• On Economic Circulation and Income Distribution, Over-Accumulation, Non-Inflationary Credit Creation and Credit Channelling

The basic argument of this article is simple: The introduction of money as an exchange medium has not only made market transactions and resource allocations more efficient but it also brought with it a potential for disruption of the system. The reason is that money serves several roles. The task is to ensure that money should not be allowed to leave the circulation process between production and consumption and vice versa. This was the central point of many money heretics in the interwar period. It is still a point that needs to be understood better. The point also has crucial implications for funding of pensions and funds like the Kuwaiti- or Norwegian "Petrol Fund".

A relatively fitting metaphor of the problem is that of the combustion engine: In order to work it needs to be lubricated. If the engine leaks (i.e. lubricator (oil) escapes out of the system) the engine will soon stop.
 
 

1. Short history of theory
2. Logic of the system

Introduction

This article has started off, as often is the case, as an attempt to clarify one’s own ideas concerning some matter. I will consider some basic and rather simple matters on the relation between economic stability and consumption intended to gain some perspective of the field. I will try to discuss the theme from a basic view of the matter without getting into technical terminology, of for instance Marxists and (neo-) Ricardians, that I do not master.

I will discuss the theories that Schumpeter despises more than any in the field of business cycles; those of underconsumption and of oversaving of which he says repeatedly that they are myths and can hardly be considered scientific. It is striking, however that he produces no arguments against these theories but several in favour of them and notes that Marx (his favourite in this area) held such ideas as well (Schumpeter, 1954, pp. 740ff, 1129ff)

A Norwegian economist, Brynjulf Bjørseth, published a book in 1934 that was translated and published in London in 1936. Its title describes very well the mood of the young economists during the crisis in the 1930s: Distribute or Destroy. The theme unfortunately has still relevance, as I hope to show below.
 
 
 
 

Consumption and the classical school

Much has been written about distribution, especially within the classic tradition as with Ricardo and later within the neo/Ricardian tradition by writers like Sraffa, Robinson, etc. Ricardo has often been considered the economist of distribution and not of growth. This is partly misunderstanding since Ricardo saw a proper distribution as a precondition to the growth of an economy focusing on the propensity to accumulate of the various production factors. Nevertheless he paid little attention to the other side of the game namely consumption. It was Malthus who focused on this and his predecessor Richard Jones. Both stood closer to the historical tradition in economics. However, it was Ricardo who was to make his impression upon main street academic economics in the 19^th Century to the regret of Keynes who again picked up the focus of Malthus and the Mercantilists on consumption.

As in the German and English Historical Schools, Malthus, Jones, and J.S.Mill claimed that safeguarding income of the weaker (social insurance, in principle) would stabilise demand and employment apart from developing the productive forces, developing social trust and calming social unrest. Governmental law was top be the instrument to regulate property, which in the case of agrarian property was seen as undeserved by Mill.

The "classical economists" had traditionally regarded the economic system as if everybody were merchants or entrepreneurs and therefore limited their arguments to that of the production sphere, although being largely ignorant of the human capital side of it - starting from a materialist Image of Man as they did. The historical school and Ricardo, Malthus and Jones additionally focused on the decisive importance of distribution for the productive system. Jones claimed that the production form was formed by the organisation of work and thereby by distribution in the meaning of property relations (Jones, 1831). This attempt to discuss distribution was later taken up eagerly by the Distributist movement in Britain around the turn of the 20^th Century, that argued against any kind of concentration of property ownership (including the State), and was associated with Guild Socialism and the Social Credit movement. (Hutchinson, 1997, p.25).This attempt to include distribution of property relations into the economic analysis separates the pragmatic view of the historists from the more ideological view of the liberalist school. As for the mercantilists, property was an instrument and nothing sacred. The historists thereby in essence claimed that a dynamic relation to distribution - property - is necessary as opposed to the more static, status quo, view of the liberalist school. Ironically a basic trait of Ricardo’s analysis, and perhaps the most valuable part, has thereby been filtered away. Mainly his deductive method (the Ricardian Vice), his addition to Smith’s trade theory (comparative advantages) and his addition to Malthus’ rent theory (marginal productivity) were allowed into the body of late 19^th Century economics.

