Underconsumption theory
The under-consumption theory is an economic thesis by John Atkinson Hobson , according to which the emergence of economic crises ( under-consumption crisis ) can be explained by insufficient demand for consumer goods and can be combated by increasing mass purchasing power through wage increases . In particular, according to this theory, it is the lagging solvent demand of the working class that leads to a crisis. The classic proponents of the underconsumption theory are Robert Malthus - underconsumption of the unproductive class - and Jean-Charles-Léonard Simonde de Sismondi - underconsumption of the working class.
The under-consumption theory is the basis of Hobson's criticism of imperialism , according to which the English imperialist expansion at the end of the 19th century could have been avoided by a general wage increase and increasing domestic consumption.
Underconsumption due to insufficient purchasing power usually has structural causes and means that there is at least a relative overproduction with simultaneous poverty of a considerable part of the population. The products that could be sold are potentially available and needed, but the purchasing power is insufficient to actually buy them.
Even before Hobson, a similar theory was developed by Johann Karl Rodbertus . In addition, the underconsumption theory still plays a role in the discussion about Keynesianism . It is based on the purchasing power theory or justifies higher government spending in order to counteract underconsumption.
As a theory, it is also controversial within Marxism for the reason that it has a solution in the form of "productivity- oriented wage policy " in contrast to the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall , which does not see a sustainable solution to the crisis.
Systematic consideration
In his work The Open Society and Its Enemies (Volume 2), the philosopher Karl Popper gives a systematic compilation of how a society can react to an increase in labor productivity .
The available higher productive power can be used for:
- Case A : Capital goods . Then investments are made to manufacture more capital goods that increase productivity even more. The problem is postponed into the future. Popper therefore does not consider this to be a permanent solution.
-
Case B : consumer goods
- for the entire population
- for part of the population
-
Case C : Reduction of working hours
- daily work time
- the number of "unproductive" workers, Popper means those outside the manufacturing industry, is increasing, especially scientists, doctors, artists, business people, etc.
Popper is now drawing a line here. So far, there have been positive effects for the population from an increase in labor productivity. However, unpleasant effects are also conceivable.
- the number of unemployed is increasing.
-
Case D : The number of goods that are produced but neither consumed nor invested increases
- Consumer goods are being destroyed
- Capital goods are not used, i. H. Businesses lie idle
- goods that are neither capital nor consumer goods are produced, e.g. B. Arms (see also Armaments Keynesianism, Permanent Armaments Industry )
- Labor is used to destroy capital goods and thus reduce productivity again.
In the light of growth theory , the problem can be illustrated using numerical examples.
Numerical examples
Case no technical progress
If there were no technical progress and no natural limits to growth, then the economy could grow continuously and there would be no overproduction or underconsumption problems, assuming that workers' wages and productivity remain stable and the starting point is balanced, as well no social conflicts occur. The share of consumer goods in total production would then remain constant. In the following a numerical example is given, based on the calculations of Harrod and Domar , of how an economy can grow.
- A number of workers
- C number of consumer goods
- C / A real wages : consumer goods per worker
- K capital stock
- N / A capital intensity
- Y production
- Y / A labor productivity per capita
- K / Y capital coefficient
The production of a period Y serves to supply the workers with consumer goods (C) and means of production (K) in the next period. C and K therefore add up to Y of the previous period (not always precisely given in the table due to rounding). So production is repeated from period to period on an ever larger scale. The division of production between K and C or A is based on the capital intensity K / A assumed to be technically given. In addition, the real wage C / A, which is also assumed to be given, which is to be paid for the individual worker, must be taken into account.
In the following numerical example, the initial values of period 1 are also assumed exogenously, unless they are calculated from the other initial values. For some quantities there are exogenous assumptions about how they change. These sizes are marked in blue in the second table. The capital intensity K / A remains unchanged as a technical variable and thus no change in labor productivity Y / A is triggered. In addition, the real wage C / A is kept constant. The remaining quantities are then calculated under the assumption that production is used in full for the next period in the form of wages C and capital K.
