The role of Consumer Credit within Neoliberal Capitalism & its expansion to the Surplus Population

Paul Smyth Birkbeck, University of London

1

The Role of Consumer Credit within Neoliberal Capitalism & its expansion to the Surplus Population

Paul Smyth

Abstract: This study is focused on certain key issues that encompass the expansion of consumer credit to the poorest, low-‐income, unemployed and underemployed sections of society, as Marx terms the surplus population. In order to fully examine and interpret the mechanisms through which this has occurred in neoliberal capitalism and the reasons behind the expansion and introduction of credit, this study will analyse money and credit in order to interrogate the social nature of money, and the developments that have occurred within the capitalist system and wider society that has engendered this shift to a population using more means of private finance to supplement their living.


2

Table of Contents

I. Introduction…………………………………………………………………... 3 II. Neoliberalism in Context…………………………………………………….. 4 III. Theoretical Framework…………………………………………..................... 5

- IV. Money………………………………………………..................... 5 - V. Credit……………………………………………………………... 9 - VI. Capital Accumulation & The Surplus Population……………… 11

VII. Neoliberal trends & the expansion of the UK Credit Card Industry………. 13 VIII. Conclusion………………………………………………………………… 23


3

I. Introduction This study is focused on certain key issues that encompass the expansion of consumer credit to the poorest, low-‐income, unemployed and underemployed sections of society, as Marx terms the surplus population. In order to fully examine and interpret the mechanisms through which this has occurred in neoliberal capitalism and the reasons behind the expansion and introduction of credit, this study will analyse money and credit in order to interrogate the social nature of money, and the developments that have occurred within the capitalist system and wider society that has engendered this shift to a population using more means of private finance to supplement their living. The expanding reliance on credit amongst the surplus population has become a commonplace occurrence within recent decades, with unsecured consumer debt tripling between 1993 and 2013, reaching nearly £160bn by November 2013 (Credit Cards, 2015). With new forms of credit inducing debt cycles coming to the fore, from credit cards and payday loans, these appear to have now become normalised and amalgamated into the mainstream narrative as a way to supplement daily costs of living in place of decent living wages. This examination utilises elements of Marxist political economy and political sociology to provide a conceptual framework to analyse these developments in the neoliberal era, with specific focus on the role of money and credit within capitalist society, and an analysis of its social nature to formulate a more thorough understanding of how it relates to the surplus population. This approach is optimal due to the nature of other analyses of credit and financialisation, which, more often than not, observe money (and credit as it derives from it) as 'a given', rather than looking at money less as a thing in itself and instead, as a social construct within a capitalist society. This theoretical framework is combined with a case study focusing on trends within the UK neoliberal era that have created a space for the expansion of consumer credit. The trends resulting from neoliberal state action that will be empirically analysed are, unemployment, inequality, poverty and so forth; this is combined with a study of statistical trends within the UK credit card industry with specific focus on credit card expansion to the surplus population and the rise of indebtedness over the neoliberal period. This informs the theoretical analysis and provides for an in-‐depth view on the rise of credit within a defined contextual period with a direct focus on the largest aspect of consumer credit; the credit card. The neoliberal era, a time frame spanning the past three decades is the temporal context of this study. Accordingly, to proceed to examine credit as a part of this trend, I shall briefly recount a summarisation of the general aspects of neoliberalism in order to outline the contextual parameters of this research and to hypothesise how this study will move forward through these parameters by first presenting a general understanding of neoliberalism, its ideas, timeframe and influence.


4

II. Neoliberalism in context Neoliberalism, the name attributed to developments over the past three decades which has influenced and informed many, if not all areas of the market, government and society. It has been termed many things, an ideology, a doctrine, theory, political project and more. Due to this, it is important to dissect the ideas and evidence presented to determine the nature of neoliberalism itself, its trajectory and how credit encompasses an important aspect of this trend. Former UK Prime minister, Margaret Thatcher once said; "There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families" (Womans Own Magazine, 1987). This type of political rhetoric is indicative of aspects of neoliberal thought; the notion of individualism, a general rejection of collectivism, state planning and interference inasmuch as it impedes on 'individual freedom' correlating into economistic understandings of freedom to make profit. The recycling of neoliberal rhetoric flowing through political parties since the 1970's, the rise of the 'New Right' in the United Kingdom and United States, the subsequent transformation of traditional social democratic parties such as Labour in the UK, notably shifting towards neoliberal policies under Tony Blair, is indicative of the reach of these trends and its coalescing into the mainstream narrative of government and wider society. Harvey (2005) suggests it has become a part of the common sense way that we interpret and understand the world, which correlates to the Gramscian view of a bourgeois hegemony within capitalism (Harvey, 2005, p. 3). Although it has been charged with being an ideological framework, a political-‐economic way of organising society, a mode of governance and a complex permeation of society in general. It is important to understand that neoliberalism cannot always be viewed as a linear process; it straddles a wide range of different phenomena from the economic to the political and social at different levels (Saad-‐Filho & Johnston, 2005, p. 1). Saad-‐Filho (2005) demonstrates that although neoliberal practice in every country is different, the overall picture is that the most basic feature of neoliberalism is the "systematic use of state power to impose (financial) market imperatives, in a domestic process that is replicated internationally by 'globalisation' (Saad-‐Filho & Johnston, 2005, p. 3). Harvey (2005) makes the point that neoliberalism from the outset is a theory; one of political economic practices that proposes to advance human well being within an institutional framework of strong private property rights, free markets and free trade; with all this being accomplished through the liberation of individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills (Harvey, 2005, p. 2). Despite its roots in classical and neo classical political economy, neoliberalism as the name infers, is something new and is most associated with twentieth century developments; and with neoclassical (what is now termed mainstream) economics, thus a key insight in this correlation is, these ideas, that inform government policy, economics and wider society as a whole are underpinned by what I argue are fundamental flaws in the understanding of money and credit money in the existing literature on the topic which are examined in the proceeding chapters.


