Michael Perelman wrote: > > Yes, strong growth, deflation, panic, recurrent bankruptcies, & the > response was > > Morganization to put an end to that. I am not sure what the "so what" > test should > > be.
Sean Andrews wrote: > Isn't this basically your argument in Railroading Economics? The > issue being that the need to recuperate fixed costs of capital > investment led to what you called the "Railroad Economists" to > recommend some sort of government granted (and protected) monopoly > instead of the free market? In so far as this was adopted, the > argument that Jim makes about the "other capitalist" having cheaper > tech. is somewhat mooted (though in general it would still hold.) > > The "so what?" test here would seem to show that, when there is a > falling rate of profit because of this, capitalists realize it and > appeal to the state for protection--though, I suppose it is difficult > to surprise most anyone who pays attention to the workings of the > system long enough. this fits with my dissertation: the "falling rate of profit" story represents a structural tension at the micro-level. This _sometimes_ leads to macro-level over-accumulation. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