Absolute values:
| Period t | A. | C. | C / A | C (t) / Y (t-1) | K | N / A | Y | Y / A | K / Y |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | - | € | € | - | € | € | € | € | - |
| 1 | 100.0 | 262.8 | 2.63 | - | 100.0 | 1.00 | 400.0 | 4,000 | 0.25 |
| 2 | 110.3 | 289.7 | 2.63 | 72.4% | 110.3 | 1.00 | 441.0 | 4,000 | 0.25 |
| 3 | 121.6 | 319.5 | 2.63 | 72.4% | 121.6 | 1.00 | 486.2 | 4,000 | 0.25 |
| 4th | 134.0 | 352.2 | 2.63 | 72.4% | 134.0 | 1.00 | 536.1 | 4,000 | 0.25 |
| 5 | 147.8 | 388.3 | 2.63 | 72.4% | 147.8 | 1.00 | 591.1 | 4,000 | 0.25 |
| 6th | 162.9 | 428.1 | 2.63 | 72.4% | 162.9 | 1.00 | 651.7 | 4,000 | 0.25 |
- W (...) growth rate in%
Growth rates:
| Period t | W (A) | WC) | W (C / A) | W (K) | W (K / A) | W (Y) | W (Y / A) | W (K / Y) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| 2 | 10% | 10% | 0% | 10% | 0% | 10% | 0% | 0% | |
| 3 | 10% | 10% | 0% | 10% | 0% | 10% | 0% | 0% | |
| 4th | 10% | 10% | 0% | 10% | 0% | 10% | 0% | 0% | |
| 5 | 10% | 10% | 0% | 10% | 0% | 10% | 0% | 0% | |
| 6th | 10% | 10% | 0% | 10% | 0% | 10% | 0% | 0% |
In this numerical example, the economy can grow by 10%.
So that there is a technical relationship between the production amount Y and the capital stock K, v = K / Y, the capital coefficient or 1 / v = Y / K, the capital productivity, the production amount Y and the capital stock K must grow at the same rate. The capital stock now increases by the investments. The greater the growth rate, the more must be invested, the greater part of the production must be saved and invested and must not be consumed.
Since it is usually assumed that the workers primarily consume, while the entrepreneurs with their higher incomes primarily save and thus provide the financing for investments, it follows as a growth policy measure that the higher the growth, the lower the consumption should be, or in other words, the profits should be as high as possible. While this doctrine assumes that economic growth is achieved, for example, to eliminate unemployment, through a lower share of consumption of the product, the underconsumption theory or overproduction theory, in contrast to this, asserts that insufficient consumption leads to economic crisis and unemployment .
Case of technical progress
With technological progress , under-consumption can occur if wages do not rise as much as labor productivity. The demand of the workers then lags behind the production. The controversial question is whether this can be offset by increased demand from companies, on the one hand by more consumption by entrepreneurs or by more demand for capital goods. Usually, the higher consumer demand of entrepreneurs is excluded because their consumption needs cannot be increased at will.
In the following example, the technical progress is shown in such a way that now every worker uses more and more means of production from year to year, so that the capital intensity N / A increases. The higher capital input per worker also results in higher labor productivity. In the numerical example it is assumed that the capital intensity K / A is increased by 50% from year to year and that an annual increase in labor productivity Y / A of 50% is also achieved as a result. Again, because of the technically given relationship K / Y = v, capital stock and production must grow at the same rate.
At the same time, however, jobs are now being rationalized at the rate of technological progress. So if economic growth has to be so great that a certain demographically given growth in labor supply can be absorbed by the economy, then technical progress with its rationalization of jobs means that the economy has to grow even faster to compensate for this, i.e. an even greater one Part of the production has to be saved and invested.
Productivity-oriented wage policy
If one assumes a productivity- oriented wage policy , that is, wages rise in the same way as labor productivity, then the problem of underconsumption does not arise initially. Rather, because of technical progress itself, which saves jobs, employment could shrink.
Shrinking employment
Again, as in the last numerical example, production is used to deploy as much labor and capital (means of production) as possible in the next period, whereby it must be taken into account that capital intensity increases K / A and real wages C / A increase. Under these numerical assumptions, this means that employment is now shrinking from period to period. The increasing demand for means of production per worker, the increasing capital intensity N / A, means that less and less can (or must) be employed from period to period.
