The Experts below are selected from a list of 306 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Ernst Herzog - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
subprime crisis and marx s theory on Ground Rent
World Review of Political Economy, 2014Co-Authors: Richard Corell, Ernst HerzogAbstract:The crisis of 2008-10, also called subprime crisis, reached its first culmination point in the USA with the collapse of Lehman Brothers and then it became a major crisis worldwide, recalling the historic capitalist depression of 1929-32. Most studies about the crisis have taken into account the significance of the banks in general but not the specifically important role of mortgage loans including the crucial factor of private landed property. However, mortgage-backed securities (MBS) have been the most important basis for the deepening global development of the crisis.Because of that, we want to analyze the impact of landed property and its claimed right to Ground Rent on the various classes during the crisis. Marx's theory on Ground Rent will serve for us as a key in diffeRentiating the class interests not only between bourgeoisie and proletariat but also within the diverse factions of the bourgeoisie and some parts of the petty bourgeoisie.1First, we will outline the course of the crisis, then we will analyze those parts of Marx's theory on Ground Rent relevant to our subject, inadequately studied even by Marxists to date. Next follows the application of the theory on the subprime crisis. From this, consequences concerning significant class interests will be drawn and some aspects on Ground Rent in socialism will be examined.Thus, we hope to show that Marx's theory on Ground Rent supplies an important component to explaining this crisis in more detail. Also, explanation of the crisis in this way should encourage the search for practicable ways out of the curRent crisis and out of continuing crisis-proneness of capitalism.1. Development of the "Subprime" CrisisSince 1982, a massive import of capital took place to finance the curRent account deficit of the USA (see Figure 1). From 1997 onwards, additional monetary capital flows into the USA, because US bonds were seen as "safe haven" in the light of the diverse crises (including Asia, Russia, and Argentine).2 Besides security, interest rates were crucial for the accrual of capital. From the Euro-Zone, considerable capital movements flow into the USA, because yields on securities have been significantly higher than in the Euro-Zone. In mid-1999, average yields on bonds in the USA exceeded those of the Euro-Zone with 1.1 percentage points; yields on 10-year bonds had a spread of interest of 1.6 percentage points. Except from the beginning of 2002 to mid-2003, interest rates for bonds have been permanently higher in the USA than in the Euro-Zone. This did not change before the end of 2007 (see Deutsche Bundesbank 2008).The amounts of money capital to be invested worldwide were estimated at around US$70 trillion.4 To attract this money for investments, convenient structured products like MBS were created. Because of this capital import, the demand for securities with an attractive rate of return increased massively. In the course of this, fixed income securities with a higher yield than US government bonds or foreign bonds were on demand. Investment banks dealt with this demand by issuing MBS and others. The interest rates for US government bonds have been relatively low because of the policy of low interest rates of the US Federal Reserve and because of the global saving glut. The real yield on 10-year inflationindexed US Treasury securities decreased from ca. 4% in 1996 to less than 2% in 2004 (see Bernanke 2008). Therefore, it was possible to sell AAA-rated MBS with small add-on interest rates and with relative low-risk surcharges to investors. As the volume of mortgage bonds based on prime mortgages became insufficient to supply the demand for securitization of MBS, increasingly junior mortgages and subprime mortgages were securitized to MBS and sold through network marketing, banks of all sizes, and investment companies.The classification as subprime mortgage loan takes place by the time the debtor was insolvent in the past, a foreclosure was documented, or the debtor was in arrears. …
-
Subprime Crisis and Marx’s Theory on Ground Rent
World Review of Political Economy, 2014Co-Authors: Richard Corell, Ernst HerzogAbstract:The crisis of 2008-10, also called subprime crisis, reached its first culmination point in the USA with the collapse of Lehman Brothers and then it became a major crisis worldwide, recalling the historic capitalist depression of 1929-32. Most studies about the crisis have taken into account the significance of the banks in general but not the specifically important role of mortgage loans including the crucial factor of private landed property. However, mortgage-backed securities (MBS) have been the most important basis for the deepening global development of the crisis.Because of that, we want to analyze the impact of landed property and its claimed right to Ground Rent on the various classes during the crisis. Marx's theory on Ground Rent will serve for