> CB: I believe the reason the money capital doesn't
> return 'home' for productive re-investment (in
> the real sector)
> is that there is a point at which it can no longer
> be invested at a high enough rate of profit, or
> there is as Fitch says:
>
> "1 )a fall in the rate of accumulation, or at
> least a fall in the
>
>> rate of acceleration actual profit rates may even rise just before
>> the collapse; but the high rates are sustained
>>
> by a slowing down of
>
>> accumulation rates."
>>
>
> Fitch's #2 occurs because of his #1.
>
> NOT BECAUSE FITCH CLAIMS THAT MONEY IS SCARCE.
> The problem is not that money is
> scarce, but , famously,
> because a point is reached where investment
> in the real sector is not as
> profitable
> as investment in the ficticious/financial sector. It's
> not that the money is scarce ,
> but that the owners of
> the money can make a higher rate
> of profit by investing it
> in the financial sector than investing it in the real sector
>
I think I got that. What I was saying is that Fitch's #2 cannot be caused by his #1. Or, put another way, #1 can't cause #2. It's a logical impossibility. #2 can be caused by various things but it can't be caused by #1. And even if it were true that #1 actually happened, it could not have been the cause of #2.
SA