Absolute values:
| Period t | A. | C. | C / A | C (t) / Y (t-1) | K | N / A | Y | Y / A | K / Y |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | - | € | € | - | € | € | € | € | - |
| 1 | 100.0 | 262.8 | 2.63 | - | 100.0 | 1.00 | 400.0 | 4,000 | 0.25 |
| 2 | 73.5 | 289.7 | 3.94 | 72.4% | 110.3 | 1,500 | 441.0 | 6,000 | 0.25 |
| 3 | 54.0 | 319.5 | 5.91 | 72.4% | 121.6 | 2.250 | 486.2 | 9,000 | 0.25 |
| 4th | 39.6 | 352.2 | 8.87 | 72.4% | 134.0 | 3.375 | 536.1 | 13,500 | 0.25 |
| 5 | 29.1 | 388.3 | 13.30 | 72.4% | 147.8 | 5.063 | 591.1 | 20,250 | 0.25 |
| 6th | 21.4 | 428.1 | 19.96 | 72.4% | 162.9 | 7.594 | 651.7 | 30.375 | 0.25 |
Growth rate:
| Period t | W (A) | WC) | W (C / A) | W (K) | W (K / A) | W (Y) | W (Y / A) | W (K / Y) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| 2 | −27% | 10% | 50% | 10% | 50% | 10% | 50% | 0% | |
| 3 | −27% | 10% | 50% | 10% | 50% | 10% | 50% | 0% | |
| 4th | −27% | 10% | 50% | 10% | 50% | 10% | 50% | 0% | |
| 5 | −27% | 10% | 50% | 10% | 50% | 10% | 50% | 0% | |
| 6th | −27% | 10% | 50% | 10% | 50% | 10% | 50% | 0% |
With a productivity-oriented wage policy, the ratio of consumer goods production C to total goods production Y remains stable (consumption rate). If employment is to grow despite labor-saving technical progress, consumption must first be abandoned.
Growing employment
If employment is to grow rather than shrink, then workers have to be content with a smaller part of production than wages (consumer goods). However, wages can then follow labor productivity again.
If the wage in the first period is now not 2.63 consumer goods C per worker A, but 1.0 C / A, then the surplus is large enough that, despite the increasing demand for the means of production per worker, although the individual worker processes more and more means of production can, increasing employment goes hand in hand with economic growth.
Viewed in this way, unemployment can be combated by a one-off wage cut, i.e. by a measure that is exactly the opposite of what would be expected based on the underconsumption or overproduction theory. In practice, the opposite appears to be the case, as unemployment tends to continue to rise despite falling real wages and especially with wage cuts.
Absolute values:
| Period t | A. | C. | C / A | C (t) / Y (t-1) | K | N / A | Y | Y / A | K / Y |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | - | € | € | - | € | € | € | € | - |
| 1 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 1.00 | - | 100.0 | 1.00 | 400.0 | 4,000 | 0.25 |
| 2 | 133.3 | 200.0 | 1.50 | 50% | 200.0 | 1,500 | 800.0 | 6,000 | 0.25 |
| 3 | 177.8 | 400.0 | 2.25 | 50% | 400.0 | 2.250 | 1600.0 | 9,000 | 0.25 |
| 4th | 237.0 | 800.0 | 3.38 | 50% | 800.0 | 3.375 | 3200.0 | 13,500 | 0.25 |
| 5 | 316.0 | 1600.0 | 5.06 | 50% | 1600.0 | 5.063 | 6400.0 | 20,250 | 0.25 |
| 6th | 421.4 | 3200.0 | 7.59 | 50% | 3200.0 | 7.594 | 12800.0 | 30.375 | 0.25 |
Growth rate:
| Period t | W (A) | WC) | W (C / A) | W (K) | W (K / A) | W (Y) | W (Y / A) | W (K / Y) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| 2 | 33.3% | 100% | 50% | 100% | 50% | 100% | 50% | 0% | |
| 3 | 33.3% | 100% | 50% | 100% | 50% | 100% | 50% | 0% | |
| 4th | 33.3% | 100% | 50% | 100% | 50% | 100% | 50% | 0% | |
| 5 | 33.3% | 100% | 50% | 100% | 50% | 100% | 50% | 0% | |
| 6th | 33.3% | 100% | 50% | 100% | 50% | 100% | 50% | 0% |
With a productivity-oriented wage policy, the share of consumer goods C in total production Y remains stable, here now at 25%. However, the lower the share of the (growing) total product that the workers get, the greater economic growth can be achieved.
