Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 08:35:31 +0900
Subject: AUT: On Roemer
From: miychi <miyachi9-AT-gctv.ne.jp>


MIYACHI TATSUO
9-10, OHATI, MORIYAMA-KU
NAGOYA CITY
463-0044
JAPAN
miyachi9-AT-gctv.ne.jp





critique of Roemer
I don’t konw details of Roemer’s argument. I only read his article
“ Anti-Hayekian manifesto” in “ New Left Review 211/1995) . But
fundamental thought of Roemer is expressed in the article, I think. So
firstly I summarize this article.
In this artcle he critisize Stiglitz about his criticism on market socialism
which is justified by Kenneth Arrow and Gerald Debreu whose father is
Walras. Roemer himself defends Walras. I don’t examine criticism of Stigliz
by Roemer. Here only I examine Roemer’s proposal on market socialism.
He says that”I believe the Walrasian model can be used as a tool yo explore
the income-distributional consequences of market-socialist
proposals.......because an actual market-socialist economy would suffer from
market failures, one cannot claim that its equilibrium would be
Pareto-efficent. But the salient question is, rather, can one create ana
economy that is about as efficient as capitalism, yet has qualitatively
better distributional properties? “
Question1; what is relation between income and distribution? and what is the
form of income and distribution? In reality, income and distribution are
both side of same medal. Income is a form seen from worker, and distribution
is a form seen from firm. If so, problem is form of income. He says “The
relation between employer and employee is one of pricipal and agent. The
principal wants a certain job performed, which she must delegate to an
agent, whom she cannot perfectly monitor. The agent has objectives different
from the principal’s(for instance, not to perform work at a stressful
rate). In this situaiton, it may be optimal for the principal to offer a
wage greater than the market-clearing wage;
for this would give the agent a reason to want to keep the job, and hence to
work hard, so as to assure not being caught shirking(If the wage were
market-clearing, presumably a dismissed worker could instantly find another
job at the same wage) Thus, payment of a wage above the market-clearing
level can increase the “efficiency”of the worker;such wages have come to
be known as efficiency wages”
  From this, we can understand that his “income” is wage form and his
“ efficiency wage “ means that if worker receive more wage, worker may
work “ efficietly” in other word, efficient for principal.
But wage system is characteristic form of payment of capitalist society. In
this capitalist society
“the purchase of labour-power for a fixed period is the prelude to the
process of production; and this prelude is constantly repeated when the
stipulated term comes to an end, when a definite period of production, such
as a week or a month, has elapsed. But the labourer is not paid until after
he has expended his labour-power, and realised in commodities not only its
value, but surplus-value. He has, therefore, produced not only
surplus-value, which we for the present regard as a fund to meet the private
consumption of the capitalist, but he has also produced, before it flows
back to him in the shape of wages, the fund out of which he himself is paid,
the variable capital; and his employment lasts only so long as he continues
to reproduce this fund. Hence, that formula of the economists, referred to
in Chapter 18, which represents wages as a share in the product itself. [2]
What flows back to the labourer in the shape of wages is a portion of the
product that is continuously reproduced by him. The capitalist, it is true,
pays him in money, but this money is merely the transmuted form of the
product of his labour. While he is converting a-portion of the means of
production into products, a portion of his former product is being turned
into money. It is his labour of last week, or of last year, that pays for
his labour-power this week or this year. The illusion begotten by the
intervention of money vanishes immediately, if, instead of taking a single
capitalist and a single labourer, we take the class of capitalists and the
class of labourers as a whole. The capitalist class is constantly giving to
the labouring class order-notes, in the form of money, on a portion of the
commodities produced by the latter and appropriated by the former. The
labourers give these order-notes back just as constantly to the capitalist
class, and in this way get their share of their own product. The transaction
is veiled by the commodity-form of the product and the money-form of the
commodity.”(From Capital)  Thus wage receive form of money. And we can
understand his “ distribution “ also receive money-form. And his
“ efficiency” means  in reality increasing surplus value.
 If so, where is his “market-socialism” differ from capitalist system? He
says “ I have suggested a property form which is closer to private
ownership, but with some restrictions that would prevent the concentration
of shares in the hands of the wealthy. There should be a separate
currency(call it the ‘coupon’ currency) which could be used only for the
purchase of the shares of firms in the ‘public’ sector, or mutual funds of
such firms’s stock. Conversely, only coupon currency, not regular money,
could be used to purchase such stock or mutual funds. Each citizen would
receive an endowment of coupons at the age of of majority,and would purchase
mutual funds/firm stock with it. The shares of these funds /firms would
trade on a stock market, with prices denominated(only) in coupon currerncy.
Since no regular currency would be useful on this stock market. the wealthy
could not purchase more shares in these firms than the poor. The profits of
the firms in the public sector would be distributed to citizen in proportion
to their share holdings.....The coupon stock market is a mechanism to induce
firms to compete for investment funds, to permit citizens to hold
diversified portofolio, and to distribute a substantial share of the nation’
s profits in a fairly equal manner among citizens.”
Question2; What is the relation between ‘coupon’ and ‘ regular money”?
Question3; From where does “profit”  come,and its form?
Question4; How is criteria a citizen receive coupon and how does we mesure
quantity of coupon which a citizen receive? What does citizen give for
receiving coupon?
Question5; How one firm purchase means of production from another firm?
According to Roemer, we have two kind of currency. And coupon functions as a
kind of ownership.
In this , Roemer remains in sphere of ownership, and forgets sphere of
production. For producing “profit”
material production must be presumed. And for production, many firms must
relate each other and exchange material, means of production, or
intermediate commodity. Can coupon work in these areas?
Roemer considers only relation between citizen and firms on the sphere of
ownership and forget the presumption of ownership, in other word,
production.
 In capitalist society, wage is determined with value which worker must
reproduce himself. But Roemer does not determine the quantity of coupon
citizen receive and that what is the trade-off .
In addition, he does not clalify the relation between coupon and regular
money. Firstly he assumes wage system, but in wage system worker receive
part of his product in the form of money, not coupon. So if he want shares,
he must use money,not coupon. Because coupon does not have immnent value.
One does not exchange his Sachen(commodity,money, and capital---In any
English translation of Capital, Marx’s original words’Sachen and Ding are
both translated into “ thing” but the two are different. Sachen means
property occupied by people and Ding means merely physical matter. This
confusion lead to make dificullt to understand fetishism) with things such
as coupon which has not any value.

 In sum, Roemer’s market-socialism only may work on the sphere of
ownership, and other area remains same as capitalist society.
  But from the beginning socialism or communism means collective
revolutionary action to aim to abolish Sachen and to gain liberty. Roemer
may forget this revolutionary action and confine himself into considering
phantom economic system.
In reality, communist movement processes vairous stages, and under which
vairous economical system may co-exist. Marx said this process as
revolutionary transitional period. Current world can be totally defined
transitional period. So as alernative to money, LET, barter, or other
exchange means already are used. It may be sign of radical destruction of
civil society.
  




     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---