now, now Jim, you may want to call your theory overaccumulation but it is precisely the kind of overaccumulation that would lead in Sweezy's estimation to underconsumption. In fact you underline this underconsumption consequence yourself, so I am not putting words in your mouth. And whether you have challenged Sweezy on other points, it seems to me that you are saying the same thing as Sweezy does about in Theories of Capitalist Development (Sweezy in turn is drawing from Otto Bauer). This is of course a serious, impressive theory; I think it suffers from some of the problems specified by Shoul and others.
> > > >Underconsumption forces can play a role in two cases [Devine, 1983]. see you call it underconsumption yourself! > > Family resemblance, yes, but since I read Sweezy & criticized his view, I > avoided some of his mistakes. See, for example, my critique of Baran & > Sweezy and the whole MONTHLY REVIEW view of the time (i.e., up to the early > 1980s) in my 1983 REVIEW OF RADICAL POLITICAL ECONOMICS. Also, as noted > above, the underconsumption cases are not the _only_ reasons for crises > under capitalism. Again your overinvestment theory does seem to be the same as Bauer-Sweezy's underconsumption theory. Am I wrong/ Rakesh --