us as a key in diffeRentiating the class interests not only between bourgeoisie and proletariat but also within the diverse factions of the bourgeoisie and some parts of the petty bourgeoisie.1First, we will outline the course of the crisis, then we will analyze those parts of Marx's theory on Ground Rent relevant to our subject, inadequately studied even by Marxists to date. Next follows the application of the theory on the subprime crisis. From this, consequences concerning significant class interests will be drawn and some aspects on Ground Rent in socialism will be examined.Thus, we hope to show that Marx's theory on Ground Rent supplies an important component to explaining this crisis in more detail. Also, explanation of the crisis in this way should encourage the search for practicable ways out of the curRent crisis and out of continuing crisis-proneness of capitalism.1. Development of the "Subprime" CrisisSince 1982, a massive import of capital took place to finance the curRent account deficit of the USA (see Figure 1). From 1997 onwards, additional monetary capital flows into the USA, because US bonds were seen as "safe haven" in the light of the diverse crises (including Asia, Russia, and Argentine).2 Besides security, interest rates were crucial for the accrual of capital. From the Euro-Zone, considerable capital movements flow into the USA, because yields on securities have been significantly higher than in the Euro-Zone. In mid-1999, average yields on bonds in the USA exceeded those of the Euro-Zone with 1.1 percentage points; yields on 10-year bonds had a spread of interest of 1.6 percentage points. Except from the beginning of 2002 to mid-2003, interest rates for bonds have been permanently higher in the USA than in the Euro-Zone. This did not change before the end of 2007 (see Deutsche Bundesbank 2008).The amounts of money capital to be invested worldwide were estimated at around US$70 trillion.4 To attract this money for investments, convenient structured products like MBS were created. Because of this capital import, the demand for securities with an attractive rate of return increased massively. In the course of this, fixed income securities with a higher yield than US government bonds or foreign bonds were on demand. Investment banks dealt with this demand by issuing MBS and others. The interest rates for US government bonds have been relatively low because of the policy of low interest rates of the US Federal Reserve and because of the global saving glut. The real yield on 10-year inflationindexed US Treasury securities decreased from ca. 4% in 1996 to less than 2% in 2004 (see Bernanke 2008). Therefore, it was possible to sell AAA-rated MBS with small add-on interest rates and with relative low-risk surcharges to investors. As the volume of mortgage bonds based on prime mortgages became insufficient to supply the demand for securitization of MBS, increasingly junior mortgages and subprime mortgages were securitized to MBS and sold through network marketing, banks of all sizes, and investment companies.The classification as subprime mortgage loan takes place by the time the debtor was insolvent in the past, a foreclosure was documented, or the debtor was in arrears. …
Shadi Yousefi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Public housing, intersectoral competition, and urban Ground Rent: Iran’s first public housing program that never was
Human Geography, 2021Co-Authors: Ilia Farahani, Shadi YousefiAbstract:This paper investigates the structural political economic drivers of the housing market in urban Iran and the ways in which social and economic dynamics of the housing sector are rooted in peculiarities of Iranian capitalism, characterized by a relatively small public economy, low productivity of capital, and an underdeveloped financial system. The paper examines these processes and mechanisms in the light of the illustrative case of the country’s first and largest state-led housing program, the Mehr Housing Program (MHP). The paper argues that the program’s failure is due primarily to the state’s market-oriented approach toward housing. The MHP’s units were sold at their market prices, and the state subsidized the land to the developers with low Rent, facilitating investments. Utilizing an intersectoral and multi-scalar analytical framework, we further argue that what drives the investment is absolute Ground Rent present in the housing sector due to its labor-intensive character. The high level of Rent is due to persistently low profitability in the manufacturing sector and, subsequently, excess profits in construction and housing. Thus, Rent-seeking investors tend to invest in housing. These peculiarities of the Iranian economy determined the trajectory and the failure of the MHP as a public housing initiative.
-
public housing intersectoral competition and urban Ground Rent iran s first public housing program that never was
Human Geography, 2021Co-Authors: Ilia Farahani, Shadi YousefiAbstract:This paper investigates the structural political economic drivers of the housing market in urban Iran and the ways in which social and economic dynamics of the housing sector are rooted in peculiar...
