>Apropos Ted's psychoanalysis of crisis, I think one of the mechanisms
>by which modern bailouts work is psychological - they put a cap or
>collar (to use the language of derivatives) on fear, thereby slowing
>the rush to the exits to a more manageable pace. This will no doubt
>outrage some Freud-hating Marxists, but I don't see how anyone who's
>followed the financial history of the post-WW II era can conclude
>otherwise - except to cling to a faith in the Big One to come.
>
>Doug
But has there really been a crisis since WWII? Although I find myself in
conflict with Doug at the drop of a hat, I think that one of his main
contributions has been to deflate the rhetoric around this question. When I
look at the hyperbolic stuff I wrote last year after the 500 point drop on
Wall Street, I turn red--ie., I blush.
Despite the Brenner article and some of the stuff I've crossposted here
from a particularly "catastrophist" wing of the Trotskyist movement, there
is very little evidence of crisis in the advanced capitalist countries.
Frankly, even if the Wall Street bubble finally bursts, I doubt if that
will have much effect on the real economy.
On the other hand, there has been a real crisis in much of the world going
back for 50 years or more. Ecuador is suffering the greatest economic slump
since the Great Depression. The former Soviet Union is a basket case.
Almost all of Africa is either experiencing minimal growth or going
backwards. The few exceptions to the rule in East Asia seem, despite recent
signs of recovery, exactly that: exceptions.
One of the big problems on PEN-L is that it is so dominated by discourse
that is relevant only to countries like Canada, the United States and Great
Britain. The marxism list has managed to involve many posters from exactly
those countries that defy fiscal-Keynsian measures, from Argentina to
Zambia. In such countries, investor confidence seems barely relevant.
Louis Proyect
(The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org)
