James Galbraith via Thomas Lunde:
....
>
> Behind the battering rams, behind the decisions to use them in this way,
> behind the creation of the situations in which they could be used in such a
> way, were political figures and policy decisions-decisions, for example, to
> tolerate unememplyemnt. The economy is a managed beast. It was managed in
> such a way that this was the result. It could have been done differently.
> It was not inevitable even given the progress of technology and the growth
> of trade. It was, in sense, done delibertately. That is the real evil of
> the time.
>
the suggestion is to go back to keynesian economy, isn't it?
But that came to an end in the 70s due to unsustainable public borrowing
and cuts in profits/recession, didn't it?
Now we reached the same "result" through a re-hashed
monetarist and then neo-liberal avenue.
What would be the new feature in this
suggestion of renewed state intervention in re-distribution?
How come the word "capitalism" was not mentioned?
Non-virtual profits are falling - there is not enough to
re-distribute. Is the mechanism - markets/profits is working?
The global markets are limited - there is, I'm afraid, the
classic contradiction.
Do you really think it can be fixed?
Eva
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
