Dennis R Redmond wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, rc&am wrote:
>
> > now, i need somebody to explain to me - so, i'll pick on you dennis, since you
> > mentioned it - why certain kinds of debt are 'bad for capital'. that is, why
> > isn't debt just a highly effective from of discipline?
>
> Debt isn't bad for capital at all, actually -- it's the essential
> lifeblood of the thing. Debt ties together fictional, speculative capital
> with industrial Things Which Make Stuff, and it also greases the wheels of
> consumption, by creating fresh demand out of nothing
this is what i was thinking of, but also that debt takes care of the future of capital accumulation, ties people and (also employers) in, in ways that outright regulation cannot, or at least does not.
what i want explained is rather:
> ....taking out bank debt in order to speculate
> short-term, as the US is doing right now, will someday land us in a heap
> of trouble. ....
it amy sound like a naive question, and it most likely is, but i don't take it as a fait accompli that debt will be a problem for capitalism as a whole. hence, i was asking whether or not the neo-liberal hammer of needing to'balance the books' is as much a fait accompli as it sounds, as it is wielded. (does this make sense?)
angela