Devine, James wrote:
> I was unclear. I don't see any necessary conflict between Marx and
>standard economics >
>(supply & demand, etc.) if the insights of each are applied appropriately.
>That is, I see >"standard" economic analysis as working pretty well on
>Marx's volume III level of >abstraction, which concerns the competition of
>many capitals. (That book is pretty >underdeveloped and needs insight from
>Keynes, etc.) That doesn't say that macro-level >accumulation, profit
rates,
>etc. (the volume I and II levels of abstraction) should be >ignored.
The conflict, I was referring to, was between the "standard" Marxist theory of imperialism and the contemporary realities in the world economy and not the conflict, whether real or imaginary, between Marx and "standard" supply/demand economic analysis.
> >How much does this
> >contribute to
> >the profitability in the US based businesses?
> since 1997 or so, it's hurt US profitability, especially in exporting and
>import-competing sectors, though things are changing.
Then why does the US capitalism allow this to happen, if it's hurting US profitability for 6 years?
Alexandre Fenelon wrote:
> -Maybe it could work in the two ways? While the USA, by sustaining a huge
> trade deficit stimulates the growth of export oriented economy, which, in
> turn, invest their dollars
> in the USA thus helping to keep this deficit manageable. However, if those
> claims that
> the USA was growth was equal to 95% of worldwide growth (maybe this is
> somewhat inflated
> due to currency conversions?), the the equation remains laregly favorable
to
> the USA.
Roach says, "Over the 1995-2002 period, the United States accounted for 96% of the cumulative increase in world GDP - basically three times its 32% share in the global economy." This must be due higher relative growth rates in the US compared with growth rates in Japan and Europe. There is no evidence in Roach's analysis that the US has benefited at the cost of the rest of world.
Ulhas