A Minimalist's Monetary Economy – Excel Edition (and one way in which capitalism will not end)

I've tried to recreate an embryonic monetary economy in an Excel, inspired by Steve Keen's basic model of endogenous-money economy.

The guy does it with all the bells and whistles, differential equations and system dynamics modelling, so if you're after that sorts of stuff, go and read his paper.

But I thought the whole thing may be simplified in an Excel spreadsheet without lost of the essential. Heck, isn't Excel an economist's best friend these days?

This is a minimalistic approach, even sort of a suprematism of economic modelling, but it nonetheless hints at answers to few questions which seem to puzzle so many people, such as: 
  1. If the firms have to repay loans with interests, where is that extra money supposed to come from on aggregate? 
  2. How are profits possible, if the loans have to be repaid with interests and there is only that much money in the economy? Are further loans the only possible source of money to repay the interests on the existing loans? 
  3. Is a steady state possible? Or the only way to keep the show running is to keep expanding the amount of outstanding loans (the debt) ad libitum? 
So, the model. It is a highly simplified representation of a closed economy: there's only one bank borrowing money (yes, out of thin air), a capitalist who owns a firm producing MacGuffins, and a bunch of workers.

The story goes like this:
  1. at start, the firm borrows the money from the bank, to start the production of MacGuffins; 
  2. each month the firm pays a wage to workers, a profit to the capitalist and an interest on loan to the bank; 
  3. each month the workers, the capitalist and the banker consume MacGuffins, buying it from the firm. 
There are just a handful of parameters in the model:
  • the value of the initial loan 
  • the monthly interest rate on the loan 
  • the monthly aggregate wages paid to workers 
  • the monthly profit paid to the capitalist 
  • workers', capitalist's and banker's consumption rates (the fraction of savings they spend on consumption) 
  • the rate of loan repayment (how much of the loan's principal is repaid each month). 
So this is how our workers, capitalist and banker are faring after 36 months (the values of parameters in yellow):


(Here's the Excel file if you want to play with it yourself.)

So, what does it show?

First off, as you can see, with those parameters a steady state is reached circa after 24 months. The firm's cash flow has never gone negative, even if there is a positive flow of profits, wages and interest payments. 

So, you can after all have a constant flow of monetary profits and wages, while still paying interests on loan to the bank. Indeed, in the steady state, the yearly sum of profits ($120) and wages ($240) is higher than the loan's principal ($100). This is not a surprise if you understand the difference between a stock and a flow. This example neatly illustrates the difference: the loan is a stock (the total amount of money present in the economy), while profits, wages and interest payments are flows the capitalist, the banker and the workers juggle back and forth among themselves month by month.

Of course, profits and wages are just monetary aggregates, and what's important here are their relative values which tell us the thing that really matters: how MacGuffins are distributed between workers and the capitalist. In our case for every 30.42 MacGuffins produced, ten are consumed by the capitalist, twenty by the workers and 0.42 by the banker.

Now, things break apart if the firm starts to repay the principal (you can test this by putting any positive value as a rate of loan repayment). All is good as long as the firm just pays the interests, but as so soon as you set a rate of principal repayment, you are basically withdrawing money from circulation and the system comes to a halt. (I know, I know, all kind of feedbacks and stabilisers kick in in the real economy, but still there is some basic story to it.)

That being said, the sustainability and the possibility of a sustainable steady state of positive profits and wages depend on how the consumption rates, wages and profits are set relative to each other.

Higher consumption rates (and hence less saving), especially from the workers who make the bulk of it, bring in more cash to the firm, and thus higher profits can be paid to the capitalists. A neat explanation of the commandment "thou shalt consume".

Actually that's slightly misleading, the cash brought in to the firm can be used both for higher profits or for higher wages (or for higher interest rate for bankers!). The relation between profits and wages depends, of course, on the class struggle between the capitalists and the working class the marginal productivity of labour and capital (if you live on a planet with competitive markets).

Now, is this too simple a model to tell us something useful about a real monetary economy? I'd say no it isn't.

Imagine what would happen is we had a more realistic situation with more than just one firm each producing a different good (and more than just one bank). Here the firms would compete for workers' money because now the workers could go out and buy all sorts of different MacGuffins from others than their employers. Firms would also compete to get better workers, and workers would compete among themselves to get better jobs. Firms would also compete for loans, trying to convince bankers that their MacGuffin is really special. Some firms would survive, some die. There would also be competition among bankers, as now the flow of interests from a loan (and eventually its repayment) is no longer guaranteed because, as we just said, some firms could go belly up.

 So, the situation would be more intricate, but in the aggregate, you'd still get the general picture we had before: there would be some aggregate outstanding sum of loans (some firms might actually repay their loans, but then others would borrow) which would be our money in circulation, and as long as it's there the system can function, businesses can be ran, workers can produce and earn wages, capitalists can get their profits and banks collect their interests. So the general story is the same: there is no need in principle to increase the money supply in the system by further loans just to repay the existing ones.

Mind you, I'm not saying that in general there are no reasons ever to increase the money supply, there are many good ones (say, when a new entrepreneur convinces a banker she will produce a unique kind of MacGuffin everybody will go crazy for, and they both, the enterpreneur and the banker, believe they can profit from it). All I'm saying is that no extra loans (and thus money) is necessary in the system specifically for the purpose of paying interests on the existing ones.

