New Perspectives on Political Economy, Vol. 18, No.

1-2, 2022

Accumulated Savings, Rate of Interest and

Rate of Profit in a Free Market Economy
Youliy Ninov

T
he existence of a macroeconomic fund of accumulated savings in an economy will
be justified. It will be shown how this fund can repetitively be used for investment
purposes. The rate of interest will be defined as the return on that part of the
accumulated savings that has been lent. It will be shown why this rate is a dependent
variable, directly determined by the rate of profit and how both rates are not and can
not be the same. The rate of profit itself will be directly related to the structure of the economy
chosen by the economic agents.

Introduction
In the present article, we intend to discuss the determinants of the rate of interest in a closed
free-market economy with a fixed monetary supply. For that purpose, we will first show how
accumulated savings exist at the microeconomic level and later switch to the macro level and
define a macro-economic fund of accumulated savings. We will show how the latter fund is
self-sustaining and used for investment repetitively, thus avoiding constant net saving on the
part of the economic agents. The places where accumulated savings reside will be discussed,
and we will define the rate of interest as the return on that part of the accumulated savings
that has been lent. Later, we will show how the interest rate is a time-dependent variable, which
contradicts the most widely accepted Austrian economics theory of interest, namely the pure
time preference theory. Once we have accomplished the above, we will derive the relation
between the rate of profit and rate of interest based on a simple economic model of how banks
work in a closed free-market economy under a fixed monetary supply. With its help, we will
show that it is the rate of profit that determines the rate of interest, i.e., that the rate of interest
by itself is a dependent variable, and how both rates are not the same thing, in particular how
the rate of profit can exist without rate of interest to be defined. We will justify the existence of
profit simply with the wish of the businessmen to be compensated for their efforts. Finally, we

New Perspectives on Political Economy [ 74 ]

will show how the structure of the economy directly determines profits and salaries and how
the change of this structure due to net-saving/dis-saving determines the rate of profit and, from
there, the rate of interest.

Accumulated monetary savings in an economy

There are two main views in the Austrian economics theory concerning the rate of interest.
According to the first one, for an economy to grow, the rate of interest must go down (Rothbard
(2009, pp.524), Mises (1966)). For the latter to happen, the economic agents are supposed to
save a growing percentage of their income/profits over time. According to the second view, the
rate of interest can stay the same with the growth of the economy, but the economic agents are
still required to regularly save some fixed percentage of their income/profits (Garrison 2002).
The latter is easily seen when one realizes that, according to Garrison, an economy can grow
when investment is in excess of capital depreciation. But since depreciation is viewed as a
regularly occurring economic drain on investment, and savings finance the investment itself,
then depreciation is a drain on savings too. Thus, to keep the investment stable in monetary
terms, we have to add new savings constantly.

In this way, both views require that net saving be present. In the first case, net saving must
constantly grow in monetary terms, and in the second, it can stay the same in time. The presence
of net saving, according to these views, is necessary for compensating and overcompensating
the capital depreciation of the economy so that economic growth becomes possible.

Both standard Austrian economics views on the relation between the rate of interest and
saving in the economy can be described with the „leaky bucket“ analogy. Since depreciation is
supposedly a drain on the economic capital (i.e., the bucket leaks), we have to constantly create
new capital by saving in order to compensate for the loss (i.e., we have to continually fill the
bucket so that the quantity of water in it does not decrease).