I will in the main take a look at the issue of demand and distribution from the point of the monetary cranks in the interwar era that generally may be classified as underconsumption theorists. Contrary to the production- and goods fixation of the Ricardian/Mill tradition, they believed that "money matters" or to put it differently that money is an exogenous factor in the economic system. A telling example of the classic tradition is the title of the neo-Ricardian, Piero Sraffa’s, book Production of Commodity by Means of Commodities. An early exponent of " money matters" is Gerard de Malynes (1586-1623) who claimed that an expanding money supply would not only increase the price level, but also decrease the interest rate and stimulate the economy (Malynes, 1601 & 1622). David Hume, on the other hand, claimed that,

It may also be claimed, however, that private banking would increase instability.
 
 

The financial sector and the classical school

Although the financial sector had been thoroughly studied by Mercantilists like Mun, Malynes, Child, Locke, Newton, Stewart, it was forgotten with Smith and the classical school , and which Thornton criticised them for in 1802 .

Smith, Malthus, Ricardo discussed a functional distribution of surplus in order to achieve growth. In essence they took over the economic model of the Physiocrats based on barter of corn. In this model demand and supply equalled each other relatively easy. However, the classical school was more or less unable (or perhaps unwilling) to explain certain instability phenomena related to underconsumption. A reason for this was the exclusion of the financial sector and accompanied hoarding and speculative phenomena in this sector. This exclusion also goes for the neo-Ricardian school.

Ignoring a lot of work on the financial sector by Mercantilist writers, Adam Smith and the main stream of the Classical School also tended to ignore both the existence and explanation of commercial crisis such as theories of phenomena like oversaving, over-accumulation, overproduction, underconsumption, and under-spending. Say's Law is describing of this tradition in which less than full capacity utilisation was ruled out per ce, which goes for the overproduction, underconsumption, Neo-classical School as well - of the Cobb-Douglas function version.

Instability as a result of over-accumulation and accompanying inflation in the financial sector was thereby more or less ignored and the adherents have always lived their intellectual life in the periphery of academic economics - much for political reasons it is likely to assume. The flip of the coin to over-accumulation is underconsumption and therefore declining investments, growth, tax-revenue and welfare. The general glut that underconsumption implies, unemployment through deflation, is also not compatible with neo-classical analysis since it also presupposes Say's Law of full capacity utilisation. However it is understandable within this framework if

The monetary cranks re-introduced the financial sector into British economic analysis: Douglas, Soddy, Keynes, besides German and American monetary cranks like George, Gesell, Knapp, Hayek, Mises, Friedman etc. The Scandinavians had Brochmann and Kristensen, apart from the academic economists who focused on monetary issues like Wicksell and Casell. (Douglas, Soddy, Brochmann and Kristensen are not even mentioned in Schumpeter's History…, 1954 - in spite of them playing a great role, although: hidden from most academics' attention)

The ideas of some of the cranks, rather than others, later became main stream and the link between the initiators and the successful is not hidden. Keynes, for instance, openly acknowledges his debt to Gesell (Keynes, 1936, p.353-358) - though Gesell was more of an anarchistic thinker (In the sense of Free Banking - FB) than Keynes was, with his more statist / mercantilist oriented ideas (In the sense of National Banking - NB). In this way Keynes would be closer to Douglas and to Soddy. The Norwegian Bertram Dybvad Brochmann also had hidden influence though the first Nobel laureate in economics (1969), Ragnar Frisch. Frisch borrowed, without ever stating so in public, Brochmann's ideas on national accounting, but Frisch left out Brochmann's inclusion of the household sphere and the natural resources and energy sphere. Frisch also wrote about the monetary questions and was like Keynes very open to the ideas of the heretics. (Frisch, 1933, 1933, 1934; Andvig,1980) As is generally acknowledged Frisch developed ideas similar and in parallel to Keynes.

He too emphasised that "consumer demand was the driving force of the system" and that "attempts to save could curtail consumption without giving rise to any investment". Frisch says, "One should in other words, attempt to create an indirectly planned economy." (Andvig, 1980, pp.11-12)

What Frisch writes, in 1934 could in the main also have been written today,

On the other hand, as noticed above, FB also represented a severe criticism of the deflationary austerity policy of the gold oriented central banks at the time it emerged in late 19^th Century and the post WW I period. Besides, in the eyes of the critics, the NB solution paid overly attention to large-scale projects neglecting small local entrepreneurs and thereby contributed to market concentration and anti-social monopoly rents. One lesson may be that the role and effect one institution and remedy had at one time may be different today. However, also today we may observe central banks inclined to pursue austerity policies and increasing concentration on any market.
 
