>3. You seem to be saying that productivity gains are not so
>impressive and widespread as to encourage a general upsurge in real
>investment. But that's Jha's point, so don't understand where the
>difference is.
>
>
That's not what I was saying. Productivity improvements were concentrated in a few sectors, but that's exactly what you would expect from a boom. Every boom is focused on particular sectors. The point is that the upsurge in productivity was certainly not caused by eliminating low-productivity activities but rather by large and genuine productivity advances in major sectors of the economy.
I'm not dogmatic on this point. It's quite possible the productivity surge is over, having ended in 2006. But it was certainly very real. Hardly propitious terrain for anyone arguing for the long-term stagnation of capitalism.
Seth