Doug Henwood wrote, >Barkley, what evidence is there really for a long upwave now? What are your >points of historical comparison? You didn't have bubbles and panics early >in other long booms did you? Shouldn't we be in the hedge phase of the >Minsky finance scheme, not the Ponzi? The Minsky/Ponzi cite takes me back to Doug's May 1994 article, "After non-collapse". Four years ago Doug wrote: "So it may be that the present period is just an interlude. It may be that it's most like the expansion of the early 1970s, which, like now, followed a long expansion and a brief, mild recession -- only to be followed by a financial rout and a deep recession that ran from 1973 to 1975. Maybe Whitewater will even play a role analogous to Watergate then. Or maybe, for those seeking more dramatic parallels, we're living through a rerun of the 1934-36 boomlet, which ran aground on the tighter fiscal and monetary policies of 1937 -- a budget-balancing mania that sharply cut the deficit at the same time the Federal Reserve was driving up interest rates out of fear of inflation. Either way, the message for 1995 or 1996 isn't a pretty one." "But maybe things won't work out in such a dramatic way. As I said four years ago, it's wrong to tune your rhetoric to crisis -- either the permanent crisis favored by some lefties, or the inevitability of a real bone-cruncher just around the corner, predicted as imminent by others. My New Year's Resolution for 1994 was to quote Marx more often, and in that spirit, let me offer two of the Old Man's observations here. First, Marx said in Theories of Surplus Value that permanent crises do not exist. To say that capitalism has been in crisis for the last 20 years is contrary to Marx's spirit, and mighty foolish besides. And second, Marx said in the Grundrisse that those economists who emphasize capital's ability to overcome barriers to its growth "have grasped the positive essence of capital more correctly and deeply" than those who emphasize the barriers themselves." In the event, things have worked out in a more dramatic way than 1973-75. Instead of a short interlude followed by a financial rout and deep recession, we have seen a Ponzi sequel more spectacular than the original. Now we are faced with the question: could a repeat performance of deep cuts in interest rates and global S&L bailouts somehow (perhaps after a short recessionary interlude) lay the foundation for Ponzi III? Regards, Tom Walker ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ #408 1035 Pacific St. Vancouver, B.C. V6E 4G7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 669-3286 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