5

III. Theoretical framework The first step in analysing the emergence, expansion and role of credit within neoliberal capitalism, is to set out a theoretical framework within which to situate the case study. This takes the form of investigating money and its derivative: credit money by drawing on the political economy of Marx and more contemporary analyses whilst evaluating the current literature on money and credit, and their subsequent role in capital accumulation and relation to the surplus population. IV. Money The late twentieth and twenty first centuries have seen a transformation in the capitalist mode of production, to a more financialised form that coalesces with the rise of neoliberalism. Lapavitsas (2013) suggests that, "financialisation is the outcome of historical processes that have taken place across the world since the 1970's; it represents a period change of the capitalist mode of production" (Lapavitsas, 2013, p. 167). This period change is an integral focus of this study, but the monetary basis of neoliberal capitalism needs to be analysed to understand its role first and foremost. Money is itself an important component of the capitalist economy, and by analysing this through a lens of Marxist political economy; money constitutes the initial category, while credit and finance derive from this (Lapavitsas, 2013, p. 69). This line of enquiry is obverse to much contemporary literature on financialisation and credit; as there appears a gap in much of the existing literature that presupposes the economistic understanding of money as 'just a thing', whilst then proceeding to analyse the social and institutional effects and relations of credit and debt, after the fact. It is by this mode of investigation that the actual understanding of money itself as a fetishised commodity, which simultaneously induces and conceals the exploitative nature and social power within capitalist society, is obfuscated. In this vein, there has been a failure in the interrogation of the social power of money to sift through the economistic understanding of it within neoliberalism. In essence, money needs to be thoroughly analysed as something other than 'just a thing' or accepted as a given, in order to understand the changes in the wider dynamics of capital accumulation which has spurred the expansion of credit money to the surplus population. (Soederberg, 2014, p. 6) The neoliberal era has been characterised by a few salient monetary features of financialisation. One of these is that commodity money has been notably absent from domestic monetary transactions; this development emerging in the 1970's has become an increasing feature in recent years, coupled with the total domination of the monetary realm by credit money, which is mostly generated by private financial institutions such as banks. This is indicative of the changes in neoliberal capitalism, as what was a minor feature prior to three decades ago in the economy, credit, has now become the primary form of money, sustained by the credit system that has developed in tandem with this domination of private money (Lapavitsas, 2013, p. 69). Institutional and historical changes in the monetary sphere during the neoliberal period have determined the monetary underpinnings of financialisation. As Lapavitsas (2013) suggests, to fully comprehend these changes, money and by extension, credit needs to be understood and analysed from its most fundamental starting point, what is money? Where does it come from? And what is its role and functionality within the capitalist economy and society? (Lapavitsas, 2013, p. 71)


6

The existing literature in the main, neglects to thoroughly examine the social nature inherent to money and credit. Academic accounts that have attempted to analyse money in accordance with social and cultural dimensions are heavily anchored in the first instance, on an economistic understanding of money as just a 'thing', insofar that ' they seek to represent money as a social relation by virtue of the fact that people interact with it and assign meaning to it. (Soederberg, 2014, p. 25). These sociological accounts examining the social power of money, have initiated their hypotheses presupposing money 'just is', whilst subsequently uncritically merging their analyses with the end result of social and cultural dimensions. This leaves a contentious gap in the understanding of money, and how the capitalist mode of production and exchange creates and enforces the illusion of the power of things over people (Soederberg, 2014, p. 6). An example of this is in the work of Zelizer (1989), who argues that money belongs to the market, but not exclusively so; she theorises in tandem with the neoclassical economic school of thought, that money is indeed an objective means of rational calculation, but it is not only that, she proposes modes of 'special monies' to incorporate the social and symbolic significance of money. Yet this approach contains the hypothesis that such a category of 'special money', namely 'domestic money' has social and cultural dimensions attached to it, which is shaped equally by economic efficiency and by changing cultural perceptions of money and family life (Zelizer, 1989, p. 344). This form of analysing money and its social relations, is indicative of the lack of investigation into its emergence and role within capitalist society. The intent here is not to refute the latter claims of certain scholars on the social and cultural effects that money and specifically credit have in the social and cultural dimensions of individual’s lives. These poststructural analyses may well hold up to scrutiny, nonetheless, the intent is to exhibit how the main literature, is too much focused on the after effects of 'the thing' (money, credit, debt) rather than interrogating the root of the effects. The current literature is to surprising extent lacking on the topic of money, especially from the 'mainstream' economic view, this gap in the literature neglects to interrogate money, its emergence and role within capitalism. As Ingham (1996) suggests, within the mainstream school of thought, money is perceived as merely a type of 'veil' or neutral lubricant in the model of the economy or as just a part of the model of aggregate economic variables (Ingham, 1996, pp. 507-‐508). This demonstrates the non-‐debate, between the mainstream economic view one on hand and the Marxist, heterodox and post-‐Keynesian schools of thought on the other. This gap appears to sustain, to a point, the argument made by Soederberg (2014) that this lack of theoretical contemplation of money within neoliberalism is indicative of the elusive character and power of money itself. (Soederberg, 2014, p. 7) Moreover, the neoclassical school's theoretical investigations of money can be summed up into two strains of thought, the first; entails a view of money that is limited to an abstract measure of values and means of exchange. This view, which emerges from Leon Walras, remains coherent thus far with our analysis of mainstream economic principles of money, as merely a unit of value or means of exchange, and does nothing to further the understanding of the emergence of money nor the social issues that a Marxist theory suggests money conceals (Lapavitsas, 2013, p. 75). Nonetheless, the second strain is related to the Austrian School, whereby Carl Menger focused his discussion of money on strong individualist actions (Menger, 1892, pp. 239-‐550). Yet, as Lapavitsas (2013) suggests, this argument is predicated on money as a means of exchange, whilst simultaneously neglecting to acknowledge other functionalities of money (Lapavitsas, 2013, p. 75). Again, these formulations of money, still merely regard it as 'just a


7

thing', these are the most complex theorisations that emanate from the neoclassical school and still inform mainstream economic theory. This exemplifies the continuing lack of debate on the social power of money, merely reducing the emergence, role and function of it to pure economism. Lapavitsas (2013) highlights some alternative theories that have come to the fore in the debate on money. The German historical school, he notes; have not produced a theory for the emergence of money, but rather a large body of work which using analytical descriptions, has served to situate money within a social context that incorporates non market forces such as ancient practices of remuneration called Wergeld, this is evidently opposite to the pure economistic view of the neoclassical Austrian school (Lapavitsas, 2013, p. 76). Yet it still falls short of a theory of money, which can be used to explain and interrogate its emergence and role within capitalist society. Lapavitsas (2013) elucidates upon the work of Chartalism in theorising money, their argument is that it is "an arbitrary construct, which measures commodity values on the basis of legal and customary conventions", thus money is a value that is imposed by the state through legal conventions. (Lapavitsas, 2013, p. 76) This approach, as Lapavitsas argues, has support in our contemporary society of financialised capitalism, which is inundated with credit money with backing from the state. This can thus give the appearance that the state dictates what the value of money is and so it originates with the state also. Yet, just because the state intervenes in the processes of money functioning, this does not necessarily mean that money emerges or emanates from the state (Lapavitsas, 2013, pp. 77-‐78). Other theories outside the mainstream economic schools of thought that delve deeper into the social power and relations of money, are exemplified by Ingham (1996) and Graebar (2011), who create complex sociological arguments of money as a social relation. Yet these are essentially credit theories of money, where interaction among agents is predicated on credit relations based on the promise to pay, which removes money from the economic sphere, and in doing so it can be applied to various pre-‐capitalist societies (Lapavitsas, 2013, p. 78). These credit-‐based theories fall prey to essential weaknesses in their arguments in that they offer no real explanation for the collapse in financial relations and rise of monetary relations within capitalist societies. Furthermore, credit based theories cannot reconcile the fact that since the commodity form of money itself incorporates value, they are not just 'promises to pay' (Lapavitsas, 2013, p. 78). In stark contrast to the other schools of thought noted above, a Marxist theory of money and credit is distinct in that, money is not 'just a thing', instead it encompasses complex processes and can be characterised as a social relation of power, but only if it is analysed as such, within the wider dynamics of capital accumulation (Soederberg, 2014, p. 15). In order to fully appreciate and utilise a Marxian interpretation, it is important to understand Marx's conceptions of money and credit, their role within capitalist society and the social relations of debt. This conception is inextricably linked to the aspect Marx terms; fetishism, where the social relations of power that are present in money are also concealed by it, as "the way in which the capitalist mode of production is organised masks social relations of power. This veil or disguise is what Marx refers to as fetishism" (Soederberg, 2014, p. 16). Marx (1990) explains the "fetishism of commodities' as describing a state in which 'the relations connecting the labour of one individual with that of the rest appear, not as direct social relations between individuals at work, but as what they really are, material relations between persons and social relations between things" (Marx, 1990, p. 73)


