"[Τ]he financial relationships reflected on balance
sheets and the real activities of production and consumption compose two separate systems, governed by two distinct sets of relationships."
sheets and the real activities of production and consumption compose two separate systems, governed by two distinct sets of relationships."
"Explanations that reduce debt to the financial counterpart to some real phenomena ignore the specifically financial factors governing the evolution of debt. "
"The evolution of demand and production has to be explained in *its* own terms, and the evolution of debt and other financial commitments has to be explained in *its* terms. No simple story combining the two is likely
to be useful or reliably consistent with the facts."
to be useful or reliably consistent with the facts."
I don't know how I really "feel" about the above claims. Two separate systems, governed by two distinct sets of relationships? Do those two systems not "inter-penetrate"? Are they each auto-poietic? Very Luhmannian, I reckon.
I can "dig" treating the "financial" system as "closed" to the "real system", not needing, and incapable of 'processing' inputs from, the latter. But vice-versa in a monetary (nay, capitalist) economy?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
