michael perelman wrote: > I do not see the problem of emphasizing expected profits as a choice > between Keynes and Marx.
the problems for those who claim to represent the Marxist orthodoxy is that Marx didn't write about expected profitability. Even if we avoid orthodox thinking, there's another problem. The standard Marxian arrow of causation, as Michael explained, goes from the actual (realized) profit rate to the expected profit rate. In addition, there's a Keynesian arrow of causation that goes the other way: when labor-power and means of production are significantly unemployed, if expected profitability is high, that encourages higher accumulation (all else equal), which then allows the realization of a higher profit rate. So causation can go both ways, allowing bubble-like behavior where rising accumulation encourages rising profitability and expected profitability so that accumulation rises. (Since causation is circular, I could have instead started the circle of causation with rising profitability or with rising expected profitability.) There's also when the bubble pops, where low (expected) profitability promotes low accumulation and _vice-versa_. These stories are more Keynesian than Marxian in some ways. Note also that in theory, what PK calls the "confidence fairy" could raise expected profitability, raising accumulation, and realized profitability, as part of a self-fulfilling prophecy. It could also cause a downward self-fulfilling prophecy. (So if you believe in fairies, clap your hands...) -- Jim Devine / If you're going to support the lesser of two evils, you should at least know the nature of that evil. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