8

Harvey (1989) posits a useful explanation for the fetishism of commodities, wherein daily life the social processes of even the simplest things such as a meal, are obscured through the exchange of things in the marketplace. If one traces the processes and roots of a meal, one would come across a whole swathe of people involved in the process of creating the products that finally arrive on the dinner table. Yet the exploitation of the workers and the social processes involved, are hidden by the effect of market exchange. This is what Marx describes as the fetishism of commodities and it is what has to be contended with when analysing the emergence and role of money and credit within capitalist society (Harvey, 1989, p. 8). As Harvey's (1982) earlier insight suggests, this notion appears in Marx's theory directly after the conception of the money form of value, as Marx (1990) explains "It was the common expression of all commodities in money that alone led to the establishment of their character as values. It is, however, just this ultimate money form of the world of commodities that actually conceals, instead of disclosing, the social character of private labour, and the social relations between the individual producers" (Harvey, 1982, p. 17; Marx, 1990, pp. 75-‐76). Consequently, it becomes clear that analysing money and credit in the sphere of exchange becomes problematic; this is where previous attempts as seen above have started their analyses. The existing literature either starts in the sphere of exchange in order to explain financialisation, and so begins where it should end, or they conclude with money as 'just a thing' or consisting of social relations due to our interaction with it. Considering that the exchange process is saturated with a monetary fetishised view, which conceals exactly the social relations that are concealed by money, as Harvey suggests, this "exchange of commodities for money is real enough, yet it conceals our social relationships with others behind a mere thing -‐ the money form itself" (Harvey, 1982, p. 17). What results from this is, a dissolution of communities, social relations and a transformation into relations mediated by money, which "becomes the real community" (Marx, 1993, pp. 224-‐25) This has profound implications for analysing money and credit within the realm of exchange, considering that this transformation to a community of money is "marked by individualism and certain conceptions of liberty, freedom, and equality backed by laws of private property, rights to appropriation, and freedom of contract" (Harvey, 1989, p. 168). Therefore, in order to see through the money fetish for what it really is, Marx developed his labour theory of value, which in its entirety highlights numerous points that give insight to the social power of money and how it operates within the capitalist system. This is what Marx (1990) calls the socially necessary labour that has gone into producing a commodity. What gives exchange value to commodities is the labour gone into it, coupled with the drive for surplus value, this results in the exploitation of the worker. The Marxian idea of value is important in understanding what the money form masks in the realm of exchange, because value is a social relation embodied in the socially necessary labour time that is represented by money as a measure of value. As Soederberg (2014) suggests, money is not just 'a thing' nor a commodity but an expression of value embodied in price. Moreover, it is by analysing money in the realm of production, where the exploitation of the worker and the value resulting from that is evident, that the money fetish can be understood in its real capacity as a social relation (Soederberg, 2014, pp. 18-‐20) This money form of commodities is that which hides the social relations between people, and instead makes these relations appear as relations between material objects. Henceforth money conceals the exploitation involved in the process of creating value, and the 'finished form of the world of commodities', which result from the exploitation and value creating


9

process. As such, money appears as the universal equivalent concealing the relations that underpin money and credit within capitalist society (Marx, 1990, pp. 168-‐9). This, in turn reinforces the community of money, which as Soederberg (2014) argues, although real, "it is a fetishised view of capitalist society" (Soederberg, 2014, p. 24). In this community, individuals who had previously depended on others, interacting with one another through social relations not just limited to the monetary realm, are now governed by money based abstractions such as prices, interest rates, credit ratings etc. This is indicative of the changing modes of governance under neoliberal capitalism, in which by and large the community of money has been realised, moreover, these abstractions highlight that class-‐based power and exploitation seems to appear less visible, unlike in the direct confrontation between a worker and his employer (Soederberg, 2014, p. 23). What results from this analysis is a more thorough understanding of the social power of money, not as 'just a thing' or a mere medium of exchange. Rather, as something that embodies social power due to the exploitation inherent within the production of value, and the coalescing of this exploitation and inequality with a concurrent masking of it by the money form itself. As Marx (1990) argues, "money itself is a commodity, an external object capable of becoming the private property of any individual. Thus the social power becomes the private power of private persons" (Marx, 1990, pp. 229-‐30). In this vein, it logically follows that the more money or wealth accumulated results in the vast accumulation of social power. Soederberg (2014) suggests, the social power concealed and contained within money as a mediator of commodity exchange, can radically transform the meanings of space and time in social life, particularly as these relate to debt and credit relations. This is because those who possess vast amounts of money simultaneously "possess the power of social control along temporal and spatial lines" (Soederberg, 2014, p. 25). As money does function as a store of value within the capitalist system, it functions as social power and "allows individuals to choose between present and future satisfactions and even allows consumption to be moved forward in time through borrowing". This has profound consequences for the credit system as "those who can afford to wait always have an advantage over those who cannot" (Soederberg, 2014, p. 25). V. Credit The credit system encompasses vast complex processes with different forms of credit money; the focus of this study is consumer credit, which is supplied to the surplus population or in modern day terms 'consumers'. This population and its increasing reliance on credit money is an important aspect of the neoliberal era, and plays an important role in the capitalist system and capital accumulation. Credit derives from commodity money, and though it shares similarities, it is also different; essentially it is a form of money different to commodity and fiat money in that it is privately issued, and unlike commodity money it is a 'promise to pay' (Lapavitsas, 2013, p. 84). As a form of money, it is similar by way of its fetishisms, in the same way that money embodies the illusory aspects of freedom and equality (Soederberg, 2014, p. 27). Furthermore, Marx (1990) notes, that credit works directly through the same mechanism as money, functioning as a means of payment, therefore the similarities appear, at least, on a surface level to be close together (Marx, 1990, p. 238). What makes credit different is that it originates in privately contracted bills of exchange and notes of credit, which as soon as they begin to circulate as a means of payment they acquire the social form of money (Harvey, 1982, p. 245). Furthermore, Harvey (1982) notes that unlike other forms of money, credit must always return to its point of creation for redemption. Conversely, money that has been accumulated through wages can circulate throughout the system, without ever returning to


