Showing posts with label Real wage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Real wage. Show all posts

September 1, 2025

Occasional Xs: Clueless economists / Real Wage (III)

Posted by at
Labels: , , ,

June 6, 2025

Occasional Xs: Clueless economists / Real Wage (II)

 
Posted by at
Labels: , , ,

March 28, 2025

Occasional Xs: How it works (CCCL)

 
Posted by at
Labels: , ,

August 21, 2024

Occasional Xs: Clueless economists / Employment (IX)

 
Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,

March 19, 2024

Occasional Xs: Clueless economists / Real Wage (I)

 
Posted by at
Labels: ,

November 29, 2023

Occasional Xs: How it works (CXLIII)

 
Posted by at
Labels: , ,

November 13, 2023

Occasional Xs: How it works (CXII)

 
Posted by at
Labels: , , ,

March 25, 2023

Occasional Tweets: The futile attempt to recycle Adam Smith (XXI)

 
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , ,

March 16, 2023

Occasional Tweets: The futile attempt to recycle Adam Smith (XX)

 
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , ,

March 16, 2022

Occasional Tweets: The futile attempt to recycle Marginalism (II)

 


 

For more about marginalism see AXECquery.  
Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,

October 22, 2019

Criminals and the Monetary Order

Comment on Paul Koning on ‘If Nick’s tech-fueled counterfeiting story doesn’t explain why bank IOUs beat out coins, what does?’

Twitter-Reference and Blog-Reference on Oct 23

In order to determine the effects of criminals on the monetary order, one first needs a description of the elementary production-consumption economy. This economy is constructed from scratch with the following set of macroeconomic axioms: (A0) The objectively given and most elementary configuration of the economy consists of the household and the business sector, which in turn consists initially of one giant fully integrated firm. (A1) Yw=WL wage income Yw is equal to wage rate W times working hours L, (A2) O=RL output O is equal to productivity R times working hours L, (A3) C=PX consumption expenditure C is equal to price P times quantity bought/sold X.

Under the conditions of market-clearing X=O and budget-balancing C=Yw in each period, the price is given by P=W/R (1), i.e., the market-clearing price is equal to unit wage costs. This is the most elementary form of the macroeconomic Law of Supply and Demand. For the graphical representation, see AXEC31.


The firm pays the monthly wages with a standardized IOU and declares that this conveniently denominated title will be unconditionally accepted at the firm’s store. The employees accept that the IOUs discharge their wage claim against the firm. The firm issues private money that takes the material form of a slip of paper. It is assumed that the total monthly wage is Yw/12 = 100 monetary units (Euro, Dollar, Ruble, Yuan, etc.). The household sector fully spends its period income, so consumption expenditures C per period are equal to wage income Yw, i.e., C=Yw, i.e,. 1,200=1,200

The IOUs are created out of nothing by the firm, handed over to the household sector in the form of wages, return in the form of consumption expenditures, and are thereby destroyed. There is NO such thing as a fixed quantity of money.

The value of money follows from (1) and is given by W/P=R (2), i.e., the real wage W/P is equal to the productivity R. The value of money depends solely on the production conditions of the economy and NOT on the material value of the firm’s IOUs, which is virtually zero.

The difference between the real value of money (= R) and the lower real production costs of IOUs opens an opportunity for criminals. What happens if counterfeiters exploit this difference?

It is assumed that the counterfeiters bring the fake IOUs at the demand side into circulation, that is, they buy stuff. The market-clearing price is determined by P'=(C+C')/O, which is higher than P=C/O=W*L/R*L=W/R. Because the new real wage W/P' is lower, the part of total output O that the wage income recipients receive is lower, and the difference O−O' goes to the counterfeiters as booty. The redistribution of output is carried out via the price. The higher market-clearing price does not signal increased natural scarcity but indicates that the hidden hand of criminals is at work.

For the business sector as a whole, profit is defined as Q≡C−Yw. Under the initial condition of budget-balancing C=Yw, macroeconomic profit is zero. With the counterfeiters’ additional expenditures, C' the business sector posts a profit of Q=C'. Because the business sector gets more IOUs back than it had issued in the form of wages, macroeconomic profit in a private money economy takes the form of surplus IOUs.