 

The barter economy system: Balance of production and consumption

In a barter economy production normally equals consumption. The classical school has often been accused of being a study primarily of such a barter economy. Ironically, Ricardo was a "money-changer" by birth and occupation, he used the Physiocratic notion of a farm based on barter as model for a national economy. Although Ricardo did mention money in his Principles, we cannot say that this was a central part of his theory whether in the early or late version.
 
 

With the introduction of money as an intermediate potential disturbance is introduced. As often is the case when more or less perfect models are confronted with real life - their relevance vanish.

Roscher says that,

The leading historian and theoretician of economics Germany in the middle of the 19^th Century was Wilhelm Roscher. His Principles… Book IV is devoted to consumption (Roscher, 1877, Book IV). Sections CCXI and CCXII are devoted to the two types of consumption: Productive and unproductive. Roscher says that this classification originally is Plato's (The Republic, VIII, p. 559). Keynes later refers to this typology (Keynes, 1930, II, Ch. 28, Sec. ii, p. 126)

For several reasons, this classification is more enlightening than the classification consumption and investment. First it makes more obvious that the difference is only a matter of degree, and secondly it makes more obvious that certain actions classified as investment today has little to do with consumption, namely financial investments. The latter difference, that of productive consumption vs. financial investments is today categorised as being more or less the same, "investments". By removing this veiling mode of classification, we may reveal some new or rather old and forgotten insights. As noted by Roscher, financial investments are a kind of sterile storage until channelled, and if, into consumption of kinds. This is a potential disturber of the peaceful balance and equilibrium - in the perfect model of the classical school. The money heretics later pointed out that this disturbance was due to the different roles of money; as exchange medium; as value measurer; and as wealth storage medium.

Roscher asserts that,

There is no production possible without consumption. …

There are different degrees of productiveness in consumption also. … (Roscher,

1877, § CCXI)

One of Roscher's chapters has the telling heading Necessity of the Proper Simultaneous Development of Production and Consumption (Roscher, 1877, Book IV, Ch. I, § CCXV). After a discussion of the two areas he writes,

Two kinds of monetary heresy

After depressions, there have been two kinds of heresies: Money demand- and money supply heretics.

The monetary heretics claimed that money suffered from serving several (potentially mutually exclusive) purposes at the same time. The attainment of these purposes often mutually excluded each other. Money serves the purposes of exchange, wealth measurement and wealth storage. The latter purpose may undermine the former.

After the depression of 1815; The Birmingham School of Thomas Atwood (Atwood, 1791) was allied to the Chartist movement. After WW I, there were many heretics, for instance Foster, Catchings, Douglas, who saw underconsumption (over-saving) as the cause of depression and monetary expansion as a remedy. Douglas came up with several suggestions, one was a general basic minimum citizen salary. Krugman's suggestion to helicopter money over Tokyo goes even further.

The orthodox objection to the claims of the money supply heretics has always been that expansion of money leads to inflation. We will get back to this below concerning Soddy's similar ideas.

Gesell may be claimed to be a money demand heretic, as may Steiner (Steiner, 1921) and Brochmann (Brochmann, 1922, 1923, 1956). A central idea with these heretics is the claims that money held would have to be reduced in value over time - a kind of inflation - though instruments like stamped money. This would spur spending and circulation.
 
 

Credit basis: Labour fund or productive capacity

Investments must be financed with claims to production. This is the essence of credit, i.e. goodwill or trust - in future re-payment. Investments are productive consumption and has their corollary in an abstention from unproductive consumption. Soddy's point is that these loans - for productive consumption - can never be repaid but will live in the shadow-land of the economy as interest bearing debt (possibly provoking higher taxes if the debt is public) until cancelled.

Traditional main street economists in the Mercantile (monetary) tradition of Adam Smith would claim that investments have to be financed with saving in advance, or to with another expression, financed by the Labour Fund i.e. surplus that has not been consumed. Soddy agrees that saving has to precede investment.

I have been surprised several times that Frederick Soddy, who dedicated his Wealth…to the modern father of British monetary heretics, Arthur Kitson, so often hold view very similar to orthodoxy. This is clearly true in this case as well. Soddy writes,

General saving leads today to mutual sabotage. … Conclusion: … Personal saving of money in the form so far practised, should in the future not be stimulated, since this, as shown above, restrains the circulation of money and leads to less turnover and lower activity in general. … People should in contrast be induced to buy useful and durable things. This form of saving should be stimulated instead of the old method of general saving of money. This is not alone a necessary rearrangement, but an absolutely necessary rearrangement if we are to be able to receive the technical goods of today and tomorrow, and is this not what Men want? Development hardly lets itself be set back.