10

its point of origin. As such money is social from its inception, from its realisation in the production process and the exploitative wage labour that induced it, yet credit is privately created and can serve a social purpose once put into circulation (Harvey, 1982, p. 246). Moreover, Soederberg (2014) highlights a key difference between the two; "credit money entails what Marx refers to as fictitious value -‐ an imaginary component -‐ whereas 'real' money is tied directly to a money commodity" (Soederberg, 2014, p. 35). Thus as money is extracted through production via a process of exploitation, credit contains aspects of fictitious value when it enters the production process through a loan by way of creating surplus value (Soederberg, 2014, p. 35). Marx’s (1990) fictitious value means that credit money does not contain any value itself, unlike that of its relation, the money form. Comparatively, credit has not had value added to it by a process of complex social relations and labour adding value, it is privately created, which does not mean it is not real but has no inherent value in it. Additionally, fictitious capital is different from the focus of this study of consumer credit, as previously noted, fictitious capital is a form of credit, which is specifically used to realise profit through the production process by way of a claim against future profits. (Harvey, 1982, p. 267). Nonetheless, it follows that consumer credit is also fictitious, as it is not tied directly to a money commodity, but this type of credit money is geared towards circulating as a money form, not as capital to be introduced to the production process. This money form of credit, which circulates as credit cards, variations of loans such as student and payday loans, do not realise surplus value in the traditional sense of the production and labour process, nor through the way in which fictitious capital operates. Rather, the role of consumer credit is a creation of profit through fees and interest payments, which entails a secondary form of exploitation. As noted by Soederberg (2014), an exploitative relationship between creditor and debtor in the sphere of exchange replaces or augments the more direct, and slightly more visible relationship between capitalist and the worker which operates in the sphere of production (Soederberg, 2014, p. 37). Consequently, If capitalism is all about growth, then the commodification of areas that were previously untouched are a defining feature of neoliberal capitalism. Of specific importance is the process of consumer credit expansion, which can be seen as a wider part of the dynamics of capital accumulation. After the global financial crisis of the 2000's, most criticism and focus that has been brought to the fore regarding the nature and causes of the crisis, tend to deviate around aspects of bankers greed, regulatory failures and predatory lending. These aspects have a role in the formation of the crisis, however they obfuscate the systemic contradictions within capitalism that given certain factors can culminate in crises of great magnitude. The understanding of money and credit to this process is fundamental, due to the social relations inherent to them. Just because consumer credit operates in the realm of exchange, and bypasses the production process, it does not mean that money, the exploitation and social relations that occur in production are of no value to understanding consumer credit. This is due to the realms of production and exchange being intertwined, furthermore credit does not appear from magic mechanisms within the market nor natural processes, it represents social forms of power that are utilised to resolve the contradictions within the wider dynamics of capital accumulation (Soederberg, 2014, p. 37). The expansion of consumer credit to the surplus population can be seen as tool of extracting money for private profit, which serves to temporarily resolve issues within the accumulation cycle and simultaneously reproduce the surplus population as a necessity for capital accumulation itself.


11

VI. Capital Accumulation & the Surplus Population The contradictions within capital accumulation I am concerned with as a point of focus for this study is, the over accumulation problem, and the reproduction of the surplus population. The over accumulation problem informs the second issue of the reproduction of the surplus population; it can be succinctly described as the instability in the system which degenerates into crises of over accumulation, whereby labour power and capital exist unused. This can be resolved if some way is found to absorb these excesses of over accumulation, or else there will be a devaluation and destruction of both (Harvey, 1989, p. 18). The reproduction of the surplus population is a tension within the accumulation process which capitalism also depends upon, this is what can be described as an internal contradiction, which can culminate in an obstacle to capital accumulation and if left unchecked precedes a crisis (Soederberg, 2014, p. 32). Soederberg (2014) notes that, "the over accumulation of capital refers to a situation in which there is a surplus of capital relative to profitable opportunities to employ that capital. This is sometimes accompanied by surpluses of labour" (Soederberg, 2014, p. 32). This problem is incisive in its relation to the surplus population and forms an issue that directly relates to the reproduction of low-‐income workers. As Harvey (2001) argues; ' various manifestations of crises in the capitalist system, chronic unemployment and underemployment, capital surpluses and lack of investment opportunities, falling rates of profit, lack of effective demand in the market and so on -‐ can, therefore, be traced to the basic tendency to over-‐accumulation" (Harvey, 2001, p. 240). This in turn, can increase tensions on money as a store of value, and for money to retain its aforementioned social power as the universal equivalent; it needs to function as a trusted store of value. Subsequently, if money starts to depreciate as a trusted store of value due to tensions within the accumulation process, then some sort of fix needs to be introduced, lest the problem worsen. Credit money, argues Soederberg, functions as a vital temporary fix in the accumulation process and additionally as a form of money, albeit privately created, it wields immense power (Soederberg, 2014, pp. 32-‐33). The relative surplus population as Marx (1990) infers, contains several categories of low waged, unemployed, and homeless individuals in society. I am concerned with addressing the surplus population as corresponding to the people within UK neoliberal society who are mainly unemployed, under-‐employed, and those on low wage jobs, who depend upon private forms of credit money in order to augment their living costs and reproduce themselves at least to the basic subsistence level. Marx used this term to define similar categories within society, as he noted, "the relative surplus population exists in all kinds of forms. Every worker belongs to it during the time when he is only partially employed or wholly unemployed" (Marx, 1990, p. 794). Yet Marx applied the notion of surplus population to a very different time within capitalist society, which incorporated remnants of agricultural workers from the previous feudal mode of production and so on. Nonetheless, the surplus population category is an important aspect of neoliberal society with which Marx's notion can be applied and updated to suit the analysis of the present study. The surplus population is an integral aspect of capital accumulation, and as Harvey (2010) argues, the management of the labour supply is crucial for capitalist class interests, in order to "create and perpetuate a reserve army to keep wages down, threaten the unemployed laborers with being laid off, disrupt labor organization and increase the intensity of labor for those employed" (Harvey, 2010, p. 281). Harvey further notes that this management of the labour supply has succeeded in the US since the 1970's period of neoliberalisation because whilst profit rates have generally risen, real wages have mostly remained stagnant (Harvey,


