The paper revolves around an idea stated in the last four words of the abstract: "made competitive economies unsustainable."
The word "unsustainable" is absent from the article proper, which is vague about what cannot sustain: competitive capitalism or all capitalism. The arguments make it pretty clear that competitive capitalism is unsustainable, but the conclusion about monopolized, financialized capitalist economies is that they fall into big crises. And then? And then? The narrative method here as in your writing generally is vivid and lively, and it keeps the discussion near realities. But narrative is always inconclusive. For example, "This new technology [electricity] was an exception to the rule, in the sense that it generally did not involve an increased economy of scale; instead, it was capital saving." Historical materialism is a science that finds necessities. We need more people doing it, especially on the big questions such as: can capitalism get out of the current depression and deliver another period of widespread prosperity? The answer is no. Charles Andrews No Rich, No Poor ( http://www.amazon.com/NO-RICH-POOR-CHARLES-ANDREWS/dp/096799053X/ ) _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
