ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Another example of how corrupt the Ukraine regime is. Even the chief justice has been taking bribes.
If anyone wants to go into more detail of the point Marx and Engels were making in that chapter there is this article from 1983. It also explains the controversy in the 19th century between the Currency School (based on Ricardo) and its opponents, the Banking School (who Marx thought got the better of the argument). It all very much an academic question now of course.
Yes , I noticed too that Engels had cobbled together that chapter and added quite a bit himself. He and Marx were criticising the Quantity Theory of Money as put forward by Ricardo that says that the level of prices depends on the amount of money put into circulation. Which does seem to contradict what Marx says elsewhere.
But there is no contradiction. Ricardo was arguing that this applies when there is a currency composed of gold and paper notes convertible on demand into a fixed amount of gold. Marx (and others) challenged this theory arguing that, with a convertible paper currency circulating alongside gold, it’s the other way round — that the amount of money in circulation depends on the number of prices to be realised; if too many convertible bank notes were issued this would not cause inflation as the notes would simply return to the bank that issued them.
With an inconvertible paper currency (as now), on the other hand, the quantity theory does apply, as Marx explained in the passage quoted by Lizzie.
According to this article in this weekend’s i paper, Starmer is now all but saying he is a Tory:
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-real-conservatives-keir-starmer-protect-way-life-2337576
He may well not be but is only pretending to be so as to catch votes.
Apparently the local elections weren’t quite good enough to ensure Labour gets an overall majority in next year’s general election. He won back Brexit voters but not by convincing them they were wrong but by pandering to their prejudices. If he says he agrees with sending refugees to Rwanda (the only card the Tories have left to play) he might just get over the line and avoid having to govern with the support of the Liberals who might restrain him on this sort of thing.
And of course he hasn’t got any values. As a lawyer he has been trained to argue any case whether or not he believes it.
In any case, the next election is going to be more than ever a choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
Biden as a “plastic Paddy” again:
That Wikipedia entry says that
“the ‘bullion controversy’ gave him fame in the economic community for his theory on inflation in 19th-century England. This theory became known as monetarism, the theory that excess currency leads to inflation.”
I thought that entries in Wikipedia were checked and double checked. Apparently not in this case. Ricardo had nothing to say about inflation in 19th century England. First, he died in 1823. Second, there was no inflation in 19th century Britain:
“From the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 until the start of World War II in 1914, there was no inflation in most countries, and in many cases, prices were lower in 1914 than they had been in 1815. Prices fluctuated up and down from one decade to the next, but overall, prices remained stable.”
(https://globalfinancialdata.com/the-century-of-inflation#:~:text=The%20Nineteenth%20Century,they%20had%20been%20in%201815.)The reason was that during this period Britain had a paper currency that was convertible on demand into a fixed quantity of gold. This convertibility had been suspended during the Napoleonic wars and Ricardo was one of those in favour of its reintroduction (which happened in 1821) as a way of avoiding the inflation that had occurred during the Napoleonic Wars when there was no such convertibility.
Here’s his article:
https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1442/rates-up-economy-down/
Roberts is using the word “inflation” as the equivalent of “rise in the consumer prices index”. This can rise for other reasons than the overissue of an inconvertible paper currency and in fact the current rise in this index has largely been due to other factors (energy price shock, supply chain problems). He is right that fiddling with the bank rate won’t counter these particular price rises.
Anyway, what was the theory put forward by Ricardo and Mill?
Revealing article in yesterday’s Le Monde showing that the much-touted Ukrainian offensive would be a war of conquest of Russian-speaking areas which is bound to involve, if successful, ethnic cleansing on a massive scale.
“The remaining inhabitants’ cohabitation with the military is anything but simple. “In and around Bakhmut, I sometimes have the impression that we are the invaders!” said Andryi, 55, a soldier of the territorial brigade from Kharkiv, fighting in the Donbas since December 2022. “Everywhere in Ukraine, the population supports us, they offer us food. In the Donbas, a tiny chicken is sold to us for 500 hryvnas [$13] and we rent half-demolished houses for 15,000 hryvnas [$405]. This is not Ukraine.”
That’s reassuring. I was beginning to imagine you dressing up as a cavalier at your Civil War re-enactment society events. Incidentally, the Party will have a stall at the Levellers Day event in Burford on Saturday 20 May. Come dressed as a pikeman if you can make it.
Fair enough. You reject the materialist conception of history and interpret history in terms of some abstract, eternal principles of morality. It’s not a crime. A lot of people do.
That wasn’t your original position, TS. You commended Charles I for not being a “prop of the bourgeoisie”. Which of course is what Charles III is, though “puppet” might be a better term.
That would have saved you from being hanged, drawn and quartered when Charles II came to power.
Odd for a socialist to criticise the bourgeoisie for being too revolutionary.
Even Winstanley and the Diggers supported the overthrow of the king and the defeat of the royalists. They knew that this was a precondition for making the Earth a common treasury for all.
The first Charles wouldn’t play ball. That’s why they chopped his head off. At least he wouldn’t be a prop for the bourgeoisie.
What !!! Next you’ll be telling us that James II was a good bloke too. I think you are forgetting, comrade, that at the time the bourgeois revolution was historically progressive.