12

2010, p. 281). I would also add that this trend of neoliberalisation has performed similarly in the UK, with subsequent wage repression, diminishment of organised labour and increased intensity of work with stagnant or reduced wages as the proceeding case study exemplifies. If Harvey’s point, that this management of the surplus population has succeeded, then by what means has this been so? How can the reproduction of the surplus population occur? And by reproduction we infer the meeting of basic material subsistence needs in order to survive as a part of the excess labour force. Thus credit comes to the fore and serves multiple purposes, as a temporary fix for over accumulation, by overcoming the barriers through extracting revenues in new markets through the credit system in the form of fees, interest, admin charges and so on (Soederberg, 2014, p. 41). This new expansion into hitherto relatively unexploited areas for capitalisation serves the purpose of temporarily circumventing the barrier to accumulation, and it furthermore brings people into the economic system than ever before. At a very basic level, the short-‐term notion of expanding credit to the surplus population ensures new markets for profit and an ever-‐encompassing stream of revenue. As those on the margins of society will forever be in need of money to supplement/augment their income, especially as previously noted by Harvey since the 1970's, that wages have been repressed and organised labour has been diminished. Additionally this expansion of credit allows the surplus population to reproduce themselves to be used and exploited in the production process as and when they are required. Where this whole process has become normalised and transforms into disciplining the population, is what Soederberg (2014) refers to as the class based relations of power being distorted in the realm of exchange, where as previously noted, most of the literature on money and credit are mainly concerned with. Here, the surplus population are reintegrated into the capitalist system as debtors, and a relationship of exploitation is formed between the creditor and debtor which subjugates 'consumers' to "abstractions of interest rates and fee payments levied against future revenues, which appear external and independent to workers (debtors)" (Soederberg, 2014, p. 43). Thus the social power of money rears its head, as previously examined, money is the universal measure of social power, and thus credit appears as a similar form, containing similar illusions or fetishisms of freedom and equality as exemplified in the realm of exchange. Soederberg’s (2014) persuasive argument insinuates that the nature of credit and its emergence, is the result of capitalists utilising it to overcome the inevitable contradictions in capitalism, such as the periodic problems of over accumulation and in addition it serves a dual purpose of facilitating the management of the surplus population, through a process she describes as 'credit-‐led accumulation'. This has necessitated an aspect that thus far this study has only lightly mentioned upon, an institution perceived as class neutral, outside of the realm of production and exchange, which helps normalise and depoliticise this expansion of credit. This perceived 'class neutral' institution, the state, will be analysed in the following case study in its rhetorical and regulatory capacities as facilitating the phenomenon of credit expansion.


13

VII. Neoliberal trends & the expansion of the UK credit card industry This chapter comprises a case study of the UK credit card industry, to analyse the expansion of credit and levels of personal credit card debt within the UK over the neoliberal era. This builds upon the theoretical framework of the preceding chapters. Additionally it is integrated with data on rhetorical and policy features of the UK state, trends in unemployment, poverty and equality to highlight changes that have facilitated a space for the expansion and proliferation of credit to the surplus population. The multi billion pound credit card industry has seen huge increases in the amounts of lending to individuals in society. As of February 2015 the total outstanding lending was £169.1 billion, which is an average consumer credit debt of £6,332 per household. Additionally, the total credit card debt as of February 2015 was £61.2 billion, which per household is £2,293, this, on a credit card bearing the average interest would take 25 years and 4 months to pay back making the minimum repayment per month (The Money Charity, 2015, p. 5). This trend of minimum repayments is highlighted by the fact that, at the end of 2013, 3.7% (over 1.1 million people) of cardholders had made minimum repayments on their cards for 12 consecutive months; 2.3% had made minimum payments for 24 months (The UK Cards Association, 2014, p. 9). The first all-‐purpose credit card was issued in 1958 by Bank of America and subsequently evolved into Visa. In the UK, Barclays issued the first credit card in 1966, yet as Richards (2007) notes, it wasn't until the deregulation in the 1980's that the UK credit card industry expanded significantly (Soederberg, 2014, p. 78) (Richards, 2007, p. 501). Since deregulation there was an exponential increase in the total number of credit cards issued by UK banks, from 6,410,000 in 1975 to 71,887,000 in 2004 alone. Unsecured consumer debt, which encompasses different forms, yet is mostly made up of credit card debt, almost tripled between 1993 and 2013, reaching nearly £160bn in November 2013 (Richards, 2007, p. 501) (Credit Cards, 2015). As noted above, the deregulation by the UK government in the 1980’s was fundamental in this aspect of credit expansion, especially upon looking at the number of credit cards issued from 1975 to 2004, an increase of over sixty five million credit cards does evidently not occur in a vacuum. Yet, in order to fully understand the expansion of credit to the surplus population, it is pertinent to look at the trends of the neoliberal era, which directly precede and correspond to the credit phenomenon. In this aspect the investigation turns to trends in unemployment, inequality and low income, which created a space for augmentation of regular and stable wages with credit for the surplus population. Major changes in policy starting predominantly with Thatcher’s Conservative government, are indicative in establishing the emergence of the neoliberal period and the results of such policies, which created a role for credit expansion. In 1980 the Medium Term Financial Strategy was introduced, a four-‐year plan with its stated aim of reducing inflation and changing fiscal policy to achieving monetary targets (Miller, 1981, p. 50). This, Arestis (2005) notes, was a major shift from the post war Keynesian fiscal strategies of macroeconomic policy, with aims of high levels of employment, growth and low inflation. This shift to a belief in monetary policy in line with neoliberal proponents such as Milton Friedman, was implemented on the basis of arguments which claimed that "people would adjust their inflationary expectations…any unemployment would be temporary, as the economy soon bounced back to the 'natural state of employment'" (Saad-‐Filho & Johnston, 2005, p. 205).


14

Figure.1: UK Unemployment in millions, 1976-‐93 (BBC, 2013). This was, as Arestis (2005) argues, a 'false prophet', monetary policy failed in controlling the money supply, with unemployment (see figure 1) reaching over three million and inflation rose and remained high (Saad-‐Filho & Johnston, 2005, p. 205). Further to this, the only real success if it can be called such, is that this shift in policy continued after Thatcher, through to New Labour and the present day, as have many neoliberal policies and practices that have transformed government. Indeed, when Thatcher was asked what her greatest achievement was, she replied "New Labour", what is indicative of this kind of rhetoric is that neoliberal practice has become normalised and continues (Mcsmith, 2013). Furthermore, the reinforcing of this neoliberal shift through rhetoric, is embodied in the words of Peter Mandelson, who after a New Labour policy gathering in 2002 claimed that in economics, "we are all Thatcherites now" (Minford, 2002).

Figure 1.1 – UK Unemployment as percentage of workforce, 1976 -‐ 2012 (Rogers, 2013) The neoliberal economic policies from the Thatcher era continued under New Labour, yet with more emphasis on a 'third way' between the market and more social mobility. The unemployment rate lowered under New Labour (see Figure 1.1.) and remains at a steady 4-‐5% for the duration of Tony Blair’s premiership as opposed to the high of 12% during Thatcher’s government. Nonetheless, what this indicates, taking into account the Marxian perception of the surplus population, is that this percentage rarely decreases, the 4-‐5% of the workforce unemployed during the supposed ‘boom years’ never decreased, only


15

increasing during times of financial crises such as Figure 1.1 shows in 2008 onwards. Additionally, another integral section of the surplus population, the underemployed which are not represented in unemployment figures, and as the Office for National Statistics (ONS) have noted, these parts of society have only statistically been represented since the year 2000 (Office for National Statistics, 2012).

Figure 1.2: UK Underemployment, 2000-‐2012 (Office for National Statistics, 2012). The underemployment rate (see Figure 1.2), those workers who want to work more hours, of whom the majority according to the ONS in 2012 expressed a desire to increase their hours either in their current job or an additional role, can be seen as a steady rate of around two million during the New Labour years and rose during the financial crisis and continues to rise presently (Office for National Statistics, 2012). This often unrepresented category of the surplus population, in addition to the millions of unemployed, are the parts of society that tend to rely upon credit to supplement their economic status and daily income. This excess labour force kept at the margins of society is representative of the inherent tensions within capital accumulation, and its production of a surplus of labour. This surplus, as the theoretical chapter of this study indicated, functions as a tool to be a ready source of labour to be exploited as and when needed, but as previously stated, this surplus needs to reproduce itself at least to the basic requirements to function as an 'industrial reserve army' as Marx (1990) aptly names it.