Constant real wage
If real wages did not grow, but remained constant, then the following would result, again assuming that capital intensity K / A increases from period to period by 50%, which also increases labor productivity Y / A from period to period 50% triggers.
Absolute values:
| Period t | A. | C. | C / A | C (t) / Y (t-1) | K | N / A | Y | Y / A | K / Y |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | - | € | € | - | € | € | € | € | - |
| 1 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 1.00 | - | 100.0 | 1.00 | 400.0 | 4,000 | 0.25 |
| 2 | 160.0 | 160.0 | 1.00 | 40.0% | 240.0 | 1,500 | 960.0 | 6,000 | 0.25 |
| 3 | 295.4 | 295.4 | 1.00 | 30.8% | 2658.5 | 9,000 | 485.7 | 4,000 | 0.25 |
| 4th | 607.6 | 607.6 | 1.00 | 22.9% | 2050.8 | 3.375 | 8203.3 | 13,500 | 0.25 |
| 5 | 1353.1 | 1353.1 | 1.0 | 16.5% | 6850.1 | 5.063 | 27400.6 | 20,250 | 0.25 |
| 6th | 3188.4 | 3188.4 | 1.0 | 11.6% | 24212.1 | 7.594 | 96848.5 | 30.375 | 0.25 |
Growth rate:
| Period t | W (A) | WC) | W (C / A) | W (K) | W (K / A) | W (Y) | W (Y / A) | W (K / Y) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| 2 | 60.0% | 60% | 0% | 140.0% | 50% | 140.0% | 50% | 0% | |
| 3 | 84.6% | 85% | 0% | 176.9% | 50% | 176.9% | 50% | 0% | |
| 4th | 105.7% | 106% | 0% | 208.6% | 50% | 208.6% | 50% | 0% | |
| 5 | 122.7% | 123% | 0% | 234.0% | 50% | 234.0% | 50% | 0% | |
| 6th | 135.6% | 136% | 0% | 253.5% | 50% | 253.5% | 50% | 0% |
This persistent wage lag behind labor productivity is now enabling ever stronger employment growth. On the other hand, the share of consumer goods in production is decreasing overall. An ever larger part of production goes into growth, an ever smaller part, but which is increasing in absolute terms, is consumed by the workers. This corresponds to case A in Popper's scheme.
The controversial question now is whether such an underconsumption or overproduction crisis can be justified, or whether the ever greater economic and employment growth could, in principle, take place free of crises. Sooner or later, ever greater economic growth will in any case hit the full employment limit, which can then be interpreted as an overproduction crisis. If a certain growth in the labor supply is assumed, then economic growth must now be slowed down so that it adapts to the slower population growth. This can be done by expanding the proportion of production that goes into consumption. Since wages rise with full employment, consumption will also rise, so that a new growth equilibrium may be established as a result of market forces. Or wage policy, together with Keynesian measures, must control the consumption quota in such a way that an economic growth rate that matches the growth in labor supply is achieved.
Overinvestment / Overaccumulation
So far, the equilibrium assumptions of growth theory have been used, according to which capital intensity K / A and labor productivity Y / A grow at the same rate. An imbalanced assumption would be that a given increase in capital intensity produces an even higher growth in labor productivity. This would then be the incentive for the individual company - individual rationality - to expand capital intensity, since this then leads to an even higher increase in labor productivity. If this incentive leads to companies responding to a certain growth in labor productivity in the next period with an even greater increase in capital intensity, then macroeconomic difficulties arise that are ultimately expressed in a shrinking employment. There is no collective rationality , there is a rationality trap .
In the following numerical example it is now assumed that an increase in capital intensity by a certain growth factor leads to a 1.2-fold increase in labor productivity in relation to this factor in the same period. This represents the incentive for the individual company to increase capital intensity (individual rationality).
