Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
that's hardly the point ace. try to stay focused.
the main claim in the brenner piece i linked above is that the underlying characteristic of contemporary capitalism is quite feeble, driven nearly to inertia through over-capacity so through over production which is of course the recurrent problem with capitalism isn't it?
|
I read the Brenner piece you cited, I have some issues with it and I do not accept some of his premises. The suggestion that there is a "contemporary" form of capitalism suggests that there is some underlying change in market behaviors in a contemporary setting as opposed to a non-contemporary setting. I agree that there are tools and methods employed currently that were not employed in the past, but in my view the "tool" is insignificant to the end result. In my view market behaviors have not changed.
The inertia of over-capacity, cycling to under-capacity, cycling to over-capacity, in my view characterizes the basic business cycle. In market behavior terms I think market participants seeking to maximize profits prefer to error on the side of wringing every available profitable dollar out of the market rather than leaving profits on the table. It takes some form of market collusion or some form of protectionism for this to be avoided - the primary problem with this is inefficiency which is a cost born by consumers or non-protected market participants.
I am not going to connect the dots to illustrate why my comment was on point contrary to your belief that it was not.
Quote:
|
results from the standardization of processes, yes?
|
Efficiencies, productivity, drives down costs as it increases production capacity. There are risks, but the rewards have always historically proven far greater. I do not see over-capacity as the "boogey man" in an economy allowed to freely respond to changing market conditions.
Quote:
brenner argues that in a way the first pure neoliberal administration was clintons.
one of the hallmarks of neoliberal monetarism has been a series of bubbles (dot com, credit, housing etc) that have been sold as if bubble activity represented the states of affairs in the real economy--which they in the main did not.
|
How would he describe the economic policies, consumerism, and market capacity responses of the Roaring Twenties?
Let me leave it at that for the moment, by guess is that we have reached the limit, and we are about to go into...whatever you call it...but I call it looking at an issue in a broader manner to gain a better understanding of an underlying issue.
---------- Post added at 09:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:17 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poppinjay
Interesting. The Economist did a survey on worker happiness. Guess who placed first with an overwhelming majority? China. No western nation had above 45%.
|
Why am I the one (sorta thinking out loud here)?
Historic example: O.k., remember when a guy like Saddam Hussein would win elections with 99.9% of the vote? Why?
Current example: The issue with GOOGLE and the Chinese government is about censorship. The Chinese government controls what the Chinese people see and hear, think that might influence survey results compared to nations with free flows of information?
Do I need to continue?