-clip_ Let's please inject some reality into this idea that the real economy has been limping along, starved of investment. Why should we care if there's been underinvestment in the real economy? Presumably because that would slow down productivity growth. Here's overall productivity growth by decade, followed by manufacturing productivity growth by decade. Please, please someone tell me at what point the real economy started getting starved by finance.
nonfarm business productivity 1950s 2.1% 1960s 2.7% 1970s 1.7% 1980s 1.6% 1990s 2.0% 2000-07 2.4%
MFG productivity 1950's 2.8% 1960's 3.3% 1970's 2.3% 1980's 3.7% 1990's 4.6% 2000-2007 3.6%
SA
^^^^^ CB: But haven't real wages,i.e. variable capital in Marx's terminology, remained stagnant since the early 70's, while the rich got richer , as in shareholders getting paid like Doug pointed out in _Wall Street_ ? To me the _real_ economy is variable capital, wage laborers. So,that whole dynamic is finance parasitically draining resources, i.e. money, from the really real economy, the working masses,variable capital. Loss of pensions, lack of health insurance, high debt,foreclosed homes loss of pensions is resources drained from the _real_ economy.
Michael Parenti claims: In the corporate world of "free-trade," the number of billionaires is increasing faster than ever while the number of people living in poverty is growing at a faster rate than the world's population. Poverty spreads as wealth accumulates.
Consider the United States. In the last eight
years alone, while vast fortunes accrued at record rates, an additional six million Americans sank below the poverty
level; median family income declined by over $2,000; consumer debt more than doubled; over seven million Americans lost their health insurance, and more than four million lost their pensions; meanwhile homelessness increased
and housing foreclