The thought of independence of central banking was generally accepted during 1990s. And then the relationship between money and state has hardly occupied the interest of monetary economists. Some of them emphasised that the central banking does not have any administrative power. Therefore, the query why the government must ultimately take the responsibility for the stability of financial system and why the central bank must contribute to it through the prudential policy, have not been drked theoretically. In the meantime the Free Banking School has insisted the abolition of the central bank because the central bank-money is state fiat money. And the Cartalists like L. R. Wray, S. Bell, and C. A. E. Goodhart have attached the importance of ties between money and state, and therefore they have been worried about the future of Euro money due to breaking its bond with governments. We understand the ties between money and government are essential; otherwise the capitalistic credit monies could not have been developed. Since private credit monies circulated among merchants and traders in modern times, state monies like coins became just small changes for private credit monies. In consequence governments lost the ability of raising fund to a great extent. There were no way other than accepting private credit monies as means of tax-payment to raise fund. Such an intervention by government assisted private credit monies to circulate all over their country. The central bank currency contributed to reduce the costs of commercial transactions and of tax-collection too. From the above point of view we inquire the relationship between money and state, and why a central bank has "the ambiguous presence as a semi-governmental corporation".

抄録全体を表示

I have advocated the endogeneity of money supply following the views of M. Nishikawa and J. Itakura as well as those of N. Kalldor and B. J. Moor. As Moor appropriately wrote, "Currently the standard paradigm, especially in the United States, treats the central bank as determining the money base and thence the money stock. / Modern monetary theory has inherited an approach to money that was more appropriate in a world where money was a commodity, usually gold or silver, without fully recognizing the fundamental differences between commodity and credit money." These views, however, have not been widely accepted, especially among Japanese Marxian economists. Some of them have criticized the endogenous money supply theory. This article is a counter-criticism of some most criticizing arguments, mainly those of professor H. Noda and professor T. Itoh Marxian economists quite often express their views based on what Marx said, especially in "The Capital". Marx introduced capitalistic money through the logical developments of the value form, and said that gold would become the main material of money due to its physical characteristics. Then, it is not strange that their views on credit money are based on gold. They have regarded that the gold convertibility is the essence of credit money. They do not attach greater importance to the causes of issuance or withdrawal of credit money, that is, the connection between the supply of credit and the supply of money. In the modern world gold as money does not exist. But they tacitly regard fiat money as a replacement of gold, in other word, exogenous money. Another point I stressed in this article is that those who are severely critical to the endogenous money supply theory misunderstand Marx's logical way of writing. In "The Capital" vol. 1 and 2, there are no credit systems, no credit money. There is only commodity money (gold) introduced at the money theory (vol. 1). At the reproduction charts (vol. 2), his premise is each capitalist has a certain amount of money which is needed for the purchase of materials and the payment of wages etc. Credit system and credit money are the problems of vol. 3, and unfortunately Marx could not complete the credit theory. But some of those who criticize the endogenous money supply theory quote from vol. 1 or 2 where, actually, only commodity money (gold) exists. I also stressed that Phillips-type credit creation theory (multiplier theory)is not valid, especially in the world of credit money. Revival of Macleod or Hahn=Schumpeter type theory is very important. Today's monetary policies of major central banks are not money supply control, but money market interest rates control that affects the public demand of funds. The starting points of the credit creation are loans of banks to firms and household by crediting to their deposit accounts. At this point banks do not need surplus money. Monies are created by the action of banks, that is Macleod-type credit creation. When the cash demand increases, central banks should accommodate. If a central bank worries about the level of the economic expansion and the increase of prices, it can affect demand of funds and then affect prices by interest rates control policy. Today's monetary policies of major central banks are money market interest rates control. Lastly, I stressed the importance of the independence of central banks. Some people might question that the central bank independence is against the democratic procedures of policy determination. But, in my opinion, there is a big difference between the monetary policy and other policies of the governments. While monetary policies are executed through financial transactions in the market, other governmental policies are executed as an exercise of administrative powers.

抄録全体を表示

Overstone really confused continually 'capital' and 'money'. To him, 'value of money' means not only purchasing power which changes according to the quantity of money, but also it means interest. On the other hand, 'value of capital' was supposed to be interest and also profit. Moreover, he regarded that moneyed capital was identical with real capital, and using such 'strange jumble of words', he gave Ricardo's old theory on money the new mode. Using this he made a fundamental principle of 1844-45 Bank Act. To criticize such Overstone's Opinion, Marx brings forward two problems at the beginning of Ch.XXX in "Capital" Book III, as 'the only difficult questions in connection with whole affairs of the credit'. First: is the accumulation of moneyed capital identical with the accumulation of real capital? Second: is the accumulation of moneyed capital affected by the quantity of money in the country? In this paper, we will pursue the thread of Marx's analysis about these questions according to his manuscript itself of "Capital", that is, MEGA, II/4・2. Marx's conclusions are the following; first: both accumulations are not identical with each other, but only in the phase of prosperity of the industrial cycle, the accumulation of moneyed capital is coincident with the accumulation of real capital. Second: the accumulation of moneyed capital is independent from the quantity of money. But, under a developed credit-system, all money required for the reproduction process by industrial capitalists assumes the form of money borrowed by them from bankers. Thus, in times of stringency, the amount of money required for the reproduction process may be lacking in the money market, and that may raise the rate of interest. Only in this case, the absolute quantity of circulation affects the rate of interest. Analyzing those questions, Marx presupposed the following: all bank-notes required for the reproduction process is determined by two factors (commodity-prices and the quantity of transactions), and the bank-notes which are held by the bank as a reserve are passively and secondly as the result of the amount of actually circulating bank-notes. Thus the Bank of England is merely a passive agent against the amount of actually circulating bank-notes. Such Marx's conclusion on the monetary policy of the central bank is still effective to criticize the current quantity theory of money, because Marx's premises are appropriate in the present credit-system.

抄録全体を表示

The globalization has two aspects, i. e., the globalization of the real sector and the globalization of the financial sector. It should be noteworthy that the globalization of the real sector has been led by the globalization of the financial sector, i. e., the financial globalization. In today's global economy, the volume of the world financial transactions led by investors such as hedge funds exceeds that of the world trade and world production considerably. The capital movements that seek to earn capital gains over the world financial markets require most of businesses to enhance capital efficiency and to reduce cost thoroughly. Further, this kind of capital movements urges many countries to reform their social and economic institutions, which aim to materialize the securitization of all the assets that create cash flows. Now, the capital movements self-proliferating in world financial markets seem to make the decisions what to invest and how to reform all over the world. After Wicksell, the political economists such as Hilferding and Keynes in the early twentieth century had disputed about the economic system led by new rising capital movements using financial assets to make money. While Hilferding conceptualized that new capital movement as Financial Capital, Keynes almost recognized that the economy of those days was led by Financial Capital and expounded the working of the economy by using the framework of Monetary Equilibrium. Under the economy led by Financial Capital, production and employment must be adjusted to Monetary Equilibrium, i. e., the equilibrium of all returns of capital assets with financial assets. As a result, the causal relationship between the real sector and the financial sector is reversed and is opposite to that of the classical schools. Both concepts of Financial Capital and Monetary Equilibrium are indispensable to analyze the relationship between the real sector and the financial sector in modern economy. The importance of both concepts, however, has not been recognized sufficiently in economic literatures, and the definitions of both concepts have not been clear. The modern economy cannot be analyzed systematically without both concepts. Because we do not know who makes the decisions to select and invest if Financial Capital is not defined clearly and we cannot explain how the economy with financial assets work if Monetary Equilibrium is not precisely understood. In this sense, both concepts of Financial Capital and Monetary Equilibrium should be defined more clearly. This paper examines Hilferding's concept of Financial Capital and Keynes' de facto recognition about Financial Capital to redefines the concept of Financial Capital. Then, after evaluating Keynes' concept of Monetary Equilibrium, this paper reinterpret the concept of Monetary Equilibrium with Financial Capital to get the new perspective to integrating the relationship between the real sector and the financial sector in modern economy. Based on this new perspective, Keynesian (neo-Wicksellian) and neo-Walrasian macroeconomics after WW II are examined critically. Both macroeconomics cannot specify economic agents or capital movements that lead modern economy mainly. Therefore, they have to make ad hock assumptions about the main variables such as asset valuations and investment decision and the others. Finally, investigating Post Keynesian and Marxian approach to the modern economy, this paper show that integrating Post Keynesian analysis of Monetary Equilibrium with Marxian analysis on financial systems would be one of the effective approaches to analyze the modern economy led by Financial Capital systematically. If Financial Capital will continue to proliferate all over the world from now on, we have to integrate Post Keynesian macroeconomics perspective with Marxian analysis on the capitalist financial structures to understand the process and the effect of the globalization.

