The greenfield-type of foreign direct investment (FDI) by multinational corporations (MNC) is different from the merger and acquisition (M&A) type FDI in that the latter incurs so-called 'goodwill' to the investor. Most researchers in accounting have understood 'goodwill' to be supernormal profits capitalized by the normal profit rate in the industry due to certain advantageous assets held by a specific company. It actually represents, however, negative 'promoter's profits': i.e., normal profit in the industry capitalized by the general interest rate. When a company is purchased in an M&A, its asset value as industrial capital is evaluated as equity capital; the discrepancy between them stands for 'goodwill'. This is the process in which industrial capital is transformed into industry-equity capital, although the Japanese accounting standards still requires 'goodwill' to be depreciated over years. As companies expand their scale via cross-border M&As and become multinational, they are inevitably compelled to maximize capital gains in order to compensate 'goodwill' which accumulates as fictitious intangible assets. The second half of the 1990s witnessed an unprecedented surge of cross-border M&As especially between US and EU countries. When we turn our attention to the historical development of the world economy, we find that the advanced capitalist countries commonly underwent a substantial transition in the early 1980s, in which their profit rates, after suffering from a tendency toward long-term decline, began to pick up again. Their profit rates, with the exception of Japan, gradually and steadily strengthened the rising tendency toward the period of the so-called 'Information Technology' bubble in the second half of the 1990s. We also find that foreign indirect investment of the world developed in three stages: i. e., bank loan in the 1970s, which led to the dramatic debt crisis of developing countries after 1982 onward; bond investment in the 1980s, which was strongly facilitated by the so-called 'twin deficit' of the US economy, being financed by a massive inflow of foreign capital into Treasury securities; and finally, equity investment after the middle of the 1990s. International surplus capital finally established its complete form in equity capital with the help of some historical events such as the 'Big Bang' in the UK in 1986 and the reunification of Germany in 1990. It has been globally circulating among advanced capitalist countries, developing countries, 'emerging markets', and 'economies in transition'. Therefore, the transformation of MNCs into industry-equity capital, which took place on a massive scale in the second half of the 1990s, was simultaneously accompanied by that of international surplus capital into equity investment; and their combination statistically manifested itself in the highly synchronized movement of FDI and equity investment in the same period. The double transformation seems to bring about possibly fatal diseases to the capitalist world economy. Firstly, in the sphere of an individual MNC, it appears as speculative pursuit of capital gains and as strong aversion to R&D and fixed capital investment. Secondly, in the sphere of a national economy, it takes the form of wasteful and unproductive consumption of realized capital gains, which results in the deterioration of the nation's current account. Lastly, in the sphere of the world economy as a whole, it inevitably creates instability in the international capital markets. MNCs are most likely to transfer their capital as frequently as necessary for the sake of securing their capital value, if not for speculation. The interaction between unstable FDI and speculative equity investment would be one of the most serious hindrances to the health of developing countries.

抄録全体を表示

For many years the corporation has been held to be the legal entity for raising a large amount of funds from the public. In the late 19^<th> and early 20^<th> centuries many corporations were organized to build large scale production equipment in heavy industries. Rudolf Hilferding wrote in his "Das Finanzkapital" on the role of corporation and German banks in the development of the German economy. German banks extended large amounts of long-term credit to firms in the steel, mining, chemical and railroad industries. And afterwards banks advised debtor firms to change their company organizations into corporations. Banks purchased all equities issued by the new corporations and at the same time corporations repaid borrowings to banks. Thus banks recovered their capital and held all stock issued by corporations. Several years later banks sold the stocks to public investors, many of whom were the customers of banks. Quite naturally banks gained big profits and this profit was named "Gruender's Gewinn" (founder's gain). Corporation stocks are bought and sold, circulate from hand to hand among the public investors in either stock-exchanges or other secondary markets, thus investors avoid any risks (credit-risk and others), and in the market stocks move similarly to that of corporation equity. Hilferding named the capital moving in stock market "fictitious capital". Since the late 19^<th> century more than one hundred years have passed and the industrial structure has dramatically changed. In the late 19^<th> century the core of the industrial structure was heavy industry. The flagship industry of the 20^<th> century is either the motor-car industry or the electrical appliances industry. Neither requires large heavy production equipment, and therefore doesn't need large amounts of long-term capital funds. At the same time the cluster of a great many accommodative firms in the parts and material industry has grown surrounding the big motor-car companies and the electrical appliances companies. Thus, it is a specific feature of these two 20^<th> century industries that they employ more man-power and less long-term capital funds than the 19^<th> century industries. Now, in the early 21^<st> century, the new quickly-emerging industry is the "internet service industry". Month after month many new companies are born. Their businesses are not the manufacturing industrial business. The only production-equipment is the personal computer. Their workshop in many cases just occupies small room or one floor of an office building. Therefore, this new 21^<st> century industry does not require large amounts of long-term capital. They need only manpower. The industries in the 19th, 20th, and 21^<st> centuries belongs to the demand side of capital. On the other hand, the supply side capital has been being increasingly concentrated. The supply side of capital, for instance, incorporates the life-insurance companies, pension funds, investment trusts, universities, endowments and others. Today, the total financial assets of these institutional investors is enormous, while the capital needs of industry is much smaller. As a result the institutional investors cannot find good investments in the market, and consequently invest funds in so-called hedge funds, in which fund managers invest speculatively. Sometimes fund managers are green-mailers. In the stock-exchange today many M&As take place and recently in many cases, purchasers want to buy stocks of the target company with the stocks of the purchaser's company. In this case the stock of the purchaser is the quasi-money and, as a matter of course, all company presidents of the listed companies are focused on raising the price of their company stocks. It is natural, therefore, that window-dressing settlements and manipulation of