The increase in capital intensity, the use of the means of production per worker, is supposed to be greater than the increase in labor productivity than the increase in production per worker in the previous period. For the sake of simplicity, the same magnification factor of 1.2 should be assumed for the growth factor. (Accordingly, an increase in labor productivity by a factor of 1.2 or 20% in the next period leads to an increase in capital intensity by a factor of 1.2 times 1.2 or by 1.44, that is 44%. This then leads again in the same period to an increase in labor productivity by 1.44 times 1.2 or by 1.728 or by around 73%)
Wages rise like capital intensity
If wages C / A rise to the same extent as capital intensity K / A, the two departments I (capital goods) and II (consumer goods) remain in the same ratio, so that there is no under-consumption. However, employment growth decreases more and more with over-accumulation.
Absolute values:
| Period t | A. | C. | C / A | C (t) / Y (t-1) | K | N / A | Y | Y / A | K / Y |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | - | € | € | - | € | € | € | € | - |
| 1 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 1.0 | - | 100.0 | 1.00 | 600.0 | 6.0 | 0.167 |
| 2 | 250.0 | 300.0 | 1.2 | 50.0% | 300.0 | 1.2 | 2160.0 | 8.6 | 0.139 |
| 3 | 520.8 | 1080.0 | 2.1 | 50.0% | 1080.0 | 2.1 | 9331.2 | 17.9 | 0.116 |
| 4th | 904.2 | 4665.6 | 5.2 | 50.0% | 4665.6 | 5.2 | 48 372.9 | 53.5 | 0.096 |
| 5 | 1308.2 | 24186.5 | 18.5 | 50.0% | 24 186.5 | 18.5 | 3.0E + 05 | 230.0 | 0.080 |
| 6th | 1577.2 | 150 459.2 | 95.4 | 50.0% | 150 459.2 | 95.4 | 2.2E + 06 | 1424.3 | 0.067 |
Growth rate:
| Period t | W (A) | WC) | W (C / A) | W (K) | W (K / A) | W (Y) | W (Y / A) | W (K / Y) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| 2 | 150.0% | 200% | 20% | 200% | 20% | 260.0% | 44.0% | −17% | |
| 3 | 108.3% | 260% | 73% | 260.0% | 73% | 332.0% | 107.4% | −17% | |
| 4th | 73.6% | 332% | 149% | 332.0% | 149% | 418.4% | 198.6% | −17% | |
| 5 | 44.7% | 418% | 258% | 418.4% | 258% | 522.1% | 330.0% | −17% | |
| 6th | 20.6% | 522% | 416% | 522.1% | 416% | 646.5% | 519.2% | −17% |
Constant real wage
If the real wage does not keep up with the growth in labor productivity, then higher employment growth is technically possible. However, since the capital intensity K / A is expanded more and more than the labor productivity Y / A has increased, sooner or later this will in any case lead to a decline in employment. In the first example, employment growth rates are already slowing in the fifth and sixth periods. In the second example it is assumed that capital intensity does not increase by 1.2 times the growth factor by which labor productivity has increased, but by 1.8 times. Then employment decreases absolutely in the fifth and sixth periods. This contraction in employment can perhaps be influenced in terms of wage policy, but under these assumptions of over-accumulation (capital intensity increases more than labor productivity) it cannot be prevented.
