On 7/30/06, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Carrol Cox wrote:
> > Steinem here seems to assume that "obsessive growth" is a function of
> > the intentions of individuals or groups of individuals. But, is it or is
> > it not true that capitalism & growth (in fact, 'obsessive' growth) are
> > inseparable? Can there be controlled growth under capitalism?
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> Fiscal and monetary policies aren't completely powerless. We have to
> admit that, after the Great Depression, such policies have managed to
> steer growth in the West at least for the benefit of the Western
> ruling classes without any uncontrollable breakdowns.
US active policy has not been very successful.
I've read claims that the US Central Bank has been better at managing
bubbles than the Japanese Central Bank. We'll see how it will handle
the deflation of the housing market here.
It's mostly a matter of
the "automatic stabilizers" resulting from the relatively progressive
tax and transfer system, along with the balance wheel that a
relatively constant government budget (especially the military part)
creates. Monetary policy is a very rough tool for stabilizing the
system, as indicated by the gyrations that interest rates go through
to "stabilize" the economy.
Of course, fiscal & monetary policy "aren't completely powerless," but
a lot of the expansion of capitalism has been on the international
plane -- or on the micro level, the development of new products and
ways to produce the, the disruption of old ways of life and the
infiltration and replacement of pre-existing cultural forms with
advertising, etc.
Yes, but the former is an instrument to open up spaces for the latter
(as in very high interest rates -> high unemployment rates -> union
busting -> reestablishment of the same plants with lower-paid --
immigrant or suburban -- workforce; very high interest rates here ->
debt crisis out there -> structural adjustment programs out there).
--
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>
<http://mrzine.org>
<http://monthlyreview.org/>