I would like to emphasise a point that is central to all the heretics described, this is their open hearted and devoted technology optimism, their belief in the limitless potential of Man. Their followers today, however, seem to have been able to interpret this the way around, somehow.

Productive capacity
 
 

However, saved income – from whatever source, for instance interests in order to make the point more obvious - does not guarantee that there will be productive capacity to account for increased demand as a result of using funds for investments.

List said about the Adam Smith’s theory on saving that,

Credit can be created and expanded until this capacity has been used fully without danger of inflation. Channelling credit into expansion of this capacity to produce means that both this capacity and credit over time can be expanded without any limit, in principle seen in isolation from for instance limits of resources such as space.

Schumpeter has similar ideas about the basic role of capital, being the catalyst of socio-economic transformation into a more efficient structure,

But the problem is most likely not practical but political and as Robert W. Zimmerer wrote in an email,

1. Use of common surplus from production for the various production factors:

1. W - Wages
2. P - Profits
3. G - Landed/ground/real estate rent + financial gains - as a third by-product of the productive process

B) The share of each production factors in surplus may be used for various purposes:

-The delineation between 1 on the first hand, and on the second hand 2 and 3 is fluid and often a matter of definition.

1. Cp - (Re-) productive consumption – reinvestment in production, infrastructure
2. Cu - Unproductive consumption – luxuries, defence
3. F – Financial/Real estate investments - in financial activity (FIRE)

Cp may lead to further surplus and reiteration of the processes A and B, and is in

(A crucial chapter that needs to be expanded by empirical and theoretical studies)

An analysis of the how and why different factors' (share-receivers) will use their income (their propensity) for various usage is crucial in order to stake out a policy with which to influence this apportionment.

W is prone to be invested in productive consumption (Cp) in the sense of

"Dynamic Distribution"in time: Financing pensions, funds or PAYU

(pay as you use)

As the industrial world turns grey, we get more older and less younger people to feed them. One question concerns how to finance this? A second question concerns the effects for the stability of the financial and economic system.

Social security creates confidence with the individual consumer and strengthens demand. A lack of this creates savings, especially in an insecure situation, as a downturn in an economy, which is the situation when this is more lethal than in any other situation. A lack of social security therefore works pro-cyclical and makes an economy more volatile. The social security system is important in this regard as we may observe today in Japan, both for its contribution to in/stability and for its mammoth size in developed countries like Japan. In Japan alone, they have a size many times the collective debt of the developing countries.
 
 

The fund solution: the indirect way

We are not going to look at funds as a short-term buffer but as a more long-term strategy. The buffer strategy refers to relative short-term use of funds as an equalising device that may work between fairly similar nations.

The funds must be invested somewhere.

Let us now look upon the ICs as if they constituted one nation and the LDCs and NICs as they constituted another nation.

There are four options: In financial markets or in production, abroad or domestically
 
 

Financial investments:

Concerning financial markets the importance of the emerging markets area is so small, relatively speaking that this need not be considered. This may seem strange considered the recent turmoil, but compared with the markets in the ICs this still is true I believe. Accordingly financial investment must be domestic in the developed markets. The efforts to invest in the emerging markets in the mid-1990s did not fare well for several reasons that will not be a theme here for reasons of space.

If credit is channelled to the financial part of the developed markets they will lead to a situation where large funds after some time may dominate the national economies. These funds are normally general in nature i.e. the funds are not connected to any particular type of industry. These people know little about real production and are not likely to invest relatively less in this area. Instead, this implies that investment will tend to go to general investments like financial assets of any sort. When the supply of assets are relatively limited and demand goes up this generally leads to inflation in the financial markets: bouncing stock, bond and currency markets.

This would mean that we get further into financial capitalism where the tail wags the dog ¼ : i.e. financial capitalism. Production decreases for lack of funding and demand whereas financial markets boom as in a pyramid game: The first in win if they get out before the pyramid collapse. The game is manly mental (psychological) and concerns trust or belief in the direction of the market. As soon as trust changes, the market changes.

