CONTENTS
1) The price of American currency
unit
2) The World stock market
3) The Frauds of the U.S. Federal Reserve System
4) Movement of world finance
5) Structure of GDP and structure of employment
6) Export and import
7) Gold of contention
1) The price of American currency unit
1st version
Let’s start with the most occult subject of modern bourgeois life, with
American dollar. What is its cost in reality? Let’s make use of calculations
offered by V.Chernishev in his work “Revolution
is permanent”. Generally his formulas are correct both in terms of
logic and in accordance with Marxist economic theory. We take into account
that toward capitalist expanded reproduction the following inequality
should be applied:
I(V + M) > IIC.
As for the calculations in this source they are not fully correct. The
price of dollar seems too nominal. I guess he used incorrect figure of
material costs (Ñ) which includes fixed assets of main economic sectors.
These assets are not consumed within one production cycle but transfer
its value gradually into commodities within several production periods.
So, have a look on dollar price. For the calculation of dollar price (the
price of American economy is the same thing) we need the following figures:
profit by economic sectors (M), compensation of employees by all sectors
of economy (V), output in basic prices by sectors of the U.S. economy
(C +V +M), gross domestic product or added value by sectors (V + M) .
First of all we working out increment of material product: newly produced
value of the first division (I) of material production (production of
means of production) minus value of fixed assets of the second division
(II) of material production (production of consumer goods) – I(V + M)
– IIC.
|
1995
|
1996
|
1997
|
1998
|
1999
|
2000
|
I v |
729 596,0 |
749 606,0 |
786 058,0 |
844 723,0 |
893 177,0 |
959 783,0 |
I m |
99 080,0 |
111 240,0 |
128 719,0 |
109 073,0 |
109 692,8 |
119 446,1 |
I (v + m) |
828 676,0 |
860 846,0 |
914 777,0 |
953 796,0 |
1 002 869,8 |
1 079 229,1 |
IIc |
745 027,0 |
774 285,0 |
800 725,0 |
829 788,0 |
855 437,0 |
893 396,0 |
I(v + m) – IIc |
83 649,0 |
86 561,0 |
114 052,0 |
124 008,0 |
147 432,8 |
185 833,1 |
The result should exceed costs of consuming sectors of economy, such
as infrastructure (energetic, transport, communication, trade, finance)
and non-material production (services, state management, and defense).
First division of material production consists of agriculture, forestry
and fishing and part of industrial sectors producing non-durable goods.
There is a series of material product increment figures from 1995 to 2000
in accordance with formula mentioned above (in millions of dollars):
|
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
Increment of Material Product |
83 649,0 |
86 561,0 |
114 052,0 |
124 008,0 |
147 432,8 |
185 833,1 |
No new value is produced in infrastructure (IN) and in non-material production
(NP). Here we only should talk about adding of labour costs and income
of capitalists in its sectors, and also adding of capital goods depreciation,
raw materials and energy in these sectors. What is assumed in figures
of “output in basic prices” is not related directly with these sectors
since they are transporting, transforming, redistributing and consuming
material product of primary sectors of material production (MP).
Therefore, if we deduct output in basic prices of material production
(C + V + M)MP from “output in basic prices” (C + V + M)IN+NP of infrastructural
and non-material production sectors we get material costs of infrastructure
and non-material production. Then we add compensation of employees (V)
and income of capitalists (M) in its sectors to these costs. Such move
is the most logical: we fixing what particular expenses society bearing
for keeping infrastructure and non-material production.
The sum we got will be denominator of main fraction while numerator will
be an increment of material product. Finally we obtain the value of true
dollar price (or the price of American economy) against nominal value.
That means we get to know the safety factor of material sector of economy:
increment of material product, which is divided to COSTS of non-material
sectors, gives us the price of the U.S. economy and the dollar respectively.
2 version
We may apply the next version of the formula where denominator will be
compensation of employees, income of capitalists and capital funds depreciation
in infrastructure and non-material production:
Denominator in this formula may be determined as “output in basic prices”
in infrastructural and non-material sectors of production, as they have
all required components: Ñ, V è M. That is costs of capital, compensation
of employees and profit of mentioned above sectors. Increment of material
product as numerator of fraction is contrasting with that sum.
3 version
Here we talk about some lightened 2nd version, because depreciation of
capital funds of consuming sectors is taken away.
Certainly we made some admissions. For instance, we do not take into account
taxes on profits and wages reducing them. However tax deduction from “profits
and wages” of consuming sectors has none economic sense but leads to growth
of government and governmental expenditures on new fields of activity
respectively. Even if we sum taxes of all sectors of material production
and personal taxes paid by citizens they won’t be enough to cover the
costs of infrastructure and services sectors:
Table 1. Taxes of profits and personal taxes in
the U.S. economy, 1995-2000 (m$)
Ìëí. äîëë. |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
Íàëîãè îòðàñëåé ÌÏ (ïðèáûëü) è èíäèâèäóàëüíûå íàëîãè |
848 599,0 |
945 754,0 |
1 051 141,0 |
1 141 540,0 |
1 237 724,0 |
1 373 930,0 |
Çàòðàòû ÈÍ è ÍÏ |
6 460 670,9 |
6 819 046,4 |
7 288 075,1 |
7 661 315,4 |
8 153 090,0 |
8 303 647,0 |
4 version
We deduct output in basic prices of material production sectors from one
of infrastructure and services. Then we add to result figures of state
investments to military production and structures, since they are subtract
from material production product.
