Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: reform and rev
Similar to Brenner in many ways, yes. We both worked on the transition to capitalism about the same time. Several people pointed out the similarity between his New Left Review piece and my own work. When I saw it, my first thought was plagiarism. I asked about it and he explained the pathway that he followed, thoroughly convincingly that we were just working along similar lines. Devine, James wrote: Michael Perelman writes:In my new book, The Pathology of the U.S. Economy Revisited, I tried to make the case that this success rested, in part, on prior conditions: a new capital stock coming out of the Great Depression and World War II, the destruction of competing economies, and a very favorable debt structure. Michael, this is very similar to Brenner's analysis. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: reform and rev
Michael wrote: Also, interest rates are a very, very weak determinant of investment. Are you speaking generally? If so, do you know of any good empirical stuff that supports this? Christian
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: reform and rev
I have to run, but Robert Chirinko and Robert Eisner have done work on this. bye. On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 12:56:20PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael wrote: Also, interest rates are a very, very weak determinant of investment. Are you speaking generally? If so, do you know of any good empirical stuff that supports this? Christian -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: reform and rev
Doug Henwood wrote: Carrol Cox wrote: If you don't hit it, it won't fall. Mao. I rather suspect that capitalism can be depended on periodically to tear itself apart -- but it can also be depended on to put itself back together Yup. As happened in Mao's own country over the last 20 years. What happened? Why didn't his revo stick? Historians, after three or four or 20 more failed revolutions and 30 successful ones may be able to look back and make an intelligent guess. Otherwise, I'm afraid your curiosity will go unquenched. If I had to guess, I would say that the bulk of the support for the revolution was not socialist but that aspect of it expressed in Mao's first speech on Tenyan (w?) Square: China has stood up. There was a socialist streak there, and I still regard Mao as a major Marxist thinker that we can learn from if we abstract correctly, but the essential drive was Chinese patriotism. Carrol
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: reform and rev
G'day Christian, Michael wrote: Also, interest rates are a very, very weak determinant of investment. Are you speaking generally? If so, do you know of any good empirical stuff that supports this? Reckon pen-l has hit a very rich vein of late - gratitude to all. Anyway, if memory serves, the cable buy-up/roll-out frenzy of the late eighties was all done amidst seemingly sobering interest rate numbers. LJ Davis's *The Billionaire Shell Game* makes something of this as he traces Malone et al's predatory path to the crunch of the early 90s (not that all those chooks have come to a rest even now). A romping read, too, btw. Cheers, Rob.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: reform and rev
As Jim D. mentioned, Marx's private predictions were not particularly accurate -- they included a large dollop of hope. Marxists generally study Marx for his method, not for his predictions. Ian Murray wrote: Ok, but how are his claims any different from the predictions of other economists-social forecasters? What is it about his method of inference etc. that renders his approach to the futurity of indeterminism and uncertainty capable of generating more reliable predictions about the long run? Ian -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: reform and rev
Regarding what Carrol wrote, Russell Jacoby wrote about how the German social democrats embraced crisis theory because it offered the comforting idea that they did not have to do anything -- the economy would fall on its own. On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 10:43:58PM -0600, Carrol Cox wrote: Michael Perelman wrote: Ian, Marx posited that capitalism would work that way for a while, but that the contradictions would accumulate and then , but then, it has not yet happened, except in the USSR, China ... If you don't hit it, it won't fall. Mao. I rather suspect that capitalism can be depended on periodically to tear itself apart -- but it can also be depended on to put itself back together unless there is a political force that can overthrow it in at least a few nations substantial enough to defend themselves. Unless we really do think that History (with the uppercase H) is some sort of divinity, we can't guarantee the appearance of such a force. We can work for it and see what happens. (Of course it can also destroy the environment irreparably. I don't see any guarantee against that either.) Carrol -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
