul Davidson and Joseph Stiglitz are supporters. But surplus nations are rarely enthusiastic about the idea. Even though the proposal serves their own interests over the long term (by systematically investing surpluses in depreciated areas, they’re helping to ensure markets for their own exports), few are willing to sacrifice short-term economic supremacy for long-term sustainability.

When Keynes first introduced his proposal, the US delegation at Bretton Woods showed little interest in a plan that would restrict their ability to run whatever surpluses they want. After intense negotiations, Bretton Woods delegates reached an agreement that largely reflected the interests of the US contingent, led by Harry Dexter White. The most significant difference between White’s plan and Keynes’s is that White did not have any forced penalty mechanisms in place to charge interest whenever nations exceed surplus limits. At the time, Geoffrey Crowther – then the editor of the Economist – cautioned that “Lord Keynes was right … the world will bitterly regret the fact that his arguments were rejected.”

Years later it may be time to resurrect a once lost idea. But perhaps too short memories in surplus nations may be the obstacle. Heiner Flassbeck, a professor of economics at Hamburg University, is one of the few German economists to highlight this point. Flassbeck points out that: “We’re asking debtor countries to repay their debt, but at the same time we are preventing them from doing it […] In Germany, unfortunately, the historical lessons are not even discussed. Nobody knows what happened, really, to Germany, what happened to the Germany reparations payments, that they were cancelled.” It’s good that Varoufakis now has a platform to remind them.

Die Neue Zeit
1st February 2015, 23:18
One historical flaw with Keynes's proposal was his ignorance of how the colonial powers of his day and of yesteryear truly developed their own economies: protectionism. I don't see how the Global Surplus Recycling Mechanism allows developing countries to achieve their own trade surpluses, let alone through buying at below-market prices and selling at above-market prices.

Workers-Control-Over-Prod
2nd February 2015, 01:28
Yeah, Varoufakis is an interesting character. I read his book and it was quite interesting. The "global surplus recycling" idea is very appealing.

It's an idea that's obviously from the post-WW2 democratic era. If egalitarian sentiment, of equality between nations etc., keeps growing and the GSRM could ever be implemented by the liberal bourgeoisie today, I don't see how it could be too helpful for the international revolutionary movement though.

The objective stance and assumption of most Marxists today, including Varoufakis, is that capitalism is reaching the margins of its productive capacity, Falling rate of profit theory and all that. So in light of a nonexistent modern global proletarian movement, all these Keynesian capitalist reforms that the modern prominent neo-Marxists like Varoufakis advocate are supposedly justified by an impeding human catastrophe of the end of capitalism. That's the impression I got.
I think comrades in Greece should put more pressure on people like Yanis to go into their work with the assumption of an ascending global proletarian movement, contrary to an assumption of helpless doom.

cyu
2nd February 2015, 23:50
Logically the inflow of gold should have expanded the money supply in the US, increasing the competitiveness of UK exports. But the US adopted policies to offset inflationary pressures.

Let's say a desert island had 2 people: me and Uncle Sam. We find a gold mine with 100 chunks of gold in it. After a few deals, he ends up with 80 gold chunks, and I only have 20. What should I do now?

I buy up as much of the means of production as I can with the 20 gold chunks, then stop accepting gold as money altogether. What good is his gold now? Maybe he can use it to decorate his cabin - make it all shiny.

ckaihatsu
3rd February 2015, 06:08
Let's say a desert island had 2 people: me and Uncle Sam. We find a gold mine with 100 chunks of gold in it. After a few deals, he ends up with 80 gold chunks, and I only have 20. What should I do now?

I buy up as much of the means of production as I can with the 20 gold chunks, then stop accepting gold as money altogether. What good is his gold now? Maybe he can use it to decorate his cabin - make it all shiny.


This abstract scenario is meant to indicate that society is composed of conscious people who can collectively decide to disdain conventional materials like gold for the measurement of value, but, without currency, how could a society continue to measure value and tangible materials -- not to mention the labor for the same -- otherwise -- ?

Certainly society should enjoy the *benefits* of what conventional currency practices confer -- social organization around certain aspects of value, as for the organization of labor, for mass production of needed and desired items for millions and billions.