Over-accumulation by a factor of 1.2
Absolute values:
| Period t | A. | C. | C / A | C (t) / Y (t-1) | K | N / A | Y | Y / A | K / Y |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | - | € | € | - | € | € | € | € | - |
| 1 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 1.0 | - | 100.0 | 1.00 | 600.0 | 6.0 | 0.167 |
| 2 | 272.7 | 272.7 | 1.0 | 45.5% | 372.3 | 1,200 | 2356.4 | 8.6 | 0.139 |
| 3 | 766.6 | 766.6 | 1.0 | 32.5% | 1589.7 | 2.1 | 13735.2 | 17.9 | 0.116 |
| 4th | 2229.8 | 2229.8 | 1.0 | 16.2% | 11505.3 | 5.2 | 119287.4 | 53.5 | 0.096 |
| 5 | 6120.9 | 6120.9 | 1.0 | 5.1% | 113166.5 | 18.5 | 1407972.2 | 230.0 | 0.080 |
| 6th | 14606.1 | 14606.1 | 1.0 | 1.0% | 1393366.1 | 95.4 | 20802844.4 | 1424.3 | 0.067 |
Growth rate:
| Period t | W (A) | WC) | W (C / A) | W (K) | W (K / A) | W (Y) | W (Y / A) | W (K / Y) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| 2 | 172.7% | 172.7% | 0% | 227.3% | 20% | 292.7% | 44.0% | −17% | |
| 3 | 181.1% | 181.1% | 0% | 385.7% | 73% | 482.9% | 107.4% | −17% | |
| 4th | 190.9% | 190.9% | 0% | 623.7% | 149% | 768.5% | 198.6% | −17% | |
| 5 | 174.5% | 174.5% | 0% | 883.6% | 258% | 1080.3% | 330.0% | −17% | |
| 6th | 138.6% | 138.6% | 0% | 1131.3% | 416% | 1377.5% | 519.2% | −17% |
Over-accumulation by a factor of 1.8
Absolute values:
| Period t | A. | C. | C / A | C (t) / Y / t-1) | K | N / A | Y | Y / A | K / Y |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | - | € | € | - | € | € | € | € | - |
| 1 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 1.0 | - | 100.0 | 1.00 | 600.0 | 6.0 | 0.167 |
| 2 | 214.3 | 214.3 | 1.0 | 35.7% | 385.7 | 1.8 | 4165.7 | 19.4 | 0.093 |
| 3 | 362.3 | 362.3 | 1.0 | 8.7% | 3803.4 | 10.5 | 73938.1 | 204.1 | 0.051 |
| 4th | 370.9 | 370.9 | 1.0 | 0.5% | 73567.3 | 198.4 | 2574265.9 | 6941.0 | 0.029 |
| 5 | 212.0 | 212.0 | 1.0 | 0.0% | 2574053.9 | 12144.0 | 162128329.4 | 764894.2 | 0.016 |
| 6th | 67.3 | 67.3 | 1.0 | 0.0% | 162128262.1 | 2408865.9 | 18381142558.9 | 273102957.6 | 0.009 |
Growth rate:
| Period t | W (A) | WC) | W (C / A) | W (K) | W (K / A) | W (Y) | W (Y / A) | W (K / Y) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| 2 | 114.3% | 114.3% | 0% | 285.7% | 80% | 594.3% | 224.0% | −44% | |
| 3 | 69.1% | 69.1% | 0% | 886.1% | 483% | 1674.9% | 949.8% | −44% | |
| 4th | 2.4% | 2.4% | 0% | 1834.2% | 1790% | 3381.6% | 3301.2% | −44% | |
| 5 | −42.8% | −42.8% | 0% | 3398.9% | 6022% | 6198.0% | 10920.0% | −44% | |
| 6th | −68.2% | −68.2% | 0% | 6198.6% | 19736% | 11237.4% | 35,604.7% | −44% |
Result
Viewed in isolation, underconsumption (overproduction) can be overcome through appropriate wage policy or through demand policy measures, if not even market forces directly bring about equilibrium growth. If greater economic growth is to be achieved, consumption as a share of production must even be pushed back. Underconsumption / overproduction would then only be a temporary phenomenon that could be dealt with through Keynesian measures or the right wage policy. Underconsumption crises can be reformed.
On the other hand, over-accumulation ( capital intensity grows faster than labor productivity ) cannot be eliminated through wage policy or demand policy. Only the point in time from which employment would theoretically have to shrink can be influenced by lower consumption.
Within Marxist economic theory , the first declaration of the crisis is therefore more “ reformist ”, while the second declaration of crisis is used when the fundamental non-reformability of the capitalist economy is to be emphasized. The over-accumulation also forms the background to Marx's law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall .
Web links
The theoretical underconsumption connection was illustrated in a computer simulation in the web browser.
literature
- Karl Popper : The open society and its enemies. Volume 2: False Prophets. Hegel, Marx and the Consequences. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2003, ISBN 3-16-148069-4
Individual evidence
- ↑ Tobias ten Brink : Geopolitics - History and Present of Capitalist State Competition . Westphalian steam boat, Münster 2008, ISBN 978-3-89691-123-0 , p. 307 . , P. 96, footnote 55.
- ↑ Alfred Müller: Die Marxsche Konjunkturtheorie - An over-accumulation-theoretical interpretation. PapyRossa Cologne, 2009 (dissertation 1983) p. 9.