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

抄録全体を表示

This paper focuses on the selfdissolving contradictions in modern stock companies which tends to bring the transition from the private property to the social property. Stock companies in general have been developed with the credit system and have an increasing tendency to separate the functioning capitalists from the money-capitalists with the advance of credit. The capital of stock companies, which assumes the form of social capital, in itself rests on a social mode of production and presupposes a social concentration of means of production and labor-power. It is the abolition of capital as private property within the framework of capitalist production itself. The separation of capitalists results in the transformation of the actually functioning capitalists into a mere manager, administrator of other people's capital, and of the owner of capital into a mere owner, a mere money-capitalist. The mere manager who has no title whatever to capital, performs all the real functions pertaining to the functioning capitalists as such, only the functionary remains and the capitalist disappears as superfluous from the production process. In stock companies the function is divorced from capital ownership, hence also labor is entirely divorced from ownership of means of production and surplus-labor. This result of the ultimate development of capitalist production is a necessary transitional phase towards the reconversion of capital into the property of producers, although no longer as the private property of the individual producers, but rather as the property of associated producers, as outright social property. On the other hand, the stock company is a transition toward the conversion of all functions in the reproduction process which still remain linked with capitalist property, into mere functions of associated producers, into social functions. This is the abolition of the capitalist mode of production within the capitalist mode of production itself, and hence a selfdissolving contradiction, which represents a mere phase of transition to a new form of production. However, since property of stock companies still exists in the form of stock, its movement and transfer become purely a result of gambling on the stock exchange. The conversion to the form of stock still remains ensnared in the framework of capitalism. Therefore, instead of overcoming the antithesis between the character of wealth as social and as private wealth, the stock companies merely develop it in a new form. From this point of view, stock companies should be controlled or managed by the social and public power. Hence, instead of changing capitalist property into socialist property, the reform of stock companies could be conducted by these control and management. This paper analyzes several forms of these control and management which range from national law and rules to global standards.

抄録全体を表示

Studies on social and competitive characters of the personal consumption had been started by T. Veblen at the end of nineteenth century. But the society he observed still wasn't a consumer society. As J. B. Shore said, the consumer society as a society in which discretionary consumption has become a mass phenomenon started in the United States in the 1920s. In the consumer society, kinds of goods and services as commodities have diversified significantly and the range of the means of livelihood that enter people's daily consumption through the market has expanded remarkably. Therefore, generally speaking, the consumer society appears with following changes. Firstly the spiritual culture oriented to a frugal life in a closed local community has declined, and secondly the homemade necessities of life have been replaced by the purchase of consumers' goods and services through the market. The consumer society in which their desire has become abundant and unlimited expresses exactly the pure form of capitalism, anything but deviation from it. The purpose of this paper is, first, to grasp conceptually that the development of consumer society shows the inevitable tendency to the purification of capitalism. Next, to explain logically that such a consumer's figure has derived from the same concepts of work entities in capitalism. The recognition of logical relations between the formation of the consumer society and the appearance of pure capitalism will help to solve many of essential problems in today's socio-economics.