The problem with this view is that savings not only do not „leak out“ but accumulate. Let us
first look at the process from a micro-economic point of view. An economic agent saves a
fixed amount of money and loans it directly to another party. The receiver of the loan uses it
for some purpose (e.g., to invest) and returns the same amount of money and some interest
to the original saver. Note that the original agent can loan it again once the money has been
paid out in full. He need not save anymore and is even at liberty to consume the interest on
his loan. What is still important to realize is that the original saver would never loan his money
if he expected that less money would be returned to him. If this were not the case, he would

New Perspectives on Political Economy [ 75 ]

prefer to hoard it (e.g., put it in a safe deposit box). Note, however, what happened: what
was saved stayed in existence, at least until the original saver does not decide to consume it.
There are three phases in the overall process described. First, the original saver saves in the
strict sense, i.e., he abstains from consuming. Then this money is loaned to and spent by the
receiving agent. The latter action can be likened to the process of dis-saving but is not precisely
the same since the money did not belong to the receiving agent. Moreover, this money is used
for buying/investing in general economic resources, not for consumption goods only. We can
call the latter process wide-sense dis-saving. Later the money (plus interest) is returned to the
original saver. This action is similar to saving but again is not the same since the intention to
consume in the future is missing. Consumption is restricted but in the interest of the original
saver, and some general economic resources are released. Similar to the previous case, we can
call this process wide-sense saving. From a general point of view, the whole process above
can roughly be described as saving followed by dis-saving and saving again. What happened
under the surface was an act of strict saving, followed by an act of wide-sense dis-saving and
later by a wide-sense saving one. The same money is being used and returned and is still
available to be loaned. It did not decrease or disappear. From an economic point of view, the
resources that this money commands (corresponds to) are still free/available for investment.
Again: what was saved stayed in existence, and if the original saver saves more, these savings
will be accumulated and be available for investment forever. As we can see, no „leaky bucket“
effect is present from a micro-economic point of view.

If we add all of the accumulated micro-savings, we can talk of accumulated savings at the macro-
level. This is the total amount of the already accumulated (micro)savings in the economy, i.e.,
the sum of all individual savings which are already present (which stay in existence, as described
previously). Since every single piece of (micro)savings does not decrease by itself (no „leaky
bucket“ effect), then the accumulated (macro)savings will not go down too. The sum of non-
decreasing positive elements is a positive, non-decreasing value. In this way, we established
that every economy has an amount of accumulated money (macroeconomic savings), which
exists and therefore can be repetitively invested and re-invested forever. Moreover, we also see
no „leaky bucket“ effect at the macro level.

With the above in mind, we can understand what we meant in Ninov (2020) when we said
that an economy could grow without net saving. Described in macroeconomic terms: people
and companies can save on the macro-level (e.g., people save for retirement), but others can
dis-save (e.g., retirees draw down their savings accounts). These two values can be equal, and

New Perspectives on Political Economy [ 76 ]

then net saving on the macro-economic level will be zero. However, we will still have a fund of
accumulated savings that exists. Note that it is the accumulated savings that will be invested
and re-invested. Loans will be taken and paid back, but the overall accumulated savings in the
economy will stay the same in monetary terms. Net investment can be present without net-
saving being present. The latter will be possible due to the existence of the wide-sense dis-
saving and saving processes we discussed, which run under the surface of the economy and
thus perpetuate the investment process. The investment itself will be determined not by the net
saving but by the quantity of accumulated savings.

Let us take a look at the big picture. In every economy, there is an amount of accumulated
monetary savings used for investment. A part of the monetary supply has been reserved (in
the sense of used exclusively) for investment. The accumulated money commands some capital
resources in the economy, so we see how a part of the real resources in an economy is reserved
for growth. One can draw an analogy with the existence of economic profit in an economy with
a fixed monetary supply. Profit can exist in it by itself (we need not artificially add money to the
economy) since a part of the monetary supply is used exclusively for this purpose.

Now, when we see the big picture, we can come back to depreciation again. No monetary
savings are used to compensate for it, contrary to the standard Austrian views. Depreciation
is a regularly occurring economic cost, and as such, it is automatically compensated in every
economy. Another part of the economy‘s monetary supply (and consequently another part of
its real resources) is reserved exclusively for capital depreciation compensation. However, this
is not the same part that is used for investment. The reader is again referred to Ninov (2020)
and Ninov(2021). From this point of view, it is justified for us to use only the (standardized) term
„net investment,“ which by definition is gross investment minus the depreciation. The (already
standardized) term „gross investment,“ however, has no meaning in our framework since it adds
two disparate types of funds: savings (for net investment) and costs (depreciation). The above
describes an existing terminological problem.