Richard Corell - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
subprime crisis and marx s theory on Ground Rent
World Review of Political Economy, 2014Co-Authors: Richard Corell, Ernst HerzogAbstract:The crisis of 2008-10, also called subprime crisis, reached its first culmination point in the USA with the collapse of Lehman Brothers and then it became a major crisis worldwide, recalling the historic capitalist depression of 1929-32. Most studies about the crisis have taken into account the significance of the banks in general but not the specifically important role of mortgage loans including the crucial factor of private landed property. However, mortgage-backed securities (MBS) have been the most important basis for the deepening global development of the crisis.Because of that, we want to analyze the impact of landed property and its claimed right to Ground Rent on the various classes during the crisis. Marx's theory on Ground Rent will serve for us as a key in diffeRentiating the class interests not only between bourgeoisie and proletariat but also within the diverse factions of the bourgeoisie and some parts of the petty bourgeoisie.1First, we will outline the course of the crisis, then we will analyze those parts of Marx's theory on Ground Rent relevant to our subject, inadequately studied even by Marxists to date. Next follows the application of the theory on the subprime crisis. From this, consequences concerning significant class interests will be drawn and some aspects on Ground Rent in socialism will be examined.Thus, we hope to show that Marx's theory on Ground Rent supplies an important component to explaining this crisis in more detail. Also, explanation of the crisis in this way should encourage the search for practicable ways out of the curRent crisis and out of continuing crisis-proneness of capitalism.1. Development of the "Subprime" CrisisSince 1982, a massive import of capital took place to finance the curRent account deficit of the USA (see Figure 1). From 1997 onwards, additional monetary capital flows into the USA, because US bonds were seen as "safe haven" in the light of the diverse crises (including Asia, Russia, and Argentine).2 Besides security, interest rates were crucial for the accrual of capital. From the Euro-Zone, considerable capital movements flow into the USA, because yields on securities have been significantly higher than in the Euro-Zone. In mid-1999, average yields on bonds in the USA exceeded those of the Euro-Zone with 1.1 percentage points; yields on 10-year bonds had a spread of interest of 1.6 percentage points. Except from the beginning of 2002 to mid-2003, interest rates for bonds have been permanently higher in the USA than in the Euro-Zone. This did not change before the end of 2007 (see Deutsche Bundesbank 2008).The amounts of money capital to be invested worldwide were estimated at around US$70 trillion.4 To attract this money for investments, convenient structured products like MBS were created. Because of this capital import, the demand for securities with an attractive rate of return increased massively. In the course of this, fixed income securities with a higher yield than US government bonds or foreign bonds were on demand. Investment banks dealt with this demand by issuing MBS and others. The interest rates for US government bonds have been relatively low because of the policy of low interest rates of the US Federal Reserve and because of the global saving glut. The real yield on 10-year inflationindexed US Treasury securities decreased from ca. 4% in 1996 to less than 2% in 2004 (see Bernanke 2008). Therefore, it was possible to sell AAA-rated MBS with small add-on interest rates and with relative low-risk surcharges to investors. As the volume of mortgage bonds based on prime mortgages became insufficient to supply the demand for securitization of MBS, increasingly junior mortgages and subprime mortgages were securitized to MBS and sold through network marketing, banks of all sizes, and investment companies.The classification as subprime mortgage loan takes place by the time the debtor was insolvent in the past, a foreclosure was documented, or the debtor was in arrears. …
-
Subprime Crisis and Marx’s Theory on Ground Rent
World Review of Political Economy, 2014Co-Authors: Richard Corell, Ernst HerzogAbstract:The crisis of 2008-10, also called subprime crisis, reached its first culmination point in the USA with the collapse of Lehman Brothers and then it became a major crisis worldwide, recalling the historic capitalist depression of 1929-32. Most studies about the crisis have taken into account the significance of the banks in general but not the specifically important role of mortgage loans including the crucial factor of private landed property. However, mortgage-backed securities (MBS) have been the most important basis for the deepening global development of the crisis.Because of that, we want to analyze the impact of landed property and its claimed right to Ground Rent on the various classes during the crisis. Marx's theory on Ground Rent will serve for us as a key in diffeRentiating the class interests not only between bourgeoisie and proletariat but also within the diverse factions of the bourgeoisie and some parts of the petty