an addendum to my comments on Brenner's book: Robert Brenner's excellent 1998 book, _The Economics of Global Turbulence_, published in New Left Review #229 and to be published as a separate book in 1999 titled _Turbulence in the World Economy_ (Verso press), provides a very complete analysis of these issues [as I explained in my earlier missive on this subject]. I disagree with Brenner on some matters, some of which are made clear in James Crotty's very useful book review in _Challenge_, 42(3), May-June 1999: 108-119 and Brenner's reply in the same issue, pp. 119-30, especially his footnote 1. In essence, I see a profit-squeeze by wages as part of the normal cyclical dynamics of capitalism under labor-scarce conditions: thus, the persistently low unemployment rates of 1966-69 helped squeeze profits (Crotty) along with the increases in international competition (Brenner). Brenner's analysis of the trend seems to be more on-target, helping to explain the abolition of the labor-scarce regime that is central to Crotty's analysis. Following Maurice Dobb, I posit two broadly-defined types of "regimes" that can accompany capitalist accumulation in a specific country, which (for lack of better terms) are called "labor scarce" and "labor abundant." If you wish, the two types of regimes could be seen in terms of two different types of rough aggregate labor-power supply curves, an issue that Marx didn't analyze. The first is relatively inelastic compared to the latter. Aggregate labor demand depends on the rate of accumulation of capital, along with such things as fiscal deficits. I see the 1950s and 1960s in the US as "labor scarce" in the sense that accumulation tends to pull up wages compared to labor productivity, threatening to squeeze profits. This Marxian story (which appears in ch. 25 of vol. I of CAPITAL) occurs when there are limits on the mobility of labor from other countries (and from outside the labor force) and limits on capital mobility out of the country. Limits on price hikes (such as the gold standard for Marx, international competition and/or tight monetary policy for Crotty and Brenner) mean that the profit squeeze actually hurts profits rather than simply causing inflation. See my obscure 1987 article, _Cyclical Over-Investment and Crisis: Theory and Evidence," _Eastern Economic Journal_, 13(3). Such profit squeezes are encouraged by rising raw material costs and by overinvestment in fixed capacity. On the other hand, I see the 1920s and 1980s-90s in the US as "labor abundant" in the sense that accumulation can rise without much in the way of wage hikes relative to productivity (as labor-power supplies are more available and as capital is more mobile). Instead of seeing "over-investment relative to supply" as in the late 1960s, we see the possibility of "over-investment relative to consumer demand" as in the late 1920s and an "underconsumption trap" as in the early 1930s. See my paper at: http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/depr/D0.html The labor abundance of the US economy in the 1990s helps explain why the US can have such low unemployment rates at the same time having such low inflation. In desperate brevity, we also had low unemployment combined with price stability in 1926. Brenner's analysis helps explain both (1) the transition of the US from labor scarcity to labor abundance and (2) the "globalization" of the US economy (and some other economies), i.e., the end of model of capital accumulation centered on the nation-state. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html Bombing DESTROYS human rights. US/NATO out of Serbia!