If the workers of the world seize the means of production would all requirements for the measurement of material values just suddenly cease to exist -- ?

Any economy -- even a post-capitalist one -- would require *some* basis for the social organization of (liberated) labor, and it shouldn't have to regress to the limitations of localism and informality, for very constrained scales of productivity. Today's economy is global, and tomorrow's economy should be worldwide as well.

cyu
3rd February 2015, 07:41
Personally, I'd prefer a gift economy, but even if money will be used in the forseeable future, here's how I would deal with money "wealth":

Let's say a desert island had 3 people: me, mini-me, and Uncle Sam. We find a gold mine with 100 chunks of gold in it. After a few deals, Uncle Sam ends up with 80 gold chunks, and mini-me and I only have 20. What should we do now?

We buy up as much of the means of production as we can with the 20 gold chunks, then stop accepting gold as money altogether. What good is Uncle Sam's gold now? Maybe he can use it to decorate his cabin - make it all shiny.

Mini-me and I draw up 100 pieces of paper money and use that to facilitate our trade. Uncle Sam eventually joins in as well, selling us some coconuts to get a bit of paper money. After a few weeks, Mini-me ends up with 80 pieces of paper money, and Uncle Sam and I only have 20. What should we do now?

Uncle Sam and I buy up as much of the means of production as we can with the 20 pieces of paper money, then stop accepting that paper money altogether. What good is mini-me's paper money now? Maybe he can use it to decorate his cabin.

-------------------------

There are three types of things here:

1. Products: Like food, clothing, shelter, health care. These are the things we ultimately want.

2. Money: Gold, paper money, and other financial instruments. This is good only because it can ultimately get us stuff from category 1. If having this can't get you category 1 stuff, then it's useless.

3. Means of production: Farmland, machinery, factories, raw materials. We use this to create stuff in category 1. You can't eat farmland, you can't live in machinery, but in the long run, this is what you need to get the stuff you want.

Someone who has a lot of stuff from category 1 has a lot of temporary wealth. Eventually it will run out and they will need to find some other source of it.

Someone who has a lot of stuff from category 2 is wealthy only as long as others are willing to trade for category 2 stuff. If others switch their definition of money, then this is no longer wealth at all.

Someone who has a lot of stuff from category 3 has long term wealth. This is where it all comes from. However, he'd still have to be able to use the means of production. Having a lot of machinery, but not being able to use it, would be useless. Capitalists, for example, could own the means of production, but if their employees won't listen, then he produces nothing. If the working class itself controlled the means of production, then they don't have to worry about employer-employee conflict in the same way that capitalists have to worry about.

ckaihatsu
3rd February 2015, 11:23
Personally, I'd prefer a gift economy,


Me as well, but I find the question after *that* to be, 'Would a strictly voluntarist gift economy be *sufficient* for what's being called-for from collectivist production -- ?'

Here's the point, well-expressed, from someone else at another thread:





[T]he worker choosing to stop producing, or substantially reduce their output probably wouldn't suffer any negative consequences. Let's say he makes chairs. He has all the chairs he needs, therefore, it is of no consequence to him if his fellow citizens have nothing but tree stumps to sit on. There's absolutely no incentive, whatsoever, to produce anything he, himself does not need. Furthermore, the people who want chairs can't necessarily make their own, certainly not ones of high quality. More complicated goods, like cars, are basically totally impossible for any one person to produce on their own. This is what is called a 'collective action' problem. This is why some form of incentives are required, because otherwise, you'll never be able to consistently muster the labor required to keep society going. You'll end up with constant shortages, lurching from crisis to crisis, etc. The fact is that technology is not sufficiently advanced to the point where we can run a complex, technologically advanced society simply on voluntary labor.


---





but even if money will be used in the forseeable future,


Any continued use of money is a dependence on capital, necessarily, and on commodified labor.

This question remains:





If the workers of the world seize the means of production would all requirements for the measurement of material values just suddenly cease to exist -- ?

Any economy -- even a post-capitalist one -- would require *some* basis for the social organization of (liberated) labor, and it shouldn't have to regress to the limitations of localism and informality, for very constrained scales of productivity. Today's economy is global, and tomorrow's economy should be worldwide as well.


(See my blog entry for my own treatment for this.)