bourgeoisie.1First, we will outline the course of the crisis, then we will analyze those parts of Marx's theory on Ground Rent relevant to our subject, inadequately studied even by Marxists to date. Next follows the application of the theory on the subprime crisis. From this, consequences concerning significant class interests will be drawn and some aspects on Ground Rent in socialism will be examined.Thus, we hope to show that Marx's theory on Ground Rent supplies an important component to explaining this crisis in more detail. Also, explanation of the crisis in this way should encourage the search for practicable ways out of the curRent crisis and out of continuing crisis-proneness of capitalism.1. Development of the "Subprime" CrisisSince 1982, a massive import of capital took place to finance the curRent account deficit of the USA (see Figure 1). From 1997 onwards, additional monetary capital flows into the USA, because US bonds were seen as "safe haven" in the light of the diverse crises (including Asia, Russia, and Argentine).2 Besides security, interest rates were crucial for the accrual of capital. From the Euro-Zone, considerable capital movements flow into the USA, because yields on securities have been significantly higher than in the Euro-Zone. In mid-1999, average yields on bonds in the USA exceeded those of the Euro-Zone with 1.1 percentage points; yields on 10-year bonds had a spread of interest of 1.6 percentage points. Except from the beginning of 2002 to mid-2003, interest rates for bonds have been permanently higher in the USA than in the Euro-Zone. This did not change before the end of 2007 (see Deutsche Bundesbank 2008).The amounts of money capital to be invested worldwide were estimated at around US$70 trillion.4 To attract this money for investments, convenient structured products like MBS were created. Because of this capital import, the demand for securities with an attractive rate of return increased massively. In the course of this, fixed income securities with a higher yield than US government bonds or foreign bonds were on demand. Investment banks dealt with this demand by issuing MBS and others. The interest rates for US government bonds have been relatively low because of the policy of low interest rates of the US Federal Reserve and because of the global saving glut. The real yield on 10-year inflationindexed US Treasury securities decreased from ca. 4% in 1996 to less than 2% in 2004 (see Bernanke 2008). Therefore, it was possible to sell AAA-rated MBS with small add-on interest rates and with relative low-risk surcharges to investors. As the volume of mortgage bonds based on prime mortgages became insufficient to supply the demand for securitization of MBS, increasingly junior mortgages and subprime mortgages were securitized to MBS and sold through network marketing, banks of all sizes, and investment companies.The classification as subprime mortgage loan takes place by the time the debtor was insolvent in the past, a foreclosure was documented, or the debtor was in arrears. …
Aass Christoffer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Vil salgs av tomter og eiendommer kunne gi en økt avkastning som kompenserer for økt risiko? : en risikovurdering sett fra fjellstyrene i Norge sitt perspektiv
Norwegian University of Life Sciences Ås, 2019Co-Authors: Aass ChristofferAbstract:This master thesis has done research on the value of the yearly Ground Rent fjellstyrene receives annually, and the value of selling the government commons. If the government commons are sold, the profit will be invested in an alternative way to generate future income. The possibilities are many, but this master thesis will take on the alternative of investing in portfolios consisting only of risky securities. Given the fjellstyrene’s profile as conservative investors, the thesis is trying to answer the following research question: “Will investing the profit from a sale of the government commons result in a higher return which compensates for a higher risk?” The results indicate that the net present value of selling the government commons is higher than receiving the Ground Rent as a perpetuity. Given fjellstyrene’s risk profile as a conservative investor, they could expect a higher return if they invest in a stock portfolio rather than receiving Ground Rent. Still, one could argue that the higher risk doesn’t compensate for the higher risk which follows. This shows by the significant higher risk that follows the portfolios than they operate with the curRent Ground Rent today, and the increase of risk correlated with the Norwegian economy as a whole. If it opens for a forced sale of the government commons, and the conditions for calculating the government commons value is fixed, we can say that the value of the Ground Rent is reduced drastically, but the value of selling the government commons is even lower than the value of the Ground Rent. This scenario also leads to a higher risk if the fjellstyrene wants to invest in stock portfolios. And even though it seems the higher return compensates for the higher risk, it doesn’t compensate enough that one with certainty can say that the return compensates for the risk, given fjellstyrene’s risk profile
-