Let us now again summarize our view about how the fund of accumulated savings and
depreciation are related. All accumulated savings (including the most recent net saving/dis-
saving act) are used for investment (net). No accumulated savings are used for depreciation
compensation since depreciation by itself is an economic cost.

We described and justified the existence of a fund of accumulated savings, which is present in
a growing economy. However, we did not explain „where it hides,“ so to say.

New Perspectives on Political Economy [ 77 ]

The first and most obvious place is the banking system (remember, we discuss an economy
with a fixed monetary supply). Each bank possesses an amount of monetary capital, which it
lends and relents constantly. This capital does not decrease. Banks do the latter by lending at
such a rate of interest and by choosing their clients in such a way as to compensate their losses
on some deals with higher profits on others. They are in the business of „averaging“ over their
clients and over time so that they do not lose money and generate a profit for themselves.

The second prominent place is the issuing of corporate bonds (and stocks). The interest on such
bonds is such that it can compensate on average the risk incurred by the bond investors. Thus
in a free market, the corporate bond market value is expected to be a more or less constant
amount of money in time, i.e., a permanently existing source of investment.

The third and not so prominent place is the money saved and invested directly by the companies.
This process does not significantly differ from the one we described earlier when an economic
agent lends his saved money to another one, and later the money is returned to him with
interest. In this case, the company „lends“ the money to itself and later „pays it back“ to itself.
What is left after the money is „paid back“ is the profit on the investment (interest in the
previous case). Thus, the money for further investment will again be available since it will stay in
existence once it is saved. When we add over all the companies, which invest their own funds,
we will find a more or less constant amount of money in time, present for investment purposes.
Note that the above shows how a single company need not constantly save in order to invest.
It can simply reserve some of its existing capital funds for investment purposes and invest and
re-invest them repetitively.

These are the three main places where our accumulated savings fund „hides.“ Still, this list is
probably not exhaustive.

Rate of interest in a free market economy

Once we have dealt with the accumulated savings in an economy, we will turn to the rate of
interest as a general phenomenon pertaining to the whole economy. We view the rate of interest
in the following way: In every economy, there is some quantity of free resources (accumulated
savings) that can be used for investment purposes. Some of these resources are directly invested
when companies use their own savings. The money that commands these resources is not lent
but directly used. The rest of the free resources is passed to other companies for investment,
i.e., the other part of the accumulated savings is lent out against interest. And it is the return
on these lent-out savings (in monetary terms) that determines the rate of interest. The correct

New Perspectives on Political Economy [ 78 ]

definition of interest is the return on the lent-out capital. Capital, which is not being lent but
directly invested, can earn no interest. What it earns is profit. Note that we described previously
three general places where the accumulated savings reside. In this sense, the rate of interest
is formed over/determined by the quantity of bank capital and the quantity of bonds/stocks
only. In other words, interest is formed over a part of the available free resources (accumulated
savings) and, in particular, over the ones that are being lent out. It is useful here to draw a
comparison with the standard loanable funds model. In it, interest is formed over all savings,
but in our model, it is formed only over the ones that are being lent out since we recognize
that a part of the savings is not lent but directly invested. Thus we draw a distinguishing line
between the rate of interest and rate of profit.

In our opinion, one can talk of a general (economy-wide) interest rate only in monetary terms.
The reason for the latter is that it is money that allows the comparison of different heterogeneous
goods or services. Money is the „common denominator,“ so to say. Without money, i.e., in a
barter economy, there can be local/specific rates for separate branches/parts of the economy;
however, these interest rates cannot interact with one another and form a common (economy-
wide) one.

