O sistema de crédito e o capital fictício em Marx

Marx's theory about money and credit has been very poorly studied. The objective of this paper is to provide an insight into the main features and implications of his concept of fictitious capital. In order to point out its relevance the paper outlines the author's basic concepts concerning credit money in the capitalist economy. It is assumed that the peculiarity of Marx's theory of money and credit is to be found in the conections of financial phenomena to the process of production of value implicit in the capital-relation.Marx's theory about money and credit has been very poorly studied. The objective of this paper is to provide an insight into the main features and implications of his concept of fictitious capital. In order to point out its relevance the paper outlines the author's basic concepts concerning credit money in the capitalist economy. It is assumed that the peculiarity of Marx's theory of money and credit is to be found in the conections of financial phenomena to the process of production of value implicit in the capital-relation

Elementos para uma crítica marxista do conceito de padrão-ouro

O objetivo deste artigo é desenvolver um elemento necessário ao aprofundamento da teoria marxista do dinheiro, que é caracterização marxista do conceito de padrão-ouro, referente à configuração do sistema monetário internacional nas décadas que antecederam a I Guerra Mundial

FUNDAMENTOS TEÓRICOS DO ANALISE MARXISTA DO SISTEMA MONETÁRIO INTERNACIONAL

O presente artigo focaliza a caracterização, feita por Marx, da esfera internacional da circulação monetária ou sistema monetário internacional. Esta pesquisa é um subproduto de urna discussão sobre o caráter de mercadoria, atribuído por Marx ao dinheiro e contestado por diversos autores marxistas. O objetivo do artigo é deduzir, das indicações dispersas de Marx sobre o tema, uma estrutura conceitual consistente para a análise pretendida. Todavia, o artigo aborda apenas urna parte da estrutura conceituai básica, a relativa aos conceitos da teoria do dinheiro, omitindo a teoria do capital monetário na esfera internacional, remetida a análise posterior

‘Economia monetária’ ou ‘economia capitalista’? Marx e Keynes: sobre a natureza do capitalismo

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the process of distortion, or neutralization of the fundamental Marxist concept of a ‘capitalist economy’ or ‘capitalist mode of production’, which attempts the assimilation of the Marxist view into the Keynesian concept of a ‘monetary economy’. Among post-Keynesian authors as well as some Marxists, it has become usual to believe that Marx’s and Keynes’ theories can both be defined as ‘monetary theories of production’ in Keynes’ sense, in view of the supposedly identical relevance attributed to money by both theories. The common procedure has been to assume that Marx’s theory can be associated to the Keynesian view, instead of the opposite, without questioning whether there is a corresponding alternative concept in Marx’s theory, and in that case, in what way it relates to Keynes’ concept. This paper demonstrates the inconsistency of that assumption.O presente artigo aborda o processo de deformação ou neutralização de um conceito marxista fundamental, que é o de ‘economia capitalista’ ou ‘modo de produção capitalista’, e a tentativa de assimilá-lo ao conceito keynesiano de ‘economia monetária’. Tornou-se habitual, tanto entre autores pós-keynesianos quanto em alguns marxistas, a noção de que as teorias de Marx e de Keynes se identificariam como ‘teorias monetárias da produção’, devido à relevância - supostamente idêntica - que ambas concederiam ao dinheiro. Deve-se notar que se atribui à teoria de Marx uma associação a um conceito formulado por Keynes e não o contrário, e geralmente sequer se discute se Marx possui um conceito alternativo correspondente e de que maneira este, caso a sua existência fosse mencionada, se relacionaria ao de Keynes. O mesmo processo ocorre com outros conceitos relevantes, que serão sumariamente mencionados. O objetivo do presente artigo é demonstrar a improcedência desta suposição

Partial pancreatoduodenectomy versus duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection in chronic pancreatitis: the multicentre, randomised, controlled, double-blind ChroPac trial

Background There is substantial uncertainty regarding the optimal surgical treatment for chronic pancreatitis. Short-term outcomes have been found to be better after duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR) than after partial pancreatoduodenectomy. Therefore, we designed the multicentre ChroPac trial to investigate the long-term outcomes of patients with chronic pancreatitis within 24 months after surgery. Methods This randomised, controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, superiority trial was done in 18 hospitals across Europe. Patients with chronic pancreatitis who were planned for elective surgical treatment were randomly assigned to DPPHR or partial pancreatoduodenectomy with a central web-based randomisation tool. The primary endpoint was mean quality of life within 24 months after surgery, measured with the physical functioning scale of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Primary analysis included all patients who underwent one of the assigned procedures; safety analysis included all patients who underwent surgical intervention (categorised into groups as treated). Patients and outcome assessors were masked to group assignment. The trial was registered, ISRCTN38973832. Recruitment was completed on Sept 3, 2013. Findings Between Sept 10, 2009, and Sept 3, 2013, 250 patients were randomly assigned to DPPHR (n=125) or partial pancreatoduodenectomy (n=125), of whom 226 patients (115 in the DPPHR group and 111 in the partial pancreatoduodenectomy group) were analysed. No difference in quality of life was seen between the groups within 24 months after surgery (75.3 [SD 16.4] for partial pancreatoduodenectomy vs 73.0 [16.4] for DPPHR; mean difference -2.3, 95% CI -6.6 to 2.0; p=0.284). The incidence and severity of serious adverse events did not differ between the groups. 70 (64%) of 109 patients in the DPPHR group and 61 (52%) of 117 patients in the partial pancreatoduodenectomy group had at least one serious adverse event, with the most common being reoperations (for reasons other than chronic pancreatitis), gastrointestinal problems, and other surgical morbidity. Interpretation No differences in quality of life after surgery for chronic pancreatitis were seen between the interventions. Results from single-centre trials showing superiority for DPPHR were not confirmed in the multicentre setting