Vil salgs av tomter og eiendommer kunne gi en økt avkastning som kompenserer for økt risiko? : en risikovurdering sett fra fjellstyrene i Norge sitt perspektiv
Norwegian University of Life Sciences Ås, 2019Co-Authors: Aass ChristofferAbstract:This master thesis has done research on the value of the yearly Ground Rent fjellstyrene receives annually, and the value of selling the government commons. If the government commons are sold, the profit will be invested in an alternative way to generate future income. The possibilities are many, but this master thesis will take on the alternative of investing in portfolios consisting only of risky securities. Given the fjellstyrene’s profile as conservative investors, the thesis is trying to answer the following research question: “Will investing the profit from a sale of the government commons result in a higher return which compensates for a higher risk?” The results indicate that the net present value of selling the government commons is higher than receiving the Ground Rent as a perpetuity. Given fjellstyrene’s risk profile as a conservative investor, they could expect a higher return if they invest in a stock portfolio rather than receiving Ground Rent. Still, one could argue that the higher risk doesn’t compensate for the higher risk which follows. This shows by the significant higher risk that follows the portfolios than they operate with the curRent Ground Rent today, and the increase of risk correlated with the Norwegian economy as a whole. If it opens for a forced sale of the government commons, and the conditions for calculating the government commons value is fixed, we can say that the value of the Ground Rent is reduced drastically, but the value of selling the government commons is even lower than the value of the Ground Rent. This scenario also leads to a higher risk if the fjellstyrene wants to invest in stock portfolios. And even though it seems the higher return compensates for the higher risk, it doesn’t compensate enough that one with certainty can say that the return compensates for the risk, given fjellstyrene’s risk profile.Denne masteroppgaven har undersøkt verdien av de årlige festeavgiftene fjellstyrene i Norge får årlig, og hva verdien av å selge statsallmenningene har for fjellstyrene. Ved et salg må midlene investeres på en alternativ måte for å genere inntekter i fremtiden. Mulighetene er mange, men denne masteroppgaven tar for seg et alternativ hvor fjellstyrene investerer i porteføljer bestående kun av aksjer. Forutsatt at fjellstyrene er konservative risikotakere, forsøker oppgaven å besvare følgende forskningsspørsmål: «Vil en porteføljeforvaltning fra et salg av statsallmenningene gi økt avkastning som kompenserer for økt risiko?» Funnene i oppgaven tilsier at dersom statsallmenningene selges til en verdi tilsvarende de totale festeinntektene til Grunneierfondet, vil det gi en større netto nåverdi enn å motta festeavgifter i evig tid fremover. Gitt fjellstyrenes risikoprofil som konservative investorer, vil de kunne forvente en høyere avkastning dersom de investerer en salgsgevinst i aksjeporteføljer, enn om de fortsetter å motta festeavgifter. Likevel, kan en argumentere for at den økte avkastningen ikke kompenserer for den økte risikoen. Dette kan vises med porteføljene leverer en vesentlig større risiko enn fjellstyrene opplever i dag med festeavgiftene, og deres økte risiko knyttet utviklingen i norsk økonomi i sin helhet. Dersom det åpnes for innløsning, og forutsetningene for salgsverdien står fast, kan vi slå fast at verdien av festeavgiftene reduseres betraktelig, men verdien av et salg vil være lavere enn verdien av festeavgiftene. Dette scenariet fører også til økt usikkerhet for fjellstyrene dersom de velger å investere salgsgevinsten i en aksjeportefølje. Likevel, kan det tyde på at et slikt scenario fører til en økt grad av kompensasjon for økt risiko for porteføljene. Dette er likevel ikke en stor nok kompensasjon til en med sikkerhet kan si noe om den økte avkastningen kompenserer for økt risiko, gitt fjellstyrenes risikoprofil.submittedVersionM-Ø
Thomas Purcell - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Value of Rents: Global Commodity Chains and Small Cocoa Producers in Ecuador
Antipode, 2018Co-Authors: Thomas Purcell, Estefania Martinez‐esguerra, Nora FernandezAbstract:Drawing on the Marxian theory of Ground Rent this paper develops an analysis of “global commodity chains” (GCC) with agrarian roots. There is an acknowledgement that the concentrated downstream governance of primary commodity based GCC has created a set of ‘asymmetrical’ power relations which blocks the transmission of value upstream towards small producers. This paper argues that this research under-specifies what is meant by value and Rent and in doing so marginalises the analysis of value production before its journey through inter-firm relations. We demonstrate the importance of theorising the value constitution of commodities produced on the land and the forces that contest the payment of Ground Rent and thereby shape the geography of GCC. Based on empirical research conducted around Ecuador’s ‘post-neoliberal’ cocoa re-activation plan, we identify the class politics and production mechanisms through which value and Rent escapes the hands of a stratified network of small owner producers.