In a world of honest people, IOUs could be a functionally satisfactory type of money. In a world of crooks, though, the incentives for corruption have to be eliminated. One obvious way to close the difference between the high real value of money and the low real production costs is to increase the production costs, for example, by replacing the cheap data carrier paper with the expensive data carrier gold/silver. This, of course, runs against the principle of economic efficiency.

Let us now replace private money with public money, which is produced by the Central Bank. Instead of issuing its own IOUs, the business sector now becomes the debtor of the Central Bank in the form of overdrafts and gets uno actu deposits of the same amount. Central Bank deposits are money. These deposits are used for wage payments and subsequently for the households’ purchases of the consumption good. Thus, the business sector’s overdrafts are again reduced to zero. The idealized transaction pattern is shown on AXEC98.


Money is created out of nothing and is again zero at the end of the period. Money consists of a number on the liability side of the Central Bank’s balance sheet that is exactly equal to the number on the asset side. The real value of money is not in these numbers but depends on the productivity R.

The average stock of transaction money is given as M=κYw, with κ determined by the payment pattern. In other words, the ‘quantity of money’ M is determined by the autonomous transactions of the household and business sector and created out of nothing by the Central Bank in the form of deposits and overdrafts. The economy never runs out of money.

In this monetary system, the challenge for criminals consists of creating a deposit on their own account and an overdraft on somebody else’s. Again, the Central Bank’s counter-measures consist of driving up the production costs of counterfeit money by making their IT systems impenetrable.

In a fiat money system, the production of counterfeit money assumes an entirely different form and a gigantic dimension. If the Central Bank creates money on behalf of the State and the amount G is spent into the economy with taxes left at zero, the effect is the same as money-printing by the counterfeiter. The market-clearing price P'=(C+G)/O increases, and the part of the output that is available to the wage income receivers diminishes. The redistribution of output happens via the price mechanism. The real wage is now lower than productivity. All this is non-transparent to the general public, who is told that the invisible hand pushes the levers of the price mechanism.

With the State’s additional expenditures G, the business sector posts a profit Q=G or Q=G−T in the general case of a budget deficit. So, it holds Public Deficit = Private Profit. Because the business sector gets more deposits back than it had spent in the form of wages, macroeconomic profit in a public money economy takes the form of an increase in the stock of Central Bank deposits, i.e., money. The counterpart of the business sector’s deposits is overdrafts of the State. The financial wealth of the business sector grows in lockstep with public debt. The general public is not aware that it owns the public debt, which has to be repaid at some unknown date in the future.

Public deficit spending is the wrong way to inject money into the economy. This way is NOT different from bringing counterfeit money into the economy. Both the printing of counterfeit money and public deficit spending have, in real terms, the same negative effect on WeThePeople. The only difference is that private counterfeiting is illegal, but public deficit spending is legal.

The foundational defect of the fiat money system is NOT that the Central Bank can create money out of nothing and charge interest to cover its costs, or that the money is not backed by gold; the defect is that the Central Bank enables the State’s deficit-spending, which worsens the real situation of WeThePeople and increases the financial wealth of the Oligarchy.

From the macroeconomic perspective, running a public deficit is as criminal as printing counterfeit money. The first rule for a Central Bank is NOT to keep inflation at 2% but to prevent surpluses and deficits and keep the public deficit at zero.

In a well-designed corruption-free monetary order, the Central Bank is by law committed to a Schwarze-Null/Black-Zero government budget. Fighting inflation or unemployment requires other tools.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


Related 'The right and the wrong way to bring money into the economy' and 'Swabian housewife vs Wall Street loan shark' and 'Deficit cheerleaders ― the Oligarchy’s useful idiots' and 'How to pay for the war and to be bamboozled by economists' and 'Keynes, Lerner, MMT, Trump, etc. and exploding profit' and 'Pareto-efficiency, Hayek’s marvel, and the invisible executor' and 'Is MMT good for WeThePeople or for the Oligarchy?' and 'How counterfeiters save America with an extra profit and make WeThePeople pay for it' and 'Reconstructing the Quantity Theory (I)'.


