[lbo-talk] a different view of U.S. mfg

[Patrick Bond]

Doug Henwood wrote:
> Compared to what? According to the Federal Reserve, capacity  
> utilization in U.S. manufacturing was 79.5% in December - 77.3% in  
> high-tech and 80.1% outside high-tech. That's a below the late-90s  
> peak (though that peak was pushed higher by high-tech; outside high- 
> tech, recent utilization rates are pretty much where they were in  
> 1999). Capacity was reduced outside high-tech in 2003 and 2004, but  
> it rose about 1% in 2006 and 2007. So yes, there's some overcapacity,  
> but it's still nowhere near as bad as it was in the mid-70s and  
> early-80s.
>   

Bourgeois statistics again, Doug. They say nothing about partial 
devalorisation, i.e., capacity that could (and sometimes is) brought 
back into production when circumstances require it. That was also 
Arrighi's mistake in the NLR crit of Brenner.

Why am I not getting through on this basic point, old friend?


>>  Call it a 'basic needs ISI' plus manufacturing
>> balancing, as opposed to traditional Third World ISI oriented to
>> replacing luxury-good imports for a small fraction of the consuming
>> population (i.e., the South African or Rhodesian models).
>>     
>
> So we go from Argentina, to the Rust Belt, to Venezuela, to Rhodesia?
>
>   
Don't be a clown, Doug. As anyone can read above, I say "as opposed 
to... Rhodesia".