5 version
Nest way of calculation is the some addition to the 1st version provided
with data of the U.S. governmental debt from IMF source (IFS, July 2001).
6 version
The second version we add with figures of the U.S. governmental debt.
![](../clip_indx/w_c_form6_e.gif)
The result can be compared with version five results, because in both
cases there is a federal government debt figure of the USA.
7 and 8 versions
The two last versions present five and six versions of dollar price calculation
added with investments to military production and new military structures:
![](../clip_indx/w_c_form7_e.gif)
![](../clip_indx/w_c_form8_e.gif)
Òàáëèöà 2. Íåêîòîðûå ïîêàçàòåëè ðàáîòû ýêîíîìèêè
ÑØÀ çà 1995-2000 ãã. (ìëí. äîëë.)
Ìëí.äîëë. |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
(Âûïóñê â îñíîâíûõ öåíàõ ÈÍ + ÍÏ) – (Âûïóñê ÌÏ) |
4 219 865,0 |
4 609 808,0 |
4 778 851,2 |
5 154 170,0 |
5 605 952,0 |
6 005 012,0 |
Âîåííûå èíâåñòèöèè |
53 100 |
53 100 |
53 100 |
53 100 |
53 100 |
53 100 |
Ãîñóäàðñòâåííûé äîëã |
3 698 700,0 |
3 842 100,0 |
3 866 500,0 |
3 805 700,0 |
3 711 600,0 |
3 413 200,0 |
The result of eighth version of calculations for the period from the
year 1995 to 2000 give us price fluctuations of commodity “dollar” within
the following limits:
|
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
1 âàðèàíò |
1,98% |
1,88% |
2,39% |
2,41% |
2,63% |
3,09% |
2 âàðèàíò |
1,29% |
1,27% |
1,56% |
1,62% |
1,81% |
2,24% |
3 âàðèàíò |
2,03% |
1,77% |
2,17% |
2,24% |
2,50% |
2,94% |
4 âàðèàíò |
0,72% |
0,73% |
1,28% |
1,38% |
1,68% |
2,21% |
5 âàðèàíò |
1,06% |
1,02% |
1,32% |
1,38% |
1,58% |
1,97% |
6 âàðèàíò |
0,82% |
0,81% |
1,02% |
1,08% |
1,24% |
1,59% |
7 âàðèàíò |
0,39% |
0,40% |
0,71% |
0,79% |
1,01% |
1,41% |
8 âàðèàíò |
0,82% |
0,81% |
1,02% |
1,08% |
1,24% |
1,58% |
All versions give us movement of dollar price in percents of its face
value. Curiously enough growth of price is determined by decline in some
leading sectors of the U.S. economy and by upturn for instance in construction
and agriculture for specified period. Moreover, American securities loosing
“air” as a result of attacks on New York and Washington at the 11th of
September 2001.
Reader, don’t be fooled by the growth of dollar price. Mostly it is due
to unbelievable development of internal demand as the result of spreading
out of large-scale war-cosmic program – National Anti-rocket Defense.
All sectors of economy including material sectors get additional orders
and volumes. It is well-known that governmental military ordering system
has some price tricks. These tricks tend to rise up prices for the “products”
for final consumer that is government, defense ministry in particular.
The price of dollar and of American national economy fluctuated these
years within the limits of 0,5% to 3% for nominal cost. It means that
the price of American economy was overestimated (or was not compensated
by necessary material product) in 30 up to 200 times in accordance with
version of calculation. Let’s talk about a value of dollar in chapter
“Gold of contention”.
We may neglect this fact whether dollar would not dominate in world finance:
57% of world exchange resources for instances in 1997 were in dollars.
Thus dollar remains the leading payment and rated mean in world economy.
Dollar is the principle exchange in working documents of IMF, in trade
balances figures of majority countries. Then how does world economy can
manage with the situation of over-estimated dollar prices?
In this case I agree with V.Chernishev that dollar is still saved by the
system of worldwide bank network which belongs to USA and its principal
partners of industrially developed countries. The system of global administrative
and financial mechanisms created by IMF and World Bank also serves to
parasitic Euro-American dollar economy.
The threat of potential crash in world capitalist economy is already existing
in American dollar which price is extremely overstated.
Part 2>>
|
|
Bradbury A. The
Ring of Revolution. Saint-Petersburg: Icy Island, 2002, 240p.
The first part of the book is a program
of information actions for those who name themselves as left radicals
of different kind, or as adherents of workers and communist movement,
provided that we live in the XXI century. The second part is an
example of utilisation Revolition Ring principles. It is an example
of intent analysis of world economy through the weakness of U.S.dollar
and world 'household' built on its basis.
Next part>>
Author provide us with this texts for free usage
at out site. Critical comments and proposals
you may send to the postal address in St.Petersburt, Russia: postal
Index 190000, p/box 280, attn Chernishev V.M. ot to Bryansk, postal
index - 241013, 25, Klintsovskaya street, Zhmurkina L.A.
![](../clip_indx/icy_land.gif)
Adresses: |
|