Figure 1.3: Gini coefficient measure of income inequality, 1979-‐2009 (Poverty.org, 2010). The dramatic rise in inequality (see Figure 1.3) during the neoliberal era started in 1979 and rose until the end of Thatcher’s premiership in 1990. Yet as Figure 1.3 indicates it continued to rise at a steady rate through the New Labour years and has continued rising. As Figure 1.3 shows, the Gini coefficient measure of overall income inequality in the UK as of 2009 is


16

higher than at any previous time in the past thirty years. There has also been a marked increase in the number of people in low income households from under eight million in the same period from 1979 to over thirteen million in 1990, levelling off between twelve and fourteen million in 2009 (See figure 1.4). Aretsis (2005) argues that the neoliberal agenda of the Thatcher years was a major contributor to inequality, through unabashed promotion of the market and rhetoric of incentives along with attacks on trade union power and collective bargaining as contributory factors in the rise of inequality. (Saad-‐Filho & Johnston, 2005, p. 206)

Figure 1.4: Number of people in low-‐income households, 1979-‐2009 (Poverty.org, 2010). Moreover, attacks on trade unions, which has led to subsequent diminished trade union membership (see figure 1.5), has a direct correlation with wage repression. As can be seen from Figure 1.6, even with diminished trade union membership, those employed and a member of a trade union as of 2011 generally enjoy higher rates of pay, as Figure 1.6 further indicates, only one in nine workers earning less than £7 belong to a trade union, much smaller than those with higher hourly wages. The neoliberal tactics of attacking trade unions, and subsequent decline in membership and restrictions imposed upon union rights, proved an effective tool in combatting the power of labour in the interest of capital.

Figure 1.5: Trade Union membership, 1892-‐2007 (Pettinger, 2013). As Figure 1.6 indicates, even with low levels of union membership, people are far more likely to have higher wages and increases through being unionised. The restrictive anti union laws that The Trade Union and Labour Party Liaison Organisation (2007) regard as "inherited from


17

the Thatcher/Major era remain in place, seriously circumscribing trade union freedom" (The Trade Union and Labour Party Liaison Organisation , 2007, p. 2). These anti-‐union laws indicate the continuation of the neoliberal trend under New Labour, furthermore the International Labor Organisation recently found that, "the British government is now regularly found to be in breach of ILO conventions on fundamental trade union rights by the ILO committee of experts…most recently, the United Kingdom was found to be in breach of article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights" (The Trade Union and Labour Party Liaison Organisation , 2007, p. 1).

Figure 1.6: Proportion of pay group that belong to a trade union, 2011 (Poverty.org, 2010) The actions of government through the neoliberal era that have been elucidated on through the above statistics have evidently played significantly into issues of poverty, unemployment, underemployment, wage repression and the negative consequences of a vastly unequal society. In pure economic terms, this causes issues due to the fact that, if large proportions of the population are being reduced to low wages, unemployment and underemployment for the benefit of capital at the expense of workers, then where does the demand come from? Thus credit appears to have served as the answer, as Harvey's (2010) key insight suggests; "With real wages stagnant or falling after 1980, the deficit in effective demand was largely bridged by resort to the credit system…wage repression produces a deficit of effective demand that is covered by increasing indebtedness, that ultimately leads into a financial crisis which is resolved by state interventions, which translates into a fiscal crisis of the state that can best be resolved, according to conventional economic wisdom, by further reductions in the social wage" (Harvey, 2010). Credit has seen an exponential increase since the early 1990's and a corresponding increase in debt as a result. As can be seen in Figure 1.7 a majority of this is secured (mortgage debt) but a corresponding rise in consumer credit and debt can also be seen, with an increase in net consumer borrowing by £207 billion since 1993 with a subsequent outstanding unsecured debt of up to £158 billion, a total trebling from £52 billion in the early 1990's (CSJ, 2013, p. 36).


18

Figure 1.7: Personal debt by Billions of pounds, 1993-‐2013 (CSJ, 2013, p. 34). When consumer debt is studied overall, as Figure 1.8 suggests, credit card debt appears as the predominant debt type across all levels of income of those indebted. For those as part of the surplus population, with an under average or low income bracket, credit card debt appears as the prominent type of debt, with over 50% of those on incomes less than £10,000 per annum being indebted on cards and over 65% of those earning less than median incomes of between £10,000-‐£19,999 per annum.

Figure 1.8: Debt by product & Income, 2014 (StepChange Debt Charity, 2014, p. 18) These indicators of lower income recipients tending to be in debt on credit cards, correlates with those seeking financial debt advice in relation to their income. From analysing Figure 1.9, it becomes clear that those from less than average income backgrounds appear to be more indebted. As the study over 3 years shows, in each of the years 2012-‐2014 those from income backgrounds under the median average of £20,000-‐£29,999 required the most debt advice, with an average over the three year period of 27% of StepChange clients requiring debt advice earning under £10,000, and an average of 43% of clients requiring debt advice earning £10,000-‐£19,999.


19

Figure 1.9: Demand for debt advice by income, 2012-‐2014 (StepChange Debt Charity, 2014, p. 18). A qualitative study of household finances and access to credit, by the University of Bristol has indicated that households are turning increasingly more to consumer credit and in turn becoming immersed in debt cycles in order just to pay for everyday expenses (Davies & Finney , 2011). In addition to this, there has been a steady increase in consumer lending as can be seen in Figure 2.0, even with the drop in 2009 due to the financial crisis, this, the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) (2013) has argued is insignificant, when analysing the expansion of consumer borrowing prior to the financial crisis, plus borrowing has continued to increase again shortly after in 2012 (CSJ, 2013, p. 36).

Figure 2.0: Quarterly consumer lending growth rates %, 1994-‐2013 (CSJ, 2013, p. 36). The CSJ report (2013) has noted that over the past decade households have taken on increasingly high debt levels in comparison to their income. Although the data both objective and subjective, over the last decade isn't always entirely consistent to make direct comparisons, it is clear they argue, as can be concluded from the above figures, that problem debt has been consistently rising since the early 1990's and has not significantly subsided since the latest financial crisis of 2008 (CSJ, 2013, p. 37). What becomes clear from the data is that the most impoverished, low income, under the median average income, the unemployed and underemployed are the most affected by debt due to the need in supplementing their income, with credit which can quickly surmount into cycles of debt which are very hard to break.


