On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:00 AM, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> raghu wrote:
> > > The way I see it, there is a brewing conflict between the industrial
> > > capitalists and finance capitalists.
>
> Sandwichman wrote:
> > I would assume capitalists have diversified portfolios.
>
> I agree. IMHO, I think there is no conflict between industrial
> capitalists and financial capitalists, even to the degree that there
> is a conflict between big businesses and small businesses.
Is there any empirical studies of the amount of diversification of
wealthy individuals? I have no problem believing billionaires are
fully diversified: a $1B wealth is truly forever. But what about
relatively smaller wealths?
> Rather, there is a (structural) conflict between the short-term
> individual interests of capitalists of all stripes ("deregulation,
> subsidies for me, etc.") and the long-term collective interests of the
> capitalist class as whole (more stability, preserve the system).
> Financial capitalists are simply one version of the particularistic
> perspective.
I think this misses an important distinction. Finance capitalists are
a very special kind of capitalist. I think of financiers as skipping
the 'C' in the classic M-C-M' formula and operating as M-M' directly.
As such their activities (because of the absence of the 'C') are
harder to justify on ideological grounds; their profits come too
obviously from other people's sweats.
> Most industrial capitalists go along. (Remember that GM
> makes a big chunk of its profits from finance, last time I heard.)
Btw I believe GM substantially divested its interests in its finance
arm (GMAC) to some private equity firm (Cerberus?) around 2006. Good
thing for them because GMAC profits peaked around that time.
http://www.autonews24h.com/Auto-Industry/GM-News/2491.html
-raghu.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