If we presume a closed free-market economy with a fixed monetary supply, then the rate of
(natural) interest must be visible at the money market. Note that there is a risk component of
the rate of interest, which is added to the basic (natural) interest rate. This component, however,
does not change the basic interest rate. When averaging over all loans given and over time, the
risk component disappears. In mathematical terms, the expected value of the risk component
is zero. Thus we will discuss only the risk-free component of the interest rate.

In this simple setup, it is straightforward to observe the determinants of the rate of interest. The
accumulated money is determined not by the saving rate itself, i.e., not by what percentage of
our income we save in a particular time period, but by its accumulation over time. What matters
is what we have saved since the process of saving itself has started. That means that the current
rate of interest is not determined only by our recent willingness to save or dis-save but mainly/
predominantly by our previous, i.e., past, decisions. Our current saving decisions affect the rate
of interest only to a small degree since we presume that the amount of money accumulated
in the economy is significantly more than the one added/saved in the present period (e.g., in a
year).

New Perspectives on Political Economy [ 79 ]

The above-given explanation, which looks trivial and obvious, leads to certain conclusions
about the predominant interest rate theory in the Austrian economics school, i.e., the Pure Time
Preference Theory (PTPT). In particular, it leads to the conclusion that it is incapable of describing
the rate of interest phenomenon. The reason for that is straightforward: PTPT claims that the
interest rate is determined by the discount of future goods with respect to present goods.
However, the discussed discount is presumed to be determined only by the economic agents‘
present time preferences. The previous/older time preferences of the economic agents are
not taken into consideration. What matters in PTPT is the net saving/dis-saving [e.g., Rothbard
(2009), pp.388], which is a flow variable that pertains only to the present. In reality, however,
it is the amount of accumulated savings (inclusive of the most recent act of net saving/dis-
saving) that determines the interest rate, i.e., it is the stock variable (accumulated savings) that
matters. To generalize the problem: The rate of interest is a time-dependent variable. Its value
in each new time period depends on its value in the previous one. PTPT is a time-independent
theory, however. It presupposes that the interest rate value does not depend on the previous
time period. Thus PTPT is fundamentally incompatible with the real economic processes that
determine the rate of interest and therefore cannot be used to describe them.

The above-described problems stem, in our opinion, from how the process of saving is viewed
in contemporary Austrian texts. Each act of net saving is supposedly lost forever once it is
invested since net saving and economic growth are inextricably linked. In reality, however, and
as we know very well from our everyday life, each bank loan given to a company for investment
must be paid back. Consequently, the money from the paid-back loan can be re-invested again
later. Moreover, this money can also be accumulated over subsequent time periods from the
net saving/dis-saving of the economic agents. Thus the physical resources used for investment
are being returned and re-used for further investment. They do not simply become unavailable
for investment as implicitly presumed. Net saving is not a prerequisite for net investment, in fact
(Ninov (2020)).

Rate of interest vs. rate of profit in a free market economy

As discussed previously, we can imagine a simplified economic model of a closed free-market
economy with a fixed monetary supply. In such an economy, the rate of interest can be observed
directly, and this will be the rate at which the free capital in the economy is lent. We wish to find
out what the determinants of the rate of interest are.

New Perspectives on Political Economy [ 80 ]

Let us imagine a bank with equity capital Ce, which is not being lent, and base capital Cl, which
is being lent. We will denote the interest rate with IR and the profit rate with PR. Let us now
describe the relation between profit and interest rates for this bank. Assuming I is the money
received as interest/income, we can write for the rate of profit:

=
+
So, the rate of profit is the income divided by the overall capital of the bank.

