Keynesian economics promotes the IS-LM Hicks model as real economic velocity, be that price changes bundle including standardized guarantee premium notwithstanding this question. Take a steady and rational state of the economy with complementary demand in the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment for such a universal preference.
The credit system appears as the main lever of over-production and over-speculation in commerce solely because[ of] the reproduction process, which is elastic by nature, is here forced to its extreme limits, and is so forced because a large part of the social capital is employed by people who do not own it and who[,] consequently[,] tackle things quite differently than the owner, who[ rather] anxiously weighs the limitations of his private capital insofar as he[ should] handle it himself. ...At the same time[,] credit accelerates the violent eruptions of this contradiction, crises, and thereby[,] the elements of disintegration[,] the old mode of production.
So long as the laws of exchange are observed in every single act of exchange[,] the mode of appropriation can revolutionize without affecting the property rights which correspond to commodity production. These same rights remain in force both at the outset, when the product belongs to its producer, who, exchanging equivalent for equivalent, can enrich himself only by his own labour, and also in the period of capitalism, when social wealth becomes to an ever-increasing degree the property of those who are in a position to appropriate continually and ever afresh the unpaid labour of others.
Should we not (1) reflect upon Marx for mentioning the inelasticity of credit, first, and so thenwise (2) juxtapose the interest-rate/utility-output exchange of Hick's model on Keynesian 1933 piece of the 2%/yr+ inflation target (as if malthusian population growth is not elastic by marginal labor when compelling substitution for compulsory inclusion) as absurd?