-
Post-neoliberal energy modernity and the political economy of the landlord state in Ecuador
Energy Research & Social Science, 2018Co-Authors: Thomas Purcell, Estefania MartinezAbstract:Abstract This paper offers a value-theoretic critique of ‘post-neoliberal’ energy production in Ecuador. The Ecuadorian government is attempting to end the dependence on finite hydrocarbon resources and unite energy infrastructure with industrial competitiveness through the transformation of the country’s ‘energy matrix’. Based on extensive field research, we argue that the project reveals the contradictions of the landlord state’s attempt to mobilise circuits of Ground Rent and foreign debt to create cheap energy as a comparative advantage for national industrial development. Riding high on global commodity prices and tapping into a huge stream of Chinese investment, the government massively increased investment in new sources of hydroelectricity and energy infrastructure. Whilst ostensibly bringing about a reduction in energy production costs, this has come at the price of leveraging the country’s natural resources (oil and minerals) and, paradoxically, creating an oversupply of hydroelectricity. Drawing on a Marxist reading of the landlord state and tracing the flows of Ground Rent, capital and energy we reveal how, far from the claims of post-neoliberal modernity, the project is in fact deepening resource dependence by channelling hydroelectricity towards the nascent Ecuadorian mining frontier.
-
The political economy of Rentier capitalism and the limits to agrarian transformation in Venezuela
Journal of Agrarian Change, 2017Co-Authors: Thomas PurcellAbstract:This paper explores the contradictions and limits to agrarian transformation under twenty-first Century Socialism in Venezuela. Given the historical destruction wrought by the oil-based accumulation process upon Venezuela’s agricultural sector, the symbolic and social importance of an ‘agrarian revolution’ could be seen as a yardstick with which to measure the progress of the Bolivarian Revolution in ‘sowing the oil’. Eschewing a policy focus on the role of ‘food sovereignty’ and ‘food security’, the paper analyses how the dynamics of Rentier-capital accumulation have played out in the agricultural sector. The paper argues that the macroeconomic framework of the Bolivarian Revolution has diminished the possibility of expanded domestic food production and instead reduced agrarian transformation to contradictory processes of Ground Rent appropriation.
-
The Political Economy of Social Production Companies in Venezuela
Latin American Perspectives, 2013Co-Authors: Thomas PurcellAbstract:In 2005, shortly after the Venezuelan government declared “twenty-first-century socialism” as its development goal, Chavez launched “social production companies” to change the way communities produced and exchanged goods. Investigation of the relationship between these companies, agrarian cooperatives, and the oil economy calls into question assessments by both the right and the left, the former portraying Venezuelan development initiatives as populist profligacy and the latter seeing them as a socialist alternative to neoliberal hegemony. An analytical focus upon Ground Rent and the way it is distributed through the social production companies that draws upon insights from the Marxian critique of political economy provides an original window onto the contradictions and limits of the Chavez government’s development policies. Three case studies suggest that social production companies and their links with small agrarian cooperatives are reproducing a limited and Ground-Rent-dependent form of capital accumu...