We can, however, represent this formula differently by rearranging it:

∗( + )=

( + )
∗ =

∗( + 1) =

By definition, income divided by the lending capital is the rate of interest, i.e., IR. The ratio of
equity capital to the lending capital will be denoted by CR (capital ratio). Then we obtain:

= ∗( + 1)

This is the relation between the rate of profit and the rate of interest we were looking for. Note
what follows from it. Since the bank‘s equity capital always exists, then CR will always be a
quantity greater than 0, but still a relatively small number less than 1. Due to the latter, the value
of (CR+1) will always be bigger than 1. Let us now realize what the above means. It states that
the rate of interest and rate of profit are not one and the same thing. As long as CR is not zero,
both rates can never be equal. The interest rate will always be greater than the rate of profit.
Note that what we discussed applies not only to a single bank but to all banks in general. That is
why we can say that the base (natural) rate of interest in the economy must be higher than the
rate of profit. Still, as mentioned previously, the rate of interest described above is the „average“
one, i.e., the resulting rate of interest after we average over all loans given and over some time
period (e.g., over a year).

Why is the rate of interest higher than the rate of profit? The answer is: due to the existence
of capital necessary to make the lending process possible. We postulated implicitly that all
capital in the economy should get equal returns, which applies to the equity capital. It must
be compensated in the same way as any other form of capital. However, its very existence

New Perspectives on Political Economy [ 81 ]

necessitates a higher rate of overall return. This capital consists of people, machines, buildings,
etc., i.e., all resources necessary in order to manage the lending process.

We should ask ourselves if the capital to manage lending has to do with the risk incurred
in the lending process itself. In our view, even if there were no risks involved, i.e., even if we
found ourselves in some imaginary risk-free economy, we would still need capital to manage
the lending process. In other words, the existence of management capital is unavoidable. This
capital will be much higher in a real economy, where risk is unavoidably present. This will be due
to the need to provide a monetary cushion for the case of outright business losses. Therefore,
the management capital will always have to include some additional monetary funds to cover
the risk involved in lending. Thus in our view, the real (measurable) rate of interest will always
be higher than the rate of profit, but it will be the risk component in an economy that adds
significantly to this difference.

Let us now see where this leads. In a real economy, the rate of interest will always surpass
the rate of profit. If capital is being lent, it will be lent to companies/entities that will generate
a significantly higher rate of profit than the average. Thus, the free economic capital will be
distributed to the most promising investment projects, i.e., to projects that will contribute the
most to economic growth. An economic project with an average or under average profit rate
would simply not generate enough return to justify taking a loan. On its side, the capital for
lending will be available since banks will pay their savers the going rate of profit (which is lower
than the rate of interest). This monetary capital will come from private savings and savings of
companies that can not profitably invest their free (surplus) funds at this particular moment.

What about the capital ratio discussed (CR)? In our view, this ratio (of management capital
to lending capital) is a technologically determined parameter. For example, banks nowadays
tend to switch a big part of their activities to online banking. The latter includes their loan-
management departments. In this way, less capital will be needed for the same amount of loans
to be given. Thus we should expect that in the future, due to the general economic progress,
less and less management capital will be needed for the same amount of loaned capital. Thus
CR will constantly decrease and tend towards zero, but still, it will never reach it. In this way,
we expect the „pure“ interest rate (i.e., excluding the risk component; when we average over
all bank clients and over time) to tend toward the rate of profit. Still, due to the amount of risk
inherent to every existing economy, the rate of interest will always be greater than the rate of
profit.

New Perspectives on Political Economy [ 82 ]

Let us now come back to the above-derived formula. What it shows is a relation between the
rate of interest and the rate of profit. What it does not say, however, is which one determines
the other. There are two possible ways to find out the above.

The first is to see the timing relation between the variables, i.e., to see which one comes before
the other and if such a dependency is observed, then the former is the cause and the latter
the effect. From this point of view, the rate of profit is the cause/the determinant of the rate of
interest, since, for money to be lent (and therefore for interest to exist at all), this money must
have been saved out of the profit previously.

