From: Ian Wright (wrighti@acm.org)
Date: Tue Jul 01 2008 - 19:16:06 EDT
> The usurer of the past, or the merchant bank of today, was not > 'postponing consumption', they were and are in the business of lending > to make money as a business, in order to grow their capital. Lending at the natural rate of interest by definition does not grow one's capital. > The distinction between equity capital and loan capital is relatively > superficial and indicates a rather anglo saxon perspective on > capitalism. Outside of the English speaking world, finance capital, > rather than equity capital has been a characteristic form of ownership > of large industry. Taken at face value, your argument would suggest > that the classic German model of capitalism described by Hilferding > would not be exploitative. If I lend to you at the natural rate of interest, so you can start a firm to produce widgets, and you pay me back in 10 years time, then you've got a business and I have the same claim on the fruits of labour as I did ten years ago. No exploitation here. In contrast, if I purchase equity in your widget-firm, and in 10 years time you've paid back my initial expenditure plus natural interest in the form of dividends, I still have a claim on your firm's revenue stream. I will do in-perpetuity as long as I own the shares. In this case, I am receiving income from other people's work. So this is an example of exploitation. Aren't these cases different? Isn't there an important distinction to be made between: (i) lending money, and (ii) having equity-capital in a firm? _______________________________________________ ope mailing list ope@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 31 2008 - 00:00:08 EDT