>Rakesh Bhandari wrote: > >>At any rate, the crisis hit Dept I first. Consumption was not a >>problem. We also know Marx's famous vol II passge in which he >>criticizes underconsumption. Consumption will now give. > >We'll see. Wall Street's favorite economist, Ed Hyman, has a piece >out today claiming the U.S. recession probably ended in November >(citing, as most recent evidence, a decline in unemployment claims, >higher-than-expected chain store sails, a 23% surge in DRAM prices >over the last week, and several major positive profits surprises). >And, he says, a "synchronized global recovery is underway," citing >higher Taiwanese exports, UK retail sales, Malaysian industrial >production, and Canadian housing starts over only the last few >weeks. Finally, in November, his composite leading indicator for the >OECD had its biggest monthly increase in 18 years. > >For what it's worth, of course.... > >Doug
yes what the previous collapse in basic memory chips suggests is that constant capital had cheapened so considerably (esp relative to consumer goods as is almost the case, I believe) that the rate of profit on the lower value of this constant capital can now be greater even if the rate of surplus value is not going to vary much one way or another. So the demand for constant capital is picking up (and therewith the prices of memory chips) not because consumption is higher (as a crude and even sophisticated unconsumptionist may think) but because profitability is being restored. Doug, you know i am an autodidact but isn't this the ABC's of the Marxian theory of the business cycle? Rakesh