The second way is to determine if the rate of profit can exist without the rate of interest. We
can describe such a closed free-market economy. In it, the existing companies will invest all
that has been saved in themselves. They will never lend money to other companies. Since no
amount of accumulated savings will be lent, no interest will be generated, and consequently,
no interest rate can be defined. Although a very inordinate one, such an economy can exist,
and it will grow because the necessary investment will be available for that purpose. Since the
money for investment will not be lent out, it will not be used for the most profitable prospective
projects available but for some lesser ones. The latter will lead to slower growth, but growth
nevertheless. Thus the second option also points out that the rate of profit determines the rate
of interest.

In conclusion, we can generalize the relation: The rate of interest is determined by the rate of
profit and the capital ratio, i.e., the right side of the formula determines the left side.

The idea of the primacy of the rate of profit can be traced to Reisman (1996), where he introduces
his „Net consumption, net investment theory of profit and interest“ (Reisman 1996, ch.16).
However, we should note that the justification we used to prove that the rate of profit determines
the rate of interest has nothing to do with the one used by Resiman. As to the above-mentioned
theory, we are of the opinion that it is incorrect. To summarize the problem: Reisman claims that
the reason why aggregate profit as such exists is due to the existence of consumption on the
part of the businessmen. And this consumption, according to Reisman, comes from funds such
as „paid dividends,“ etc. The problem is that the very existence of dividends presupposes the
existence of profit since dividends are paid out of profits. Thus Reisman uses circular reasoning
in order to justify the existence of aggregate profit by (implicitly) presuming that it exists. The
latter is what makes the mentioned theory invalid in our opinion.

New Perspectives on Political Economy [ 83 ]

Rate of profit in a free-market economy
What we have established so far is that the rate of profit determines the rate of interest.
This conclusion changes our question from „What determines the rate of interest?“ to „What
determines the rate of profit?“ in a free-market economy.

The rate of profit as a macro-economic value can, for instance, be represented as the sum of all
individual profits (and losses) in an economy divided by the whole economic capital, measured
at the current market prices. Other definitions, which relate the micro-economic to the macro-
economic parameters, are possible, as long as they are used consistently for analysis purposes.
Irrespective of this, the profit rate is a parameter that must describe what a company is expected
to gain if it successfully takes part in the particular market.

In our opinion, the macroeconomic existence of (aggregate) profit and from there of the rate of
profit can be explained simply by the fact that businessmen wish to be compensated for their
efforts. We accept as given that labor has a price, i.e., that ordinary workers in companies expect
to be paid/compensated for their efforts. Company owners are not different in this respect. The
only significant difference is that they are the ones responsible for organizing how much they
will earn. Through their control over the economy businessmen reserve a part of the economic
resources for their own use as compensation for their productive effort. Thus the reason why
profits exist is the same as the one why labor has a price.

Let us now try to determine the rate of profit in a closed free-market economy with a fixed
monetary supply. As discussed earlier, we expect that if such an economy grows, it will grow
without net saving (on a macro-economic level). In such a stationary growth state, all economic
profits and salaries are entirely consumed since nothing is saved on average. Therefore the sum
of all profits and salaries is precisely equal to the quantity of consumer goods being produced.
Since the overall amount of capital (measured at current market prices) is fixed, then the rate
of profit is determined by the ratio of the consumer goods production to the overall amount
of capital (measured at current market prices) and the percentage of profits in the overall
consumption.

The latter can clearly be seen in the case when net saving appears. In economic structure terms,
the net saving process will transfer economic resources to the investment fund as described in
detail in Ninov (2021) and thus increase the fixed capital goods production at the expense of
consumer goods production. As a result, our accumulated savings fund will grow. Thus if, for
instance, the accumulated savings fund is 100 monetary units and the rate of return on it is 10%,

New Perspectives on Political Economy [ 84 ]

then 110 monetary units will be returned from investing it. In the stationary growth state, the
mentioned 10 surplus monetary units would be consumed. But if the economic agents decide
to save all or a part of this surplus, then net saving will appear, and the accumulated savings
fund will grow from 100 to 110 maximum.