***

Twitter/X Mar 24, 2024



Twitter/X Feb 19, 2025,  Blackhole economics: How to make it untraceable



***

Grok's summary, Mar 15, 2025

The article titled "Criminals and the monetary order" was published on October 22, 2019, on the AXEC: New Foundations of Economics blog (https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2019/10/criminals-and-monetary-order.html). It is a commentary on Eric Lonergan and Mark Blyth's post "The night of the living dead — why monetarist and Keynesian economists love a crisis" from their blog, Philosophy of Money. Below is a summary of the key points from the article:
Summary
  1. Critique of Monetarists and Keynesians:
    • The article begins by referencing Lonergan and Blyth’s argument that both monetarist and Keynesian economists thrive on crises because these situations allow them to implement their preferred policies—quantitative easing (QE) for monetarists and deficit spending for Keynesians. The author, Egmont Kakarot-Handtke, frames this as a "zombie fight" between two outdated economic paradigms.
  2. Failure to Address Profit:
    • Kakarot-Handtke argues that both monetarists and Keynesians fail to understand the fundamental role of profit in the monetary economy. He asserts that neither school of thought has adequately grasped the systemic laws governing the market economy, particularly the relationship between profit and the monetary order.
  3. The Role of the State and Central Bank:
    • The article outlines an alternative view of the monetary system, emphasizing that the state is essential for establishing the institutional framework of the monetary order, but it should not directly inject money into the economy. Instead, an accommodative central bank should facilitate autonomous transactions between households and businesses.
    • Money, in this view, is described as a "generalized IOU" created and destroyed through transactions between the household and business sectors, with its value determined by the equation W/P = R (where W is nominal wages, P is the price level, and R is productivity).
  4. Criticism of Deficit Spending and QE:
    • Kakarot-Handtke criticizes both QE (a monetarist tool) and deficit spending (a Keynesian tool) as policies that disproportionately benefit the "Oligarchy" (a term he uses to refer to the wealthy elite). He argues that these policies lead to increased financial wealth for the few while burdening the public with debt, without addressing the underlying structural issues of the economy.
  5. Profit Law and Distributional Effects:
    • The author introduces his macroeconomic "Profit Law," asserting that public deficits translate directly into private profits (Public Deficit = Private Profit). He claims that policies like QE and deficit spending exacerbate wealth inequality by channeling benefits to the financial sector and the rich, rather than supporting the broader population ("WeThePeople").
  6. Call for a New Monetary Order:
    • Kakarot-Handtke advocates for a monetary system where the central bank supports growth by ensuring an adequate supply of transaction money, without the state or central bank interfering in autonomous market transactions. He contrasts this with the current system, which he sees as favoring criminals and the oligarchy through "legalized counterfeiting" (e.g., money creation that benefits the elite).
  7. Political and Ethical Dimensions:
    • The article concludes with a broader critique of economics as a discipline, accusing it of being a form of "political economics" that serves the interests of the powerful rather than pursuing scientific truth. Kakarot-Handtke calls for a shift toward a scientifically grounded understanding of the monetary economy, free from the influence of political agendas.
Key Takeaways
  • The author views both monetarist and Keynesian policies as flawed and outdated, arguing that they fail to address the central role of profit and instead perpetuate a system that benefits the wealthy elite.
  • He proposes a monetary system where the state sets up the institutional framework, and the central bank facilitates transactions without direct intervention, ensuring money serves as a neutral medium rather than a tool for enriching the few.
  • The critique is framed as both an economic and ethical argument, highlighting the distributional consequences of current policies and their failure to serve the broader public.
This summary reflects the content and arguments presented in the blog post as of its publication date, October 22, 2019.

***

Twitter/X Mar 17,2025, Could be the computers for the "production of counterfeit money"



Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

June 20, 2018

Nietzsche, entropy, full employment, and NO class war

Comment on David Ruccio on ‘Utopia and work’

Blog-Reference

David Ruccio resumes: “The goal of mainstream economists is to get everybody to work. As a result, they celebrate capitalism for creating full employment — and worry that capitalism will falter if not enough people are working.” However, philosophers have long been aware that full employment is not such a good idea: “According to Friedrich Nietzsche …, the dignity of labor was invented as one of the ‘needy products of slavedom hiding itself from itself.’ That’s because, in Nietzsche’s view (following the Greeks), labor is only a ‘painful means’ for existence and existence (as against art) has no value in itself. Therefore, ‘labour is a disgrace’.”

Let us, first of all, take folk psychology out of the issue. Labor must be seen against the background of entropy. Entropy brings humans eventually down to zero. The intake of goods, energy, etcetera slows this process down. The production of goods, though, requires labor input.

