Charles,
I do not know whether science has ethical implications but the
practice of science and rational argument depends on ethical
commitments--good faith attempts to understand the other side, to
consider and carefully engage counter-criticism before launching the
same criticism in the
[somehow my e-mail program isn't cooperating again. Here's my complete
message.]
[I thought I started writing a reply to this, but somehow there's no file.
I'm sorry if anyone received two versions.]
Paul Phillips writes: The question we were discussing, I thought, was what
explains the drop in
Charles writes:On the below, I don't know if I interpreted your reference
to the counter-acting tendency ...winning correctly as one of the
countervailing influences that Marx lists that prevent the profit rate
from falling despite its general tendency to fall.
I'm not as interested in being
The rate of profit and recession
by Rakesh Bhandari
29 January 2002 20:45 UTC
why is there overaccumulation in the system as a whole? why is
global investment demand not strong and high enough to realize the
surplus value that remains latent in commodities?
Let us suppose that
[somehow my e-mail program isn't cooperating again. Here's my complete
message.]
[I thought I started writing a reply to this, but somehow there's no file.
I'm sorry if anyone received two versions.]
Paul Phillips writes: The question we were discussing, I thought, was what
explains the drop in
Come on. We don't need this crap!
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
[somehow my e-mail program isn't cooperating again. Here's my complete
message.]
[I thought I started writing a reply to this, but somehow there's no file.
I'm sorry if anyone received two versions.]
Paul Phillips writes: The
The recent falls (i.e., of the last 1 1/2 years or so) are due to falling
demand and rates of capacity utilization. That is, there were realization
problems.
Jim, the classical Marxist is not denying that there is falling
demand and realization problems!
As Mattick Sr puts it: Every crisis
I was suggesting that Marx may also have been wrong on the effect
of 'globalization' (internationalization of capitalism) on what I believe
you have advocated in other papers, the 'overaccumulation of
capital' which I suggested with respect, particularly to China but
also to other areas of the
I wrote:The fixed capital/output ratio continued to fall all the way until
2000 (following its trend from the early 1980s), indicating that labor
productivity growth exceeded the rate of growth of fixed capital per
worker. The classical Marxist theory doesn't seem to work, at least not
for this
Why undermine a perfectly informative discussion with such personal sniping?
Please stop.
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
Paul wrote: So I would appreciate a little less
patronizing by Rakesh
really the gall of this is impressive. Just the other day I an
ignoramus whose papers you would flunk.
Paul Phillips writes:
What you suggest here is that the profit rate fell despite a *falling
organic composition of capital*. I don't disagree though I would again ask
is that because of an improper measuring of productivity growth as I
suggested in my earlier post? You suggest this seems to
Why undermine a perfectly informative discussion with such personal sniping?
Please stop.
We seem agreed that capitalists did not undertake the level of
investment needed for surplus value to have been realized.
The question is why.
There are several answers on the table:
(1)
CB: Yea, realization problems. In this passage , Mattick is with
us, isn't he ? Even if he discusses realization of surplus value by
accumulation, his conclusion is dependent upon insufficient
demand by consumers of commodities from Department I, insufficient
mass demand or
Jim,
The question we were discussing, I thought, was what explains the
drop in profits after 1997 (despite rapidly rising labour productivity)
and which subsequently resulted in a fall in investment initiating the
recession. Your data, at least as I read it, questioned whether the
fall in
So Bush is attempting to build confidence by some fiscal stimulus
with future regressive tax savings by cutting into any kind of social
welfare. Social darwinist military Keynesianism.
Rakesh
Actually I am not quite
right here. Bush's attempt to restore benefits to legal non citizen
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
The Fed is powerless to change this; fiscal policy can relieve
realization problems but the resumption of private investments
depends on the restoration of profitability through the devaluation
of constant capital and a rising rate of surplus value.
So, translating
Jim,
The question we were discussing, I thought, was what explains the
drop in profits after 1997 (despite rapidly rising labour productivity)
and which subsequently resulted in a fall in investment initiating the
recession. Your data, at least as I read it, questioned whether the
fall in
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
The Fed is powerless to change this; fiscal policy can relieve
realization problems but the resumption of private investments
depends on the restoration of profitability through the devaluation
of constant capital and a rising rate of surplus value.
So, translating
Doug writes:So, translating into demotic English - one of the most
aggressive easing streaks in Fed history will have no effect, and there will
be no recovery anytime soon?
the cuts have already had an effect in the U.S.: they propped up the asset
values of housing and the stock market, which
[I thought I started writing a reply to this, but somehow there's no file.
I'm sorry if anyone received two versions.]
Paul Phillips writes: The question we were discussing, I thought, was what
explains the drop in profits after 1997 (despite rapidly rising labour
productivity) and which
On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Doug Henwood wrote:
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
The Fed is powerless to change this; fiscal policy can relieve
realization problems but the resumption of private investments
depends on the restoration of profitability through the devaluation
of constant capital and a
Fred, Jim and Charles,
In the late 90's we kept hearing from CEOs, primarily in the US,
that the reason inflation was contained was as a result of
increasing competition from offshore companies, in part because of
'globalization' of production and increased overinvestment
(increasing excess
Fred, Jim and Charles,
In the late 90's we kept hearing from CEOs, primarily in the US,
that the reason inflation was contained was as a result of
increasing competition from offshore companies, in part because of
'globalization' of production and increased overinvestment
(increasing excess
oops left out a NOT
Excess capacity and the global competition to which it gives rise are
the effects, rather than the causes, of a retrenchment in investment
which is itself caused by diminishing profit prospects which thus
remains to be explained.
The explanations which are consistent with
Paul Phillips writes:In the late 90's we kept hearing from CEOs, primarily
in the US, that the reason inflation was contained was as a result of
increasing competition from offshore companies, in part because of
'globalization' of production and increased overinvestment (increasing
excess
Jim,
What you suggest here is that the profit rate fell despite a *falling
organic composition of capital*. I don't disagree though I would
again ask is that because of an improper measuring of productivity
growth as I suggested in my earlier post? You suggest this seems
to contradict
26 matches
Mail list logo
