I don't think the big issue these days is that of the conflict
between industrial and banking capital (as Doug Henwood points
out). Instead, it's more of a matter of what's good for
the U.S. economy versus what's good for the world profitability
of capitalist enterprises.
I don't think the big issue these days is that of the conflict
between industrial and banking capital (as Doug Henwood points
out). Instead, it's more of a matter of what's good for
the U.S. economy versus what's good for the world profitability
of capitalist enterprises.
in pen-l solidarity,
J
Dear Wagman,
One, the recovery does not appear to have run its course -- period.
Two, lower interest rates are the only policy variable that can possible
be credited with spurring renewed growth. While short-term rates had been
declining for some time -- they did not hit 3% until the end of 1
credit (and overall effective demand)
> conditions, so that its own interests as per monetary policy now appear as
> "more financial" than used to be the case?
> Several questions arise from the above (for brevity I won't try to detail
> the connections, unless those interes
Although I have absolutely no numbers to back this up, I suspect that the
recovery (such as it was) was spent before the Fed raised rates. The role of
low rates in the recovery has, I believe, been drastically overrated.
Rates were down long before any recovery was apparent. (Of course early
in
e case?
Several questions arise from the above (for brevity I won't try to detail
the connections, unless those interested in fed policies want to discuss
this more): (1) with tight monetary and fiscal policy, are we headed for an
earlier end to the weak 'recovery,' perhaps follow