Imagine the following initial state. Every living person gets a plot of land in the form of a hexagon. This land delivers all that the person needs. We can put as many hexagons together as we like. Hexagonland is large and symmetrical. There is no scarcity of land or resources. Each occupant works Li=9 hours per day, has 1 hour leisure, and needs 14 hours for regeneration. The necessary and sufficient output is Oi per day. There is no boss, no exploitation, no slavedom, no government. Whether the Hexagonians think that labor is a disgrace is a matter of indifference. If they stop working, they produce no output, entropy takes over and they drop dead in a little while. This is the original material human condition. Labor is a means to counteract entropy. Without external limitations or disturbances, it can go on for an indefinite time.

Now, we switch to the monetary economy. The elementary production-consumption economy is given with this set of macroeconomic axioms: (A0) The objectively given and most elementary systemic configuration consists of the household and the business sector which in turn consists initially of one giant fully integrated firm. (A1) Yw=WL wage income Yw is equal to wage rate W times working hours L, (A2) O=RL output O is equal to productivity R times working hours L, (A3) C=PX consumption expenditure C is equal to price P times quantity bought/sold X.

Under the conditions of market clearing X=O and budget balancing C=Yw in each period, the price is given as P=W/R (1), i.e. the market clearing price is always equal to unit wage costs. This is the most elementary form of the macroeconomic Law of Supply and Demand.

From (1) follows the real wage as W/P=R (2). The output of the i-th worker is Oi=RLi. For a start, it is assumed that individual labor time Li and output Oi are exactly identical to the situation in Hexagonland. Up to this point, the material situation of the people of Hexagonland has not changed. What has changed is that they work in a firm, get an income, and spend it for consumption goods.

The graphical representation of the elementary production-consumption economy is shown on Wikimedia.#1


Monetary profit of the business sector is defined as Qm≡C−Yw and monetary saving of the household sector is defined as Sm≡Yw−C. It always holds Qm+Sm=0, or Qm=−Sm, in other words, the business sector’s surplus = profit equals the household sector’s deficit = dissaving. Vice versa, the business sector’s deficit = loss equals the household sector’s surplus = saving. This is the most elementary form of the macroeconomic Profit Law. Under the condition of budget balancing C=Yw total monetary profit is zero.

So, profit of the business sector is zero, the workers get the whole output O, the real wage is equal to the productivity.

Now, the organization of the production process is improved through the division of labor and the productivity increases. With unchanged individual and total labor time, total output O increases. The market clearing price falls according to (1) and the real wage increases according to (2). The profit of the business sector is still zero because of C=Yw.

From the observer standpoint, the economy has two limiting paths open, (i) individual labor time Li is kept unchanged and output Oi increases, or (ii), output Oi is kept constant and labor time Li is reduced. If productivity is increasing over time, individual labor time Li goes asymptotically to zero.

Let us call this the Diogenes Solution. Curiously, Nietzsche, when he speaks of  ‘the’ Greeks in the preface to The Greek State never mentions Diogenes. In order not to erect another False-Hero-Memorial, though, it should be mentioned that Diogenes was also a practical economist who was banished from Sinope “when he took to debasement of currency” (Wikipedia). Money creation is NOT meant with the Diogenes Solution but fixing the output Oi at some cultural minimum = maximum.

It holds for both limiting paths and all combinations in-between that the real wage is equal to the productivity, the workers get the whole output, and macroeconomic profit is zero. So, as productivity increases, the Legitimate Sovereign can choose between more material wealth or more leisure or a combination of the two. For the business sector, all combinations are indifferent because profit is zero in all cases as long as the household sector’s budget is balanced, i.e. C=Yw. Macroeconomic profit depends neither on labor time nor on productivity. This is a bit surprising for economists and philosophers who are still stuck in the old world of Walrasian, Keynesian, Marxian, Austrian economics, exploitation, and class war.#2

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 Wikimedia, The elementary production-consumption economy
#2 Ricardo and the invention of class war

Related 'Capitalism, poverty, exploitation, and cross-over exploitation' and 'Employment theory as an example of proto-scientific soapbubbling' and 'The set screws of overall and individual employment' and 'True macrofoundations: the reset of economics.

***
REPLY to Sandwichman on Jun 21

The Lump-of-Labor Fallacy is NOT solvable by comparing/confronting the statements of politicians on the issue of full employment as you do in your post War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.

For the scientifically/philosophically correct answer see the Diogenes Solution in Nietzsche, Entropy, Full Employment, and NO Class War
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)