Once the net saving process ends, the economy will restructure and come to a new stationary
growth state with a higher growth rate and lower consumer goods production. Since, as
described previously, all profits and salaries in the new state will again be entirely consumed,
but the consumer goods production is now lower, then profits and salaries will decrease all
around. Since the overall amount of economic capital (already redistributed) will stay the same,
the rate of profit will go down, and the rate of interest will follow.

The case when net dis-saving appears is not much different. It describes the opposite capital
redistribution process, in which capital is being moved towards more consumer goods
production. The latter leads to an increase in the profits and salaries in the economy since
more goods for consumption are available. As a consequence, the rate of profit and the rate of
interest will increase proportionally.

We found out that the rate of profit (and consequently the rate of interest) is directly determined
by the structure of the economy and, in particular, by the distribution of resources between
capital goods and consumer goods production processes. Unfortunately, we can not be more
precise since salaries are also included in the overall consumption, but the ratio of profits to
salaries in an economy is not apparent. Thus, we described a very general economic relation,
which can only be used for descriptive purposes.

Let us now summarize our general view. By choosing to save or dis-save and consequently
increase or decrease the investment fund, the economic agents determine the structure of the
economy. The structure itself, particularly the distribution of capital between consumer goods
and fixed capital goods production, determines the rate of profit for the particular economy.
Finally, the rate of profit directly determines the rate of interest.

An interesting question is if the rate of profit (and consequently the rate of interest) can become
zero or negative. Within the limits of our model, i.e., in a closed free-market economy with a
fixed monetary supply and under normal circumstances (i.e., excluding economic crises caused
by natural disasters, wars, etc.), we see no such a possibility. The model does not allow for the
latter to happen. In such a growing, retrogressing, stagnating, or restructuring (due to net-
saving/dis-saving) economy, the rate of profit (and consequently the rate of interest) can never

New Perspectives on Political Economy [ 85 ]

become zero or negative. In crisis situations (e.g., a natural disaster), however, the rate of profit
can drop below zero due to the economy-wide losses sustained by most companies. The latter
will bring the natural rate of interest down (i.e., most banks will lose capital), but the nominal/
measurable interest rate will still stay positive due to the immediate jump of the risk component.

Conclusions
We established that every economy possesses a fund of accumulated savings, which is self-
sustaining and can be used repetitively for investment purposes, thus avoiding the necessity
of net saving for economic growth to take place. The interest rate, as such, was defined by the
interest earned on this part of the accumulated savings that has been lent, as opposed to the
one used directly for investment by the companies and that earns a profit. We showed how,
under the simplifying assumption of a closed, free-market economy with a fixed monetary
supply, the rate of interest is determined directly by the rate of profit. As a consequence, the rate
of interest becomes a dependent variable. Moreover, we proved that the rate of profit and the
rate of interest are not the same thing and showed how profit could exist without interest being
present. Later, we discussed how the structure of the economy, particularly the distribution of
capital between consumer goods and capital goods production, determines the rate of profit
directly and, consequently, the rate of interest.

References
Garrison, Roger (2002), Time and Money., New York, NY: Routledge

Mises, Ludwig von. ([1949] 1966). Human Action: A Treatise on Economics.3rd rev. ed. Chicago:
Henry Regnery.

Ninov, Youliy R. (2020), “An Alternative View on Saving and Investment From an Austrian
Economics Perspective,“ New Perspectives on Political Economy Vol.16

Ninov, Youliy R. (2021), “An Alternative Theory of Capital From an Austrian Economics Perspective,“
New Perspectives on Political Economy Vol.17(2)

Reisman, George (1996), Capitalism. A Treatise on Economics. Ottawa, Illinois: Jameson Books.

Rothbard, Murray ([1962] 2009), Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market. Auburn,
Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute.

New Perspectives on Political Economy [ 86 ]

 Bio

Youliy Ninov
Independent scholar

New Perspectives on Political Economy [ 87 ]

Copyright of New Perspectives on Political Economy is the property of Liberalni Institut and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.