2 definitely can be the basis for problems with 1. and 2 also does
nothing without also having 1, because you can't "push on a string."
none of it matters if we have problems with 4, and many policies to
address 1 will exacerbate 4 (mindless growth uses up more resources and
creates more pollution, etc.). ditto then that if addressing 2 is a way
to grease the way for 1, 4 is exacerbated. policies to address 1 can
also exacerbate 3, because one of the ways that economies deal with 3 is
to have excess capacity and unemployment. 1 and 3 can be linked in
other ways--if technical innovations shift income distribution away from
workers to capitalists, consumption demand can fall.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2001 11:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:13892] Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: capitalism's
expansion vs. limits
Well said. The question then is do these contradictions reinforce each
other or do they cancel each other out?
On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 10:57:39PM -0500, Forstater, Mathew wrote:
> Constraints to Capitalist Expansion:
>
> 1) lack of aggregate demand - obviously, low demand means low sales.
it
> also probably means slow productivity growth, competitive weakness
(for
> firms, industries, sectors, nations), which feeds cumulatively back to
> low demand
>
> 2) availability of credit. credit/liquidity crunch for banks and
(other)
> firms. credit, finance essential to growth
>
> 3) structural/technological - real capital formation necessary to meet
> intersectoral requirements. lack of 'machine tools' (and in 21st c.,
> microchips) can clog up the works. 2 above is about M-C-M', with 3 we
> move to the schemes of reproduction (and expand it to 3 or more
sectors,
> e.g., 2 capital goods producing sectors, one producing capital goods
> that make capital goods the other producing capital goods that make
> consumption goods. But split the consumption goods sector into 2 or
more
> also, and see the additional problems of changes in the composition of
> final demand (some become obsolete, market saturation, new goods are
> introduced -- but some of these problems are linked to 1 above.
> capitalism requires not only more but different.
>
> 4) biophysical limits. nonrenewable resources, but also using stock
> renewables at a rate greater than their rate of renewal. and the local
> and global assimilative capacities (ability of the environment to
> transform waste into harmless forms -- qualitative and quantitative
> limits here.
>
> 'reforms' necessary to deal with these limits are so severe it is hard
> to see how it would still be 'capitalism' once we're done. on the
other
> hand, it's still here. what about political? social?
>
> some are arguing that we're already beyond capitalism in some
> fundamental ways-- 'managerial' mode of production. elitist
> credentialism and the annihilation of the surplus population.
>
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
