> this is nothing to be proud of, the way you
> ... It's a disgraceful way
> to improve growth
> so your readers
> can empathise with the creators of durable consumer goods they utilize
> today.
But this is just a sleight of hand. The readers of LBO are no less empathetic to Chinese labor than South African professors, and quite capable of surfing Monthly Review - indeed among its target audience.
Who said that Chinese labor practices were 'something to be proud of', exactly? When did the question of whether or not capital was, in Marx's definition, overaccumulated slip into whether contracting labor was graceful or not?
What was at question was whether the sub-prime crisis was an expression of overaccumulation. For this to be the case one would expect investment in constant capital (machinery, plant) to displace investment in variable capital (wages). I pointed out that in the developed world, on the contrary, there was more expansion in employment than in business investment. Patrick said ok, but in China, there was overaccumulation. Now we have the statistics to say, on the contrary that private investment their is 'job-rich', too.
So we have the sleight of hand that Patrick accuses people of hymning Chinese growth. But that is an argument he is having in his own head, not what anyone else was saying.