[lbo-talk] Capital strike?

[Marvin Gandall]

Doug writes:
>
> On Sep 29, 2008, at 12:26 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>
>> Doug Henwood wrote:
>>> On Sep 27, 2008, at 10:05 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>>> To what extent can the current imbroglio be accurately described  as a
>>>> capital strike?
>>> Not much at all. Banks are refusing to lend to each other. If  they're
>>> on strike, it's against their own kind.
>>
>> Of course the classic response to a labor strike is that "the  workers
>> are only hurting themselves."
>
> I'm not sure what the relevance of that observation is. We're in a
> classic flight-to-safety panic of the sort that Keynes wrote about.  The
> system is frozen up, and stuffed with bad assets. We've got  liquidity,
> balance sheet, and confidence problems up the wazoo. And  now the "left,"
> such as it is, is denying that there's really a problem.
==============================
Reading the WSWS, Counterpunch, and other left publications, I don't get the
sense the left is in denial. There is actually a broad consensus across the
political spectrum that this is the gravest financial crisis since the 30s,
and that it might be uncontrollable. But it's not yet clear whether all of
the major financial institutions, both inside and outside the US, are
equally afflicted and at risk and will ultimately be brought down in a
generalized collapse of global capitalism, or whether the leaders are
sufficiently capitalized and poised to benefit from state intervention and
the shakeout of the weaker banks and hedge funds. We may lean one way or the
other, but I don't think anyone can honestly answer the question at this
point, not least the world bankers and regulators themselves.