抄録全体を表示

Environmental destructions caused by military activities ("military-related environmental problems"), though these cause serious damages, don't have taken up as academic research subject. So military-related environmental problems even the actual condition on damages has been left. As a result of this the responsibility on the occurrence of damages has not been demonstrated and effective countermeasures have not been adopted. As I think knowing the history on military-related environmental problems will lead to trace the cause on damages and to demonstrate responsibility, I study about this in this paper. To demonstrate above I analyze the documents on Yokota Air Base pollution that disclosed by U. S. force. And I put together military base pollution problem from view of a phenomenon. In addition I focus on a political-economics aspect and demonstrate how military-industrial complex has participated in the occurrence or military base pollution problem. In this paper I demonstrate below. First by that military-industrial complex that has had strong influence after World War II has developed environment-destructive military technology, environment has been destructed in various areas by military activities. The cause on occurrence of military base pollution is that environment doesn't restore any more by new weapons and pollution is accumulated. Second after military base pollution came to light through the end of the Cold War military-industrial complex was not broken up and exists in other form. And military-industrial complex has developed weapons that draw military-related environmental problems even after the end of the Cold War. Third military expenditures that reduce after the end of the Cold War increase after "9・11". By U. S. force transformation not only military activities that draw military base pollution are strengthened but also the resources that save by base closures inject into the countermeasures against terrorism. The transformation after the end of the Cold War is proceeded not peaceful world but to a new dimension on war. Therefore wars and military activities don't reduce. By contraries after "9・11" the world affairs has been instability. Military technology has been sophisticated and military-industrial complex has developed environment-destructive weapons. To get rid of this situation we must realize the century that respect of peace and environment preservation that shoot for disarmament and conversion.

抄録全体を表示

In this paper, I examined theoretically the mechanism of the "rebound phenomenon" at household garbage. "Rebound phenomenon" is the following phenomenon: when a local governments switch from free garbage collection to paid service, the amount of garbage is temporarily decreased, after a while increased to the origin amount of garbage. From optimal consumption analysis of modern economics theory applied to the issue of garbage, the charge for garbage collection will be effective waste reduction. However, the theory cannot explain rebound phenomenon. I present one hypothesis to explain the phenomenon, based on the results of a questionnaire survey. The basic idea of the hypothesis is that the amount of garbage is related to not only the waste emission cost but also waste reduction costs. The convergence value of the amount of waste determined by the match point of waste reduction costs and waste emission costs. I call it "Relative Garbage Threshold". From this idea, the rebound phenomenon can be interpreted that if the amount of garbage reduce and exceed to the threshold by the charge for garbage collection, after a while return to the levels of the threshold. This hypothesis can explain the other phenomenon that revealed by the questionnaire survey. The policy implication of this paper is that the charge for garbage collection is not always effective to garbage reduction. If it is possible to quantify the "Relative Garbage Threshold", the regional difference in effectiveness will be solved.

抄録全体を表示

In this paper, some important quantitative concepts of linear economic theory were calculated by using the China 1987-2002 input-output tables. First, the wage-profit curves were drawn and the relative positions of actual economic state were estimated. Second, Marxian 2-sector tables were constructed from input-output tables, and some important parameters such as organic composition of capital, rates of surplus value, rates of profits were estimated. Third, the turnpike path of the China economy was calculated by arranging 2-sector coefficient matrices in order from 1987 till 2002. It is seen that the actual growth path from 1992 till 2002 runs close to this turnpike path.

抄録全体を表示