Just a small final diversion: some may ask: how can the banker create money out of thin air? Well, a way could be that some guys with the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force allow her to. Another, historically antecedent way, is to have people trust in her service of keeping in the vault some kind of tokens that happen to be a symbolic, mutually shared illusion as a storage of value.

So, is capitalism doomed? Of course it is, but it won't happen because we need to create loans indefinitely just to repay the old ones and still be able to have profits. People who say that may just happen to have another bug in their Excel spreadsheets.

   

Popular posts from this blog

This IS about a park

Image
A slogan circulates on social networks about the protests in Istanbul: "This is not about a park, this is about democracy". I understand why it may appear important to whoever invented the slogan to show their demands fit into a greater scheme of things. Their intuition is right on one point: it certainly works better for drawing the attention of the world's public if you characterise your struggle as that for democracy other than just for "some stupid park". These other things – being heard, condemnation of the abuse of state power, freedom of expression and of the press, respect of minorities' rights – are of course all valuable, and don't misunderstand me, I am all for it: fully, unconditionally, with no cynicism, and for those who are genuinely advancing this more general democratic agenda. However, there is nothing wrong had it all been only about a park. It's perfectly ok, even more than that. Let me explain why. Cases like this are a
Read more

Trump Saved by Democrats’ Takeover of the House

Image
In his perceptive reading of James Cameron’s 1997 film “Titanic”, Slavoj Žižek neatly illustrates how a catastrophe can save a fantasy, or an ideal. There is a scene in the film, where Rose DeWitt Bukater (Kate Winslet) and Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio) make each other a promise of eternal love:  “When this ship docks, I'm getting off with you“ , Rose says. That , and not the Titanic going down, Žižek claims, would have been the true catastrophe. Indeed, we can easily imagine how, once in New York, maybe after a few weeks of good sex, this fantasy of pure untainted love would have faded away, crumbling perhaps under the pressure of social expectations, of their objective cultural and social status differences, combined with the dullness after the inevitable loss of novelty and euphoria of falling in love. This then was the true function of the iceberg sinking the Titanic in the film: a momentous real catastrophe has to happen, so that the fantasy (or the ideal) can live on. (
Read more

On the Innocence of Guilty Scapegoats (a brief sketch)

This may be obvious to many.  But it looks elusive to some who seem to find a perplexing conundrum at the heart of what we may call the ethics in René Girard. It is his thesis of the radical innocence of the victims of scapegoating, the claim he appears to espouse that “the victim is always innocent”.  At first sight, this does not even look as a productive paradox, but outright empirically wrong. In what sense can one arrive to claim that a scapegoat is always innocent, even if the person is objectively, empirically responsible of an uncontroversial wrongdoing (say, a murder)?  It seems to me that the crucial subtlety of Girard's claim is that in scapegoating the victim is always innocent. In other words, the point here is that even if the victim is objectively responsible of the deeds which cannot but be deemed wrong (say, a murder), he or she is innocent relative to the scapegoating: the wrong the mob is committing is to use that person to deflect and appease rivalries, to obta
Read more

If Robots Could Desire?

Image
Universal Basic Income—Consumer robots—The Matrix—Work—Marx—Fetishism of money—End of capitalism—The Terminator—Synthetic (mimetic) need, or desire—Blade Runner—Duchamp—Data—Something out of nothing?
Read more

Skin-in-the-game principle as a justification for conscription/draft military service

Nassim Taleb asks for applications of the skin-in-the-game principle across domains. So, here's my take on an issue, in few coarse notes. I've been thinking about skin-in-the-game as a justification for conscription/draft military service vs. voluntary/mercenary army. I'll go there in a moment, but first an aside note. Sometimes it seems to me hearing Taleb striking some libertarian-ish notes. It's sort of a consequentialist libertarianism (arriving at libertarian attitude by evaluating the consequences of actions and policies, like the fragilising effects of centralisation and all that), which is different from categorical libertarians (starting from some fundamental moral prior, say the principle of self-possession, and constructing from there a libertarian theory, no matter the consequences). So it's kind of funny to see how skin-in-the-game may actually support something – conscription/draft military service – which sounds so un-libertarian. But let
Read more

Why the intellectual debate (and the R&R debacle) can't change Europe

Image
There has rightly been much ado about the Reinhart-Rogoff affaire , an academic and intellectual debacle of two prominent economists who provided gunpowder to austerians' claim that terrible things happen when a country's debt-to-GDP ratio rises above the imaginary tipping point of 90%. The notorious R&R's paper where this was suggested, it turns out , was based on fuzzy math, buggy Excel coding and data cherry picking. This was a huge thing, possibly a tipping point, because the debate that followed helped to unveil the simple truth that behind the austerian claims there were class interests, for actually  austerity is good for the 1% . Dean Bakers nicely spelled out why in few broad strokes: "High unemployment weakens workers' bargaining power allowing employers to get the vast majority of the gains from productivity growth over the last 5 years. While the rise in profit shares may not always offset the loss in profits due to weaker growth, this is lik
Read more

Antifragile Trump

Image
Listen carefully. It helps to understand why Donald Trump is antifragile, and how he's knowingly going to run an antifragile campaign: almost anything that could happen in the USA and in the world, from now to November, can in general only benefit him, and only damage Hillary Clinton. This is not a prophecy, but a simple positive observation (with a disturbing premonition, though): it doesn't yet mean that Trump will win, but it does mean that he's positioning himself on the "right" side of the bet on uncertainty.
Read more