20

Figure 2.1: Reasons for debt in percentages, 2014 (StepChange Debt Charity, 2014, p. 7). As Figure 2.1 shows, those who contacted StepChange debt charity for advice indicated that unemployment is one of the major reasons for incurring debt with just under a quarter in 2014 stating this as a main reason. In addition a further 12.8% cited reduced income as a main reason for incurring debt. Whilst the charity has noted that around half of their clients that are employed on only a part time basis, thus underemployment again features as another indicator of reliance on credit and increasing debt levels (CSJ, 2013, p. 7). If seen through the theoretical lens preceding this chapter, then this large expansion has dual purposes, the role of temporarily fixing issues within capital accumulation, increasing new markets to extract profit and the reproduction of the surplus population. Soederberg (2014) argues, that the increasing issue and use of credit by the working poor has come to represent one of the most profitable sectors for a handful of banks that dominate the industry. Additionally, credit card debt for the poor increasingly involves a vicious debt cycle of interest payments and fees that stall the full repayment of credit (Soederberg, 2014, p. 78). This is corroborated by the fact that in the UK the top three companies in the market as of 2001 were Barclay Card, Royal Bank of Scotland/Natwest and Lloyds TSB, which between them accounted for 52.0% of the credit card market with no other company owning more than a 13% share (Datamonitor, 2003, p. 7). Additionally the BBA’s Chief Economist Richard Woolhouse commenting on the BBA’s Credit Card Statistics from November 2014 noted that;" It’s very interesting to see a record 43% of credit card balances incurred no fees in November – that’s the highest proportion since records began almost 20 years ago" (British Bankers Association, 2015). This infers that even with the highest proportion in twenty years since records begin, 57% of credit card balances in that time period accrued fees. The data starts to clarify and reinforce the understanding of the drive of consumer credit, to create profit through interest fees and charges and as Soederberg (2014) has previously noted, in turn it creates a vicious debt cycle encumbered by these concrete abstractions of fees and charges. In fact, the data suggests that the most indebted consumers who rely upon credit are preferable consumers for credit card companies, incurring the most profit through fees and charges. These consumers, known as 'revolvers' who revolve their outstanding balance from one period to another, by only partially paying or paying the minimum repayments which result in charges and higher fees on borrowing; in 2013, 39% of credit card consumers were classed as 'revolver's (The UK Cards Association, 2014).


21

These practices of profiting off the most indebted have recently come to the attention of UK regulatory body, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). In the preliminary details for a forthcoming study, they have noted that it is their intention to investigate certain aspects of the UK credit card industry and the practice of companies, to ascertain whether "firms may be charging revolvers more for their borrowing than the cost of extending the debt…and whether highly indebted customers are generating a disproportionate amount of revenue for firms" (Financial Conduct Authority, 2014, pp. 17-‐24). From this data, it is indicative that extracting profits through high interest rates and exorbitant fees is a common practice in the actions of high street banks and lenders. This corroborates the perception that expanding the market into areas such as the surplus population, that up until the 1990's were relatively untouched by privately created credit, is a vital barrier that capital has circumvented in the push for constant growth. Exploitative interest and fees in this capacity also serve to reinforce the form of exploitation in the realm of exchange between creditor and debtor. As such, this type of secondary exploitation, unlike primary forms of exploitation occurring in the realm of production, takes place through the extraction of interest and fees. As can be seen in Figure 2.2. & Figure 2.3, the debt charity StepChange (2014) received the most complaints (close to 30%) regarding debt from users of High street banks, of whom, as noted above control the largest majority of the market share of issuing credit cards.

Figure 2.2: Complaints against lending organisation in %, 2012-‐2014 (StepChange Debt Charity, 2014, p. 33) Figure 2.3 indicates that the majority of complaints about high street banks were mainly the result of excessive interest or charges being added to debt. These abstractions as Soederberg (2014) argues, appear as a natural exchange of equivalents within the realm of exchange, since the creditor and the debtor seem to enter into a contractual agreement voluntarily. Yet it is exactly the social nature of money and credit that reinforces this fetishism, and allows for the ever-‐increasing exploitation in the realm of exchange. (Soederberg, 2014, p. 35). This is evidenced by the fact that those incurring fees such as 57% of those in November 2014 or those classed as 'revolvers' who make only partial or minimum repayments are those more likely to have to give up part of their income or savings to repay the interest, let alone repay the loan (British Bankers Association, 2015) (The UK Cards Association, 2014).


22

Figure 2.3: Issues for complaints by %, 2014 (StepChange Debt Charity, 2014, p. 33). As the CSJ has indicated, data from the bank of England's NMG consulting survey evidences this; statistically 44% of households in the poorest income decile are in fact a part of this debt cycle by spending more than a quarter of their income on debt repayments with generally an average of half their income paying back interest fees and principal repayments (CSJ, 2013, p. 53). These abstractions are further normalised and subjugate people through the social power inherent to money; through more abstractions such as credit ratings and credit scores that serve to further provide the illusion that these things are natural and allow fees and interest to be framed as an equivalent exchange for a debtors rating. (Soederberg, 2014, p. 38) The conclusions of the CSJ report (2013) correlate to the aforementioned hypothesis and empirical study in analysing the reasons for increased indebtedness in the UK and the expansion of credit in a number of coherent ways. They conclude that the factors that explain why over indebtedness disproportionately affects those on lower incomes is due to, lower levels in savings that have been increasingly used to pay off debts, interests and fees. Additionally, major factors increasing over indebtedness are higher levels of unemployment and underemployment and the fact that those on lower incomes rely on high interest credit cards and other forms of high interest credit. Moreover, the CSJ (2013) has highlighted that this evidence correlates with further statistical studies undertaken by StepChange Debt Charity and the Citizens Advice Bureau. With StepChange concluding that of the clients accessing their debt services, 55.7% receive at least one type of state benefit amounting to 36.6% of all income, a further characteristic of a low-‐income background. The Citizens Advice Bureau noted that 37% of their clients are unemployed and 87% had an annual income of less than £18,000 (CSJ, 2013, p. 55). Analysis of these figures further reinforces the trend of low income, unemployed and underemployed workers relying upon credit as a means of subsistence. As the findings from the CSJ further note," Low, reduced, or irregular household income is a major contributory cause and driver of problem debt…Commonly known as the poverty premium, the cumulative effect of these costs can be to push people into problem debt…. A large part of the poverty premium results from the increased cost and frequency of borrowing that often becomes part of life for low-‐income households" (CSJ, 2013, pp. 63-‐85).