So, driving the financial markets are not the gains from profits but rather the stream of new money into the pyramid supported by faith that the pyramid will grow - for a while. But pyramids do go bust.

P ß

=> F Ý => Crash ?

As a web-friend, Robert W. Zimmerer, wrote commenting upon the theories of Fredrick Mishkin (Mishkin ,1995),

Less likely since administrators are distant to these activities, but this is obviously a task of politics, education and law-making - to channel funds into purposes that serve general welfare. See the articles by Gordon L. Clark on this matter. (Clark, 1998 etc.)
 
 

Abroad or domestically

It is normally argued, for instance in Norway, that the nation cannot supply itself in the future and must therefore build up funds from which it may live in the future. Thereby creating demands upon foreign populations – in real effects parallel to that happens when a nations borrow from abroad (the legal situation being different concerning opposed demands for the future). This policy cannot be pursued if all do the same: as if all borrow: Someone has to produce.

If the industrial countries (ICs) all live off their funds, then other groups of nations , i.e. less developed countries (LDCs) and newly industrialised countries (NICs) must be able produce and to pay back part of a surplus to the ICs and also be able to live off the capital that we borrow them today. This will produce an indebted situation in the LDCs which only will be a problem if the credit is not used for productive consumption and instead goes to unproductive consumption or financial hoarding - as has been the case so far - largely.

Therefore it is crucial that the fund are channelled to the NICs and LDCs. Further it is crucial that the LDCs and NICs invest in ways that are productive making it possible to produce a future surplus that may be paid back to the lenders (the ICs). It will furthermore be crucial to establish good public and private bureaucracies in order to channel this credit productively. So far this has not worked well and prospects are dim
 
 

1) PAYU solution (pay as you use): the direct way
 
 

The alternative to sending surplus to NICs or into financial markets will channel credit into production and in particular into productivity increasing investments. Productivity increases makes it possible in the ICs for less youngsters to support more "grey" people.

This is made more possible by the following fact: Creating (pension) funds means that the surplus, savings must be taken from wages, in particular, but also in some national systems also from the employer’s accounts. The alternative is that surplus is channelled directly back to production without going through the middleman that the funds constitute. This can be done in several ways: By siphoning surplus directly from the company’s accounts back to production through investments. However, as will be pointed out above, wages must receive its share to ensure demand for the produced goods and thereby make it worthwhile to invest in production. The alternative is excessive consumption of luxuries by the establishment. But apart from the moral issue this will be less productive since productivity demands high quality labour force that demands a wide distribution of surplus.

Although some saving might be encouraged from wages this should not be too much simply because there has to be some demand. The more saving from wages, the higher wages must be over a necessary "fixed" minimum of demand for goods. The savings from wages could be siphoned back to production, for instance though stock investments, leading to a democratisation of capital based on ownership – as opposed to a "elitisation" (opposite of democratisation) of capital when capital receive relatively more than labour. However, as noted elsewhere, this democratisation will be pro-cyclical.

In both instances, when labour or capital receive "more" than the other factor, surplus may be siphoned back to production or not. Public regulation may create arrangements that ensure that surplus is channelled back to production in the general interest. If this is not ensured, we have several possibilities as noticed above concerning the propensities of the production factors shares to be used for various purposes.

Additionally this strategy may not make a future claim on the LDCs and the NICs.

But will the LDCs and NICs receive less productive investments with this strategy?
 
 
 
 

"Static" Distribution: between "production factors" capital , labour and land

This section is, as you can see not finished, but I gather you will grasp the logic.
 
 

Balance of incomes: "distribute or destroy"

If: More income to profit & no channelling of profit in general interest

& limited ability of upper class to consume:

=> less demand for goods and production

=> little incentive to invest in production

=> more incentive to invest in finance

demand

Balance of branches:

If: more branches in ones own country

Home market:

create demand by protection of production, infrastructure

=> more control over demand – important in times of crisis

& => less costs of transport

& => less middle men and exchange meaning less reason for

Keynes points to impossible and possible solutions to depressions,

Andvig, Jens Christoffer. (1980). Ragnar Frisch and Monetary Reform Movements in the Thirties,

Memorandum, Oslo: Institute of Economics, University of Oslo

Bjørset, Brynjolf. (1934). Distribute or Destroy, London, 1936, reprint 1939, translation of the

Norwegian original: Efter oss kommer overfloden, Oslo 1934

Bleaney, Michael F. (1976). Underconsumption theories. A History and Critical Analysis, London:

