Charles, You are engaging in sophistry, not analysis. I am asking you to explain the real expansion that took place in the capitalist economy, its stumbling, and its "recovery" from the stumble based on your claim that the rate of profit declines because workers cannot purchase enough goods. Jim Devine provided a very quick sketch, much of which I agree with. Didn't see too much in that about workers' purchasing power as the key to the phases, or overall development, the cyclical or secular tendencies of capital.
The problems of the reproduction of capital cannot be reduced to the inability of the workers to buy the entire production. I think Marx specifically criticizes that assertion (Theories of Surplus Value? Not sure). But 1994-2000 did represent an expansion, and certainly not based on the workers ability to buy more. 2001 did represent a recession, and certainly not triggered by the workers inability to buy more. And the recovery, such that is, is a recovery in profitability, independent of the workers ability to buy more. Historically, speculation, cheating, bankruptcy, like state intervention, government support accompanies every period of capitalist cycles, and is evident in every era of capitalism's existence. So what? Sometimes it works, in 1846, 1855 and sometimes it collapses, 1848, 1857. Big deal. Investment banks, hedge funds, private equities, do not make capital or profit. They are made by capital and profit and exist only as deductions from profit, taking a portion, or in the case of an LBO, capital in the reorganization, including liquidation of production and assets.. You might want to look a little more closely at Vol 3, and see if there, in that discussion of the rate of profit Marx ever ascribes the declining rate of profit to the inability of the workers to purchase all the commodities. Anyway, if I wanted to play word games online, I'd play Scrabble with my daughters and nieces. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 1:36 PM Subject: [PEN-L] What is Marx's view of fiscal policy ? > Perhaps this might become more clear if you could explain > the "secular trend" and "underconsumption" in relation to > the US economy in recent history, let's say 1994-2000, the > recession in 2001, and the recovery to 2006. > > ^^^^^ > CB; As I understand it, a secular trend is not cyclical, i.e., it's always > happening. All through 1994-2006 a great mass of people were being > impoverished, losing jobs, having their incomes drop drastically. Or do you > have some statistics showing the number of poor people going to zero or > negligible at anytime ? The jobs were lost when companies couldn't sell > enough. They couldn't sell enough because there wasn't enough mass demand. > > ^^^^^^ > > At least to me, none of that has anything to do > with the workers' ability to purchase commodites. > > ^^^^ > > CB: That's the issue in dispute. > > ^^^^^ > > As for the fictitious capital portion-- just one comment: > Again, if capital always relies on fictitious capital > then how or why does that mechanism fail, and then > prove incapable of "reanimating" capital? > > ^^^^^ > CB; "capital" is not monolithic. Some of capital succeed. Some of capital > fail at it. > > ^^^^ > > Fictitious capital, or speculation, lying, cheating, > accompanies capital's every circuit. Its collapse, > like its expansion is an index to what is going > on in rates of return, and those rates of return are > most definitely not driven by consumption. > > ^^^^^ > CB: Not every capital's every circuit. Some capitals, some circuits. Some > are adequate to succeed, some not. > > ^^^^^ > > Business cycle blunted? You can always tell when > the capitalist economy is about to tank. It's precisely > when people starting congratulating themselves for > having triumphed over the business cycle. > > ^^^^ > CB: That's what Fred M. was explaining: how the business cycle has been > muted in recent years. I don't know that he is saying there will never be > another depression in the U.S. The 2001 recession seems pretty muted to me, > and I'd be the first to talk about it if it was a depression. > > ^^^^^ > > Marx does say that ultimately the source of capital's > contradiction, crises, is in the poverty it creates > and imposes on the society. That is a lot different > than saying the source is in the inability of workers > to buy the commodities they produce. > > ^^^^^ > CB: Not really. Pretty much exactly the same thing. > > ^^^^^ > > Even more different is the analysis Marx provides > through the 3 volumes of Capital, TSV, and the Grundrisse, > of the conflicts between means and relations of > production. > > ^^^^ > CB: The fundamental contradiction capitalism between the social nature of > production and the private nature of appropriation seems closer to what I'm > talking about than what you are talking about. > > All you mention above is _not_ primarily or hardly at all aimed by Marx at > explaining the cyclical crises. The main purpose of Marx's major work is not > to explain the business cycle. So, you must miss the point of what you > mention above. That's why he gives such a big name to the Absolute General > Law of Capitalist Accumulation. To get the attention of people like you. The > problems with capitalism are not cyclical ,but ongoing, continuous. > > ^^^^^ > > If anybody wants to know my analysis of the recent > period, and I realize that is a big "if," you can > check out the archives at: http://thewolfatthedoor.blogspot.com > > Look at Wages of Overproduction, 96 Tears, and others. > > None of this, and I'm not afraid of anyone "biting" me > on my analysis, has anything to do with workers ability > to purchase products, nor fictitious capital. > > ^^^^^ > CB: You mean you don't realize that it does have something to do with > purchase of products and fictitious capital in Marx's understanding. You > probably think Marx wrote about those for fun and diversion from his main > thesis - not. >