抄録全体を表示

Examinations to carry out the formation of the optimum distribution of resources and labor by the calculation of labor expenditure without using money, was performed among socialists before. This thought was inherited in the Soviet Union. When it thinks that it can produce stock such as machinery by labor and stock, it is labor that is scarce eventually. But when think in each period; stock which received from the before period is limited and total labor in this period is limited, so that consumption in this period decreases when labor and stock which are necessary for increase the stock, are allocated. Therefore, when products are evaluated by the value that economists in classical school and Marx calculated by labor, we cannot achieve the optimum allocation. In the Soviet Union, Novozirof (1959) and Kantorovich (1959) are showed the optimum allocation in the solution of linear programming, but they did not succeed in leading it only from labor expenditure. In this paper I show the calculation formula of the appropriate evaluation of products by labor expenditure which can lead the optimum solution. We can calculate the quantity of labor necessary directly and indirectly to produce one unit of product from using simultaneous equations. It is equal to the quantity of labor that is necessary to produce a unit of net product. Similarly we can calculate the quantity of stock directly and indirectly to produce one unit of product from using similar simultaneous equations. Even if stock consists of having many kinds, when the stock is produced in labor and stock, we can add it up by the quantity of labor that is necessary to produce it directly and indirectly. I'll call 'cost' that x+ξ・z; x is the quantity of labor necessary to produce one unit of net product, z is the quantity of stock evaluated by labor that is necessary to produce it directly and indirectly, and hung a coefficient ξ for saving stock. Because the government appoints an appropriate coefficient ξ and companies choose production methods to minimize costs, we can achieve the most suitable production formation. What we should pay attention to is for the profit that is income not to enter in a calculation formula. The coefficient for saving stock is not income. Another point to pay attention to is that the production price in capitalist production system is approximation of the most suitable calculation by labor. But concerning space, I am going to explain it in detail in the next article in this connection. In addition, in a sign, y is durability, ζ is the quantity of the stock necessary for production per a unit and z is its total evaluation by labor. And c is consumer goods, e is first producer's goods, d is second producer's goods. About subscript, lower first is a number of output products, lower second is a number of in-put goods, upper (right corner shoulder) is a number of production methods.

抄録全体を表示

Post Keynesian endogenous money supply theory appeared as one of the modern theory of credit money some twenty years ago. In recent years, while it keeping close relationship with French and Italian monetary circuit theory, the domain of the theory has expanded gradually. With regard to the role of government or state, the theory of endogenous money pays attention to the central bank which offers the means of settlement between commercial banks and plays the role of lender of last resort, but actually the state establishes money, and practices the control of money. In this respect Chartalism or state theory of money revive in the context of Post Keynesian in recent years. The relationship between the theory of endogenous money and Chartalism comes into question, because in the theory of endogenous money money supply is endogenous, while in Chartalism at a first glance exogenous money supply by the state is assumed. The two theories have not only a background of Post Keynesian, but also both theories have complementarities. That is, the theory of endogenous money deals the money of private level, and Chartalism argues the money of state level. However, both theories share nominalism especially in the theory of nature of money. In Chartalism the nature of money is regarded as establishment of money by the state, and Chartalistic money is a nominal one which has basically no relation to the real value, in the theory of endogenous money bank money also does not presuppose the relation to the real value of money. In this way, both theories share common ground, but there are differences. First, in the theory of nature of money the definition of money and various points are different. Second, both theories diverge in the role of the state. In the theory of endogenous money although the role of the state is generally assumed in relation to the function of central bank, the relationship between money and state, and the problem of Chartalism is not thoroughly examined. The placement of the state in Chartalism is unique and different from the theory of endogenous money. In this paper, aiming at clarifying what relationship both theories have, two points are examined. First, we compare both theories in the theory of nature of money, and we consider in what significance money in the real world is Chartalistic. Second, we investigate the role of the state, especially the function of the central bank respectively. The conclusions are three-fold. First, the theory of endogenous money and Chartalism share nominalism in the theory of nature of money. Nominalism is important in that it is a basis of the view against commodity theory of money. Second, two theories are different except nominalism of money in the theory of nature of money. In the theory of endogenous money the state plays important role in that it designate money as means of final settlement, this is the significance of Chartalism in the theory of endogenous money. Third, the role of the state in the theory of endogenous money moreover emerges as a function of central bank. The function of lender of last resort which is emphasized especially in Post Keynesian theory plays important role which maintains monetary and financial system, while in Chartalism central bank plays the role of bank of government, and does not conflict with central bank in the theory of endogenous money, but it has complementary function. Particularly both theories adopt the operation of short term interest rate as a measure of policy, which plays important role in the control of money.

抄録全体を表示