The question remains. Given the absence of commercial crises and depressions in the AMP and the FMP, why wouldn't replicating the building of cathedrals, the building of aqueducts, or the conquest of Gaul stave off the crisis and so allow capitalism to engage in stable, balanced growth?
Lenin writes that the conquest of Gaul does--but eventually you run out of Gauls. But that doesn't explain why the public sector can't stabilize things via non-military Keynesianism. To my knowledge Marx never provided an answer--but he was damned sure it wouldn't... Yours, Brad DeLong On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Doug Henwood <[email protected]> wrote: > > On May 3, 2011, at 1:08 PM, raghu wrote: > > > Apologies for the terrible subject-line, but I am curious about > > reactions to this critique of Marx's crisis theory by Bad DeLong > > This is what my late friend Bob Fitch liked to call Vol. 1 Marxism. Marx > wrote plenty about credit, and believed, among other things, that it helped > capitalism stretch beyond its boundaries. > > Doug > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > If economists could manage to get themselves thought of as humble, competent people on a level with dentists, that would be splendid!
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
