Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
(2) what happens if in running deficits, the US sucks up global
capital, raises interest rates, and visits catastrophe on poorer
nations? is this possible?
You're assuming that deficits drive up interest rates. There's no
simple relation between deficits and interest
The argument that deficits cause high interest rates is also
theoretically and empirically questionable. More often the causation
goes the other way--high interest rates mean higher interest payments on
the public debt which cet par mean larger deficits.
Mat, good point indeed.
The impact
(2) what happens if in running deficits, the US sucks up global
capital, raises interest rates, and visits catastrophe on poorer
nations? is this possible?
Doug answers:
You're assuming that deficits drive up interest rates. There's no
simple relation between deficits and interest
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
Also, interest rates are a very, very weak determinant of investment.
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 12:02:21PM -0500, Doug Henwood wrote:
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
(2) what happens if in running deficits, the US sucks up global
capital, raises interest rates, and visits catastrophe on poorer
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
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
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
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
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
G'day Running Dog
And Carrol, it is Tienamen. I may be off on my spelling but,
I'm closer, I betcha! Cf. The Tienamen Papers, edited by Andrew
Nathan.
Michael Running Dog Pugliese, Woof, Woof!
It was always rendered Tianenman here at the time.
I still remember those poor young folk
- Original Message -
From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 8:07 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:21571] Re: Re: Re: reform and rev
Ian, Marx posited that capitalism would work that way for a
while, but
that the contradictions would accumulate
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
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
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 writes:
I believe that the slaughtering of captial values gives capital a lot
more room to maneuver than a Keynesian solution -- which I regard as a
temporary fix -- although I am not convinced that the ultimate problem
is deficit financing.
I don't think the ultimate problem is
16 matches
Mail list logo
