错配论。资本积累中的虚构与现实

Shimshon Bichler, Jonathan Nitzan
{"title":"错配论。资本积累中的虚构与现实","authors":"Shimshon Bichler, Jonathan Nitzan","doi":"10.6018/reg.600191","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Political economists, both mainstream and Marxist, find it difficult to reconcile the «real» and «financial» appearances of capital. The conventional view is that «real» capital is an objective productive entity; that «finance» merely reflects this reality; and that, unfortunately, the reflection is often inaccurate, causing the two to «mismatch». This convention, we argue, is baseless if not fraudulent. First, although economists know full well that «real» capital, comprising different capital goods, cannot have a unique objective quantity – they measure this pseudo quantity anyway, arbitrarily. Second, when they realize that their arbitrary measure of «real» capital differs greatly from the corresponding magnitude of finance, they blame the deviation on invisible fluctuations in intangible capital, investor irrationality and market imperfections. And third, they insist that «real» accumulation drives «financial» accumulation, even though their own measures show that the two processes move in opposite directions!\n Political economists, both mainstream and Marxist, find it difficult to reconcile the «real» and «financial» appearances of capital. The conventional view is that «real» capital is an objective productive entity; that «finance» merely reflects this reality; and that, unfortunately, the reflection is often inaccurate, causing the two to «mismatch». This convention, we argue, is baseless if not fraudulent. First, although economists know full well that «real» capital, comprising different capital goods, cannot have a unique objective quantity – they measure this pseudo quantity anyway, arbitrarily. Second, when they realize that their arbitrary measure of «real» capital differs greatly from the corresponding magnitude of finance, they blame the deviation on invisible fluctuations in intangible capital, investor irrationality and market imperfections. And third, they insist that «real» accumulation drives «financial» accumulation, even though their own measures show that the two processes move in opposite directions!","PeriodicalId":239844,"journal":{"name":"Revista de Estudios Globales. Análisis Histórico y Cambio Social","volume":"90 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Mismatch Thesis. Fiction and Reality in the Accumulation of Capital\",\"authors\":\"Shimshon Bichler, Jonathan Nitzan\",\"doi\":\"10.6018/reg.600191\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Political economists, both mainstream and Marxist, find it difficult to reconcile the «real» and «financial» appearances of capital. The conventional view is that «real» capital is an objective productive entity; that «finance» merely reflects this reality; and that, unfortunately, the reflection is often inaccurate, causing the two to «mismatch». This convention, we argue, is baseless if not fraudulent. First, although economists know full well that «real» capital, comprising different capital goods, cannot have a unique objective quantity – they measure this pseudo quantity anyway, arbitrarily. Second, when they realize that their arbitrary measure of «real» capital differs greatly from the corresponding magnitude of finance, they blame the deviation on invisible fluctuations in intangible capital, investor irrationality and market imperfections. And third, they insist that «real» accumulation drives «financial» accumulation, even though their own measures show that the two processes move in opposite directions!\\n Political economists, both mainstream and Marxist, find it difficult to reconcile the «real» and «financial» appearances of capital. The conventional view is that «real» capital is an objective productive entity; that «finance» merely reflects this reality; and that, unfortunately, the reflection is often inaccurate, causing the two to «mismatch». This convention, we argue, is baseless if not fraudulent. First, although economists know full well that «real» capital, comprising different capital goods, cannot have a unique objective quantity – they measure this pseudo quantity anyway, arbitrarily. Second, when they realize that their arbitrary measure of «real» capital differs greatly from the corresponding magnitude of finance, they blame the deviation on invisible fluctuations in intangible capital, investor irrationality and market imperfections. And third, they insist that «real» accumulation drives «financial» accumulation, even though their own measures show that the two processes move in opposite directions!\",\"PeriodicalId\":239844,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista de Estudios Globales. Análisis Histórico y Cambio Social\",\"volume\":\"90 11\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista de Estudios Globales. Análisis Histórico y Cambio Social\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.6018/reg.600191\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista de Estudios Globales. Análisis Histórico y Cambio Social","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6018/reg.600191","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

政治经济学家,无论是主流经济学家还是马克思主义经济学家,都发现很难调和资本的 "现实 "和 "金融 "表象。传统观点认为,"现实 "资本是一个客观的生产实体;"金融 "只是反映了这一现实;不幸的是,这种反映往往是不准确的,导致两者 "不匹配"。我们认为,这种约定俗成的说法即使不是骗人的,也是毫无根据的。首先,尽管经济学家们清楚地知道,由不同资本品组成的 "真实 "资本不可能有一个唯一的客观数量,但他们还是任意地测量了这个伪数量。其次,当他们发现自己任意测量的 "真实 "资本与金融的相应数量相差甚远时,他们会将这种偏差归咎于无形资本的无形波动、投资者的非理性和市场的不完善。第三,他们坚持认为 "实际 "积累推动了 "金融 "积累,尽管他们自己的测量结果表明这两个过程的方向是相反的!无论是主流政治经济学家还是马克思主义政治经济学家,都发现很难调和资本的 "真实 "和 "金融 "表象。传统观点认为,"现实 "资本是一个客观的生产实体;"金融 "仅仅反映了这一现实;不幸的是,这种反映往往是不准确的,导致两者 "不匹配"。我们认为,这种约定俗成的说法即使不是骗人的,也是毫无根据的。首先,尽管经济学家们清楚地知道,由不同资本品组成的 "真实 "资本不可能有一个唯一的客观数量,但他们还是任意地测量了这个伪数量。其次,当他们发现自己任意测量的 "真实 "资本与金融的相应数量相差甚远时,他们会将这种偏差归咎于无形资本的无形波动、投资者的非理性和市场的不完善。第三,他们坚持认为,"实际 "积累推动了 "金融 "积累,尽管他们自己的衡量标准显示,这两个过程的方向是相反的!
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Mismatch Thesis. Fiction and Reality in the Accumulation of Capital
Political economists, both mainstream and Marxist, find it difficult to reconcile the «real» and «financial» appearances of capital. The conventional view is that «real» capital is an objective productive entity; that «finance» merely reflects this reality; and that, unfortunately, the reflection is often inaccurate, causing the two to «mismatch». This convention, we argue, is baseless if not fraudulent. First, although economists know full well that «real» capital, comprising different capital goods, cannot have a unique objective quantity – they measure this pseudo quantity anyway, arbitrarily. Second, when they realize that their arbitrary measure of «real» capital differs greatly from the corresponding magnitude of finance, they blame the deviation on invisible fluctuations in intangible capital, investor irrationality and market imperfections. And third, they insist that «real» accumulation drives «financial» accumulation, even though their own measures show that the two processes move in opposite directions! Political economists, both mainstream and Marxist, find it difficult to reconcile the «real» and «financial» appearances of capital. The conventional view is that «real» capital is an objective productive entity; that «finance» merely reflects this reality; and that, unfortunately, the reflection is often inaccurate, causing the two to «mismatch». This convention, we argue, is baseless if not fraudulent. First, although economists know full well that «real» capital, comprising different capital goods, cannot have a unique objective quantity – they measure this pseudo quantity anyway, arbitrarily. Second, when they realize that their arbitrary measure of «real» capital differs greatly from the corresponding magnitude of finance, they blame the deviation on invisible fluctuations in intangible capital, investor irrationality and market imperfections. And third, they insist that «real» accumulation drives «financial» accumulation, even though their own measures show that the two processes move in opposite directions!
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信