23

VIII. Conclusion This study has combined insights of Marxist political economy, sociology and quantitative data in order to examine money and credit in the context of the neoliberal era of capitalism; this has highlighted gaps in the existing literature on money and evidenced the case for money as not ‘just a thing’ but an expression of value embodied in price. Moreover, it has been demonstrated that money is inherently social from its inception due to the exploitation process within the production of value. Equally, the previous chapters have evidenced that by examining money in the realm of production, where direct exploitation in the value creating process takes place, provides an understanding of money as a social relation, as the exchange process is inundated with a monetary fetishised view. The money form of commodities hides the social relations between people and instead presents relations as being between material objects, in this vein, it also functions as the universal equivalent concealing the relations that underpin money and credit within capitalist society. Furthermore, as money is a commodity, representing social power with the ability to become the property of private individuals, thus the accumulation of it by a few private individuals results in an accumulation of vast social power concentrated in the hands of a rich minority. Credit operates as a form of money and holds similar fetishisms to its counterpart, such as illusions of freedom and equality whilst simultaneously concealing the exploitative relations inherent to the money form. Yet, credit is distinct in that rather than being social from its inception, it can serve a social purpose once it starts to circulate as money. Consumer credit has served multiple purposes in neoliberal capitalism, as the previous chapters have demonstrably shown, it does not emerge from magic market mechanisms but is privately created in order to resolve contradictions within the dynamics of capital accumulation. It has achieved this by opening up new markets for which to extract profit; the surplus population being a target market, as the case study has shown, consumer credit has since the 1990’s been exponentially expanded to this segment of society and has to reproduce the surplus population to at least subsistence level, in order to function as a reserve army of labour. The credit fix, has served to decrease the tensions on money as a store of value, which as an embodiment of social power as the universal equivalent must not be allowed to depreciate. Additionally, a secondary form of exploitation in the sphere of exchange has occurred between creditor and debtor, which is further obscured as a process of exploitation due to the similar fetishes to money that credit contains. The study has highlighted some neoliberal trends in government policy such as higher levels of unemployment, underemployment, increased inequality and diminishment of trade unions. These have served the purpose of creating the space for privately created money to be expanded to the surplus population, whilst simultaneously becoming embroiled in debt-‐cycles that provide a constant stream of profit through abstractions such as interest charges and fees. These abstractions are normalised by the social power inherent to money and allow these to appear as natural aspects within the ‘community of money’ that is capitalist society Other aspects which could be studied as an extension of this work that have not been touched upon due to constraints in this study, are; a more in depth analysis of the states role, social and institutional relations and the disciplining nature of debt within wider society, along with the new modes of neoliberal governance that impact upon this topic.


24

Bibliography BBC. (2013, April 9). The Thatcher years in statistics. Retrieved April 15, 2015 from BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22070491 British Bankers Association. (2015, January 8). November 2014 – Credit Card Market. Retrieved April 15, 2015 from https://www.bba.org.uk/news/statistics/credit-card-market/november-2014-credit-card-market/#.VT0lSYffjwx/ CSJ. (2013). Maxed Out: Serious Personal Debt in Britain. The Centre for Social Justice, London. Credit Cards. (2015, January 30). UK credit and debit card statistics. Retrieved April 14, 2015 from http://uk.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/uk-britain-credit-debit-card-statistics-international.php#sup9 Davies, S., & Finney , A. (2011). Facing the Squeeze 2011: A qualitative study of household finances and access to credit. Retrieved April 15, 2015 from University of Bristol: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/geography/migrated/documents/pfrc1111.pdf Datamonitor. (2003). United Kingdom - Credit & Charge Cards Industry Profile. Financial Conduct Authority. (2014). Credit card market study: terms of reference. Graeber, D. (2011). Debt: The First 5000 Years. New York: Melville House. Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press. Harvey, D. (2010). A companion to Marx's Capital. London: Verso. Harvey, D. (2001). Spaces of Capital: Towards a Critical Geography. New York: Routledge. Harvey, D. (1989). The Urban Experience. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Harvey, D. (2011). The Enigma of Capital and the Crisis of Capitalism. London: Profile Books Ltd. Harvey, D. (2010, August 30). The Enigma of Capital and the Crisis this Time. Retrieved April 16, 2015 from David Harvey: http://davidharvey.org/2010/08/the-enigma-of-capital-and-the-crisis-this-time/#fnref-585-16 ) Harvey, D. (1982). The Limits to Capital. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Ingham, G. (1996). Money Is a Social Relation. Review of Social Economy , 54 (4). Lapavitsas, C. (2013). Profiting without Producing: How Finance Exploits Us All. London: Verso. Marx, K. (1990). Capital: Volume 1. London: Penguin Books. Marx, K. (1993). Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy. London: Penguin Classics. Mcsmith, A. (2013, April 8). Margaret Thatcher's legacy: Spilt milk, New Labour, and the Big Bang - she changed everything. Retrieved April 15, 2015 from The Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/margaret-thatchers-legacy-spilt-milk-new-labour-and-the-big-bang--she-changed-everything-8564541.html Menger, C. (1892). On the Origin of Money. Economic Journal , 2, 238–255. Miller, M. (1981). The medium term financial strategy: an experiment in co-ordinating monetary and fiscal policy. Fiscal Studies , 2 (2), 50-60. Minford, P. (2002, June 17). We're all Thatcherites now? Retrieved April 15, 2015 from The Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/2765512/Were-all-Thatcherites-now-Not-by-playing-policy-pick-n-mix.html


25

Office for National Statistics. (2012, November 28). People in Work Wanting More Hours Increases by 1 million Since 2008. Retrieved April 15, 2015 from http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_289024.pdf Pettinger, T. (2013, April 19). Economic Impact of Margaret Thatcher. Retrieved April 15, 2015 from Economics Help: http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/274/uk-economy/economic-impact-of-margaret-thatcher/ Poverty.org. (2010, August). Young adults in low-income households. Retrieved April 16, 2015 from Poverty.org: http://www.poverty.org.uk/34/index.shtml?2 Poverty.org. (2010, August). Income inequalities. Retrieved April 16, 2015 from Poverty.org: http://www.poverty.org.uk/09/index.shtml?2 Poverty.org. (2010, August). Insecure at work. Retrieved April 16, 2015 from Poverty.org: http://www.poverty.org.uk/57/index.shtml?2 Richards, M. (2007). Irresponsible Lending? A Case Study of a U.K. Credit Industry Reform Initiative. Journal of Business Ethics , 81 (3), 499-512. Rogers, S. (2013, April 8). Thatchers Britain. Retrieved April 19, 2015 from The Guardian: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdHE0dnFiRmIwM0Y3T1dMeXIwQVZBR2c&usp=sharing#gid=18 Saad-Filho, A., & Johnston, D. (2005). Neoliberalism: A Critical Reader. London: Pluto Press. Soederberg, S. (2014). Debtfare States and the Poverty Industry. New York: Routledge. Steger, M., & Roy, R. (2010). Neoliberalism: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. StepChange Debt Charity. (2014). Statistics Yearbook: Personal Debt 2014. London. The UK Cards Association. (2014). The UK Cards Association Annual Report 2014. Retrieved April 4, 2015 from http://www.theukcardsassociation.org.uk/wm_documents/UK%20Cards%20Annual%20Report%202014%20interactive.pdf The Money Charity. (2015, April). The Money Statistics. Retrieved April 24, 2015 from http://themoneycharity.org.uk/media/April-2015-Money-Statistics.pdf The Trade Union and Labour Party Liaison Organisation . (2007). Trade Union Rights within a British Bill of Rights: DRAFT TULO Submission to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Retrieved April 15, 2015 from United Campaign: http://www.unitedcampaign.org.uk/files/briefings/TULOsub.pdf Womans Own Magazine. (1987, September 23). Margaret Thatcher Interview for Womans Own. Retrieved April 4, 2015 from Margaretthatcher.org: http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689 Zelizer, V. (1989). The Social Meaning of Money: "Special Monies". The American Journal of Sociology , 95 (2), 342-377.

The role of Consumer Credit within Neoliberal Capitalism & its expansion to the Surplus Population

Documents

Transcript of The role of Consumer Credit within Neoliberal Capitalism & its expansion to the Surplus Population