Charlie is absolutely correct that I should have been more explicit about how the recurrent crises are a symptom of a system that is unsustainable.
Thank you. On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Charlie <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 530 898 5321 fax 530 898 5901 http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
