The answers
are all ideological gobbledegook... It's because consumer demand
affords capitalists an income that they cannot possibly resolve in
consumer goods for themselves. Capital "accumulation" is a
negative on the debit side of capitalists' books, and in the aggregate
not worth anything unless offset by returns that only become validated
through final demand. Thus not equilibrium but a disequilibrium at all
times is the economy's natural state for economists to model; and
sadly, Marx hasn't risen to the challenge in a coherent way either.
A partial solution: tax away the extortionate
incomes of the "powerful". In the '60s the Beatles thrived,
despite apparently being taxed at the 95% level (as expressed in their
"Taxman" song), and society wasn't doing so badly in those days
either. Complementary to that, institute economy-deep profit sharing
for workers coupled to a reduction in working hours in accordance with
a rising productivity through time. And finally, since the above
indicates that investments cannot be causal, nationalize the banks and
get rid of Wall Street.
For a
capitalist who at least partially gets it, you may want to
watch:
http://www.ted.com/talks/nick_hanauer_beware_fellow_plutocrats_the_pitchforks_are_coming
John V
On 2015-05-24 7:27 AM, Charles Brown wrote:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/925823854110470/permalink/1121609304531923/
pen-l mailing list [email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
