At 07/12/02 15:21 -0500, Doug wrote:
Chris Burford wrote:But what sector of capitalism did he represent if it was not finance capital?Are you using this term in Hilferding's sense, as the unity of industry and finance on the mystical model of the Holy Trinity?
I do not know see Google pickings later.
I don't think things are so seamlessly joined. O'Neill came out of fairly traditional heavy industry and always expressed hostility towards Wall Street
why?
- and they returned the favor. They never trusted his dedication to a strong dollar policy,why would manufacturers favour a strong dollar policy? (unless they are importing aluminium ore?)
one issue that divides manufacturers and financiers. Wall Street wants a markets guy at Treasury - we'll see if they get what they want.Doug, these may be fiddly questions and things can get too detailed, but the present abrupt dismissal of O'Neill suggests a lightening flash in a looming storm, at least as far as Bush is concerned. Understanding the contradictions between different sectors of capitalism as they square up for the possibility of a worse crisis, is instructive.
I note also your observation that
the Wall Street/high tech capital that dominates the Dems, and had their way in the Clinton years.There are some parallels with the Blair administration.
So does Bush's firing of O'Neill and his preference for even more radical tax cuts, reflect a shift in the loyalties between different sectors of capital?
I know none of these determinations is simplistic - more a sense of tendency or relative gravitational force, and the superstructure of ideas and emotions is only relatively dependent on the economic base. But....
Chris Burford
London
