Davies, Daniel wrote:
We've been through this before, but much of the profits that, say,
Ford and GM earn from their finance subsidiaries come from financing
cars and trucks. So it's not speculative profit - they're making the
money the bankers used to make.
Yeh, but it got bigger by an
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
Why should capitalism be more vulnerable to recessions and
stagnation simply because the profit rate is falling or low?
Low profits mean low investment, which means a slower rate of growth
and reduced technical innovation. Profits are the main source of
investment
Well, empirically speaking - which I know is embarrassingly vulgar -
the best explanation for changes in investment is the change in
profits. Marx's argument in this excerpt just doesn't sound right.
Doug
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
Why should capitalism be more vulnerable
Well, empirically speaking - which I know is embarrassingly vulgar -
the best explanation for changes in investment is the change in
profits. Marx's argument in this excerpt just doesn't sound right.
Doug,
I am not necessarily disagreeing. I am saying that as long as a
falling rate of profit
support
this?
Cheers, Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 12:33 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:22009] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the profit rate
recession
Well, empirically speaking - which I know is embarrassingly
How you measuring accumulation? If you're measuring profitability in
relative rather than absolute terms, shouldn't you measure
accumulation relatively as well?
Doug,
I meant by accumulation what Jim D is (I believe) referring to as net
investment. I think I agree with Jim that the
Really it should be expected future profits, but the current profit rate
is as good an indicator of expectations as we have. Robert Chirinko has
probably done the most on investment as a function of profit.
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 01:33:48PM -0500, Doug Henwood wrote:
Well, empirically
Devine, James wrote:
Hasn't he also said that consumer spending is what's been holding up the
U.S. economy? My point -- and that of Godley Izureta, who also go beyond
surface appearances to think about the determinants of private-sector
spending -- is that this prop can't last. Similarly,
Jim D attempts to assure us:
actually, it's not an argument in the sense of a quarrel (and definitely
not a contradiction à la Monty Python). It's a discussion. (In this
thread, I had a argument with someone else. Or was it a contradiction?
Whatever, it was a waste of time.)
But Jim D had
Rakesh, please don't try to classify others on the list. Let Jim speak for
himself as to whether he is a social democrat or not, if he chooses to do
so.
As to untangling causes, it is hard to say. I recall that the CEO of Ford
wondered how the industry could deal with overcapacity -- this was
Rakesh, please don't try to classify others on the list. Let Jim speak for
himself as to whether he is a social democrat or not, if he chooses to do
so.
michael, i quoted jim d saying that social democracy is best for the
capitalists and thus can thus presumably be imposed on them for
their
I don't consider myself a social democrat, but I agree with Jim -- if I
understand him correctly. SD is good for the capitalists. That does not
make it the Valhalla for others. It is merely a social form that reduces
conflict and thus improves efficiency.
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 10:03:26AM
Michael Perelman wrote:
Fred's approach of looking at profits makes a great deal of sense when
looking at long swings, but in the short run -- as to what causes a
particular downturn -- identification is still a problem.
What is the political importance of understanding the
Doug, that I think that the big capitalists do understand their interest.
The small ones to whom the Wall Street Journal appeals on their editorial
page do not. We were just discussing yesterday how major businesspeople
appreciate Marxist analysis.
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 02:15:22PM -0500, Doug
Michael Perelman wrote:
Fred's approach of looking at profits makes a great deal of sense when
looking at long swings, but in the short run -- as to what causes a
particular downturn -- identification is still a problem.
What is the political importance of understanding the economics
Doug Henwood wrote:
And when are those contradictions of capitalism that Rakesh is
talking about really going to bite? I mean something more than a
nibble. The phrase has been around for what, like a century?
They've been biting every second of every day for several hundred years.
16 matches
Mail list logo