Lawrence and Wishart

Brochmann, B.Dybvad. (1922). Eksakt vurdering og Verdilære, Bergen: eget forlag 1959 (private

printing)

Brochmann, Bertram Dybvad. (1923). Nøklene. Veien til det nye land: (Aandsrev), Bergen: eget forlag

(private printing)

Clark, Gordon L. (199?). THE ANATOMY OF CORRUPTION: THE PRACTICE OF PENSION FUND

INVESTMENT DECISION MAKING, Oxford: Oxford University, Working Paper

Clark, Gordon L. (1996). PENSION FUNDS AND URBAN INVESTMENT: THE DESIGN OF

ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENT PRODUCTS, Oxford: Oxford University, Working Paper

Clark, Gordon L. (1998). PENSION FUND CAPITALISM: A CAUSAL ANALYSIS, Oxford: Oxford

University, Working Paper

Clark, Gordon L. (1996). Why Convention dominates pension fund trustees' investment decision

making, Oxford: Oxford University, Working Paper WPG 96-9

12,1932) Memorandum from the Department of Economics, University of Oslo, January 11,1951

Frisch, Ragnar. (1933). Sparing og cirkulasjonsregulering, Oslo: Fabritius & Sønners Forlag

Frisch, Ragnar. (1934). Circulation Planning, Econometrica, pp.258-336

Hayek, F.A. (1976). Denationalisation of Money, London: IEA – The Institute of Economic Affairs, 3^rd

ed. 1990: The Argument Refined. An Analysis of the Theory and Practice of Concurrent

Currencies,

Heckscher, E.F. (193I). Merkantilismen. Vols I and II, Stockholm: P.A. Norstedt & Soner;

Hilferding. (1910). Finance Capital: A Study of the Latest Phase of Capitalist Development, London:

Routledge & Kegan Paul, translated from the original in German, Das Finanzkapital, 1912

Hutchinson, Frances. (1997). The Political Economy of Social Credit and Guild Socialism, London:

Routledge

Johansen, Leif. (1976). The Crisis in the World Economy - new orientation of Norway's economic

policy, Sosialøkonomen, no.2., Lecture in Society of Socialist Economists, Nov.1975

Jones, Richard. (1831). An Essay on the Distribution of Wealth and of the Sources of Taxation

Hume, David. (1752). quoted in Palgrave

Keynes, J.M. (1933). The Means to Prosperity, London: Macmillan

Keynes, J.M. (1936). The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money, London: Macmillan

Kitson, Arthur. (1894). A Scientific Solution to the Money Question, London: Boston

List, Friedrich. (1841). The National System of Political Economy, Phil.: Lippincott & Co., 1856,

London: Longmans Green, 1885, 1904, 1928, Fairfield NJ: Augustus Kelley 1991

Malynes, Gerard de. (1601). A Treatise for the Canker of England's Commonwealth, London: Richard

Adam Islip

Mill, J.S. (1963). Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, edited by John M. Robson and others, Toronto:

University of Toronto Press

Mishkin, Frederic S. (1995). The economics of money, banking, and financial markets, 4th ed. - New

York: HarperCollins College Publishers (The HarperCollins series in economics) (Org. 1986)

Pen, Jan. (1971). Income Distribution, Harmondsworth: Allen Lane The Penguin Press

Plato. (ca. 380 BC). The Republic, in W.R.M. Lamb (editor): Plato, with an English Translation, The

Loeb Classical Library, Vol. IV, London, Heinemann, 1924

Ricardo, David. (1817). The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, London: John Murray,

Albemarle-Street, reprinted in London by Dent 1973

Roscher, Wilhelm. (1877). Principles of Economics, Chicago: Callaghan and Co. 1878, reprint 1882

Press, 1961

Sismondi, J.C.L. Simonde de. (1815). Political Economy

Sismondi, J.C.L. Simonde de. (May 1824). Balance des consommations avec les productions, Revue

encyclopédie

Soddy, Frederick. (1934). The Role of Money. What it should be contrasted with what it has become,

London: George Routledge & Sons, Ltd.

Sraffa, Piero. (1960). Production of Commodity by Means of Commodities, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, reprints

Steiner, Rudolf. (1921). World Economics, Rudolf Steiner Press, London 1977 (1936/1937, 1949,

1972) (translated from the German original published under the title: Nationalökonomischer Kurs.)