John writes: >It's inherent effect is a usurping of productive output from the meek, who don't know any better but assume it to be the natural result of free enterprise. No wonder that for most, the boom never happened. This not only speaks volumes as to the power of that sector, but also that as long as heterodox approaches are just as stuck as NC on treating capital as an accumulatable stock with a positive value, they will unlikely be able to make a dent in its hegemony; for the gathering of "funds" for investments is a necessity, isn't it? And the more capital the better, no?<
as one heterodox economist (old Karlos) wrote: >capital is not a thing, but a social relation between persons, established by the instrumentality of things.< since the instrumentality of things is crucial here, it makes sense for the heterodox to count "capital" (the stock of fixed capital goods). But, as John suggests, we should treat the Finance, Insurance & Real Estate (FIRE) sector differently. For example, in his WALL STREET, Doug Henwood provides us with a graph on the relative importance of the FIRE sector. As for the "usurping of productive output" from the productive sector, that's standard Marx: there is a "transfer of surplus-value" going on: the sectors that produce the surplus-value are often not the same sectors who benefit from it. That's one result of the distinction between value and price. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
