Abstract
At several points in earlier chapters, reference has been made concerning the relationship of fluid capital to the capital notions of Hayek, Keynes, Schumpeter, and others. The purpose of this chapter is to examine these connections in greater detail. In doing this, I hope to provide readers not only with a better understanding of what is meant by fluid capital, but also to convince them that capital theory is still an extremely interesting and fruitful subject for research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
The current younger generation of economists, at least on the US side of the Atlantic, might think that conceptual problems involving capital have been solved, comfortable with the idea that capital is simply the argument “K” in the aggregate production function. In my opinion, this is an incorrect reading of what finally emerged from the capital controversy of the 1960s and 1970s. Despite the apparent agreement on reswitching, Cambridge, USA, no more convinced Cambridge, UK, of the correctness of its position than Cambridge, UK, convinced Cambridge, US. Moreover, as has been pointed out by Mirowski (1989, Chap. 6), the concepts of capital of the two sides were simply too incompatible for there to have been any meaningful compromise. What happened (at least in my view) was that both sides simply tired of the debate, and went on to other things.
- 2.
Schumpeter (1934, p. 102).
- 3.
Schumpeter notes (Theory, p. 101) that the entrepreneur may mortgage goods acquired with the newly created purchasing power, but there is still a time interval, if only an instant, in which the entrepreneur’s credit is unsecured.
- 4.
Since the Theory was first published (in German) in 1911, Schumpeter’s concept of forced saving clearly predated the debate between Keynes and Robertson regarding forced saving.
- 5.
It should be noted that if the economy is at less than full employment when credit is created to finance a new combination, forced saving is not necessary because the resources to be transferred to entrepreneurs can come out of existing stocks. Moreover, there is no necessity of a temporary increase in prices. Since Keynes saw unemployment as the norm, this is obviously an important difference between Schumpeter and Keynes.
- 6.
The only problem I have with Schumpeter’s view regarding the creation of entrepreneurial credit is the implication that purchasing power cannot be borrowed, but must be created de novo. This was necessary for Schumpeter because of his assumption that innovation always begins from a position of full employment.
- 7.
At various points in his writings, Schumpeter extended his concept of “claim ticket” to income by viewing income as representing a pool of claims to the social dividend. This characterizes the definition of income adopted in this book.
- 8.
At his death, Schumpeter left an unpublished manuscript on money, which was subsequently published in German (Schumpeter 1970). As far as I know, the only part of this book that has been translated into English is the editor’s introduction. This is found in a Ph.D. thesis by Michael Reclam (1984) at the University of California at Riverside. See also McCraw (2007, p. 155, footnote 11).
- 9.
This is in marked contrast to Keynes, for whom the rate of interest was determined, in normal circumstances, by the unwillingness of individuals to give up the liquidity of money. In assessing this difference between Keynes and Schumpeter, however, it must be kept in mind that their two points of reference are very different. Schumpeter’s equilibrium was a stationary state in which the circular flow endlessly repeated itself, and there was no uncertainty. In disequilibrium – i.e., when investment was occurring – when the interest rate for Schumpeter is nonzero, there is not much difference between their two views on interest. Also, in the very long run, Keynes had the marginal efficiency of capital falling to zero, which, in the absence of uncertainty, would imply a zero rate of interest as well.
- 10.
In general, Schumpeter had a very critical view of Keynes. He had admiration for the Treatise on Money, but none at all for the General Theory. Schumpeter undoubtedly viewed Keynes as his rival as the “World’s Greatest Economist,” whereas Keynes did not reciprocate. I doubt that it ever crossed Keynes’s mind that the world’s greatest economist was anyone other than himself!
- 11.
And even in this case, it would seem that (in normal circumstances) the ability to lend is constrained by current income (or more generally by the current pool of fluid capital).
- 12.
Before leaving this discussion of Fisher’s concept of capital, it is interesting to note that, at one point in The Nature of Capital and Interest, Fisher describes capital in terms of the stock of all goods in existence. Assuming that this includes goods-in-process as well as finished goods, it corresponds to the goods side of the pool of fluid capital as defined in this book.
- 13.
There is a tendency in the literature to equate roundaboutness with the period of production and to associate more roundabout techniques with a longer period of production. This is a mistake. Although Böhm-Bawerk, himself, seems guilty of this at times, his intent, it is pretty clear, was to identify roundaboutness with division of labor, which in most cases leads to a shortening, rather than a lengthening, of the period of production.
- 14.
Böhm-Bawerk (1959, p. 102).
- 15.
- 16.
- 17.
Hirshleifer (1970).
- 18.
Samuelson (1976, p. 11).
- 19.
See Appendix A.
- 20.
- 21.
The physical capital goods in reference are those in inventory, not those already in situ through investment. The latter are represented in the stock of produced means of production.
- 22.
Cf. the discussion in Chap. 2.
- 23.
By undepreciated, I mean original cost of investment minus accumulated myros recovery charges.
- 24.
The case where the oilfield is sold after development, but before production begins, will be considered in a moment.
References
Baumol, W.J. (1971), “Optimal Depreciation Policy: Pricing the Products of Durable Assets,” The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 638–56.
Hirshleifer, J. (1970), Investment, Interest, and Capital, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Jevons, W.S. (1871), Theory of Political Economy (fourth edition, 1911; reprinted 1924, 1931), Macmillan, London.
Keynes, J.M. (1937b), “Alternative Theories of the Rate of Interest,” Economic Journal, Vol. 47, pp. 241–52.
McCraw, T.K. (2007), Prophet of Doom: Joseph Schumpeter and Creative Destruction, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Mirowski, P. (1989), More Heat than Light: Economics as Social Physics, Physics as Nature’s Economics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Reclam, M. (1984), J.A. Schumpeter’s ‘Credit’ Theory of Money, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, MI (Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Economics, University of California, Riverside, 1984).
Samuelson, P.A. (1976), “Interest Rate Determinations and Oversimplifying Parables: A Summing Up,” in Essays in Modern Capital Theory, ed. by M. Brown, K. Sato, and P. Zarembka, North Holland Publishing Co, Amsterdam.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1970), Das Wesen des Geldes, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen.
Solow, R.M. (1965), Capital Theory and the Rate of Return, Rand McNally & Co, Chicago.
Taylor, L.D. (1998), “On Depletion of an Exhausting Natural Resource,” Non-Renewable Resources, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 225–32.
Turvey, R. (1968), Optimal Investment and Pricing in Electricity Supply, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Wicksell, K. (1936), Interest and Prices (translated by R.F. Kahn) (reprinted by Augustus M. Kelley, 1965).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Taylor, L.D. (2010). Capital Theory in Perspective. In: Capital, Accumulation, and Money. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98169-7_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98169-7_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-98168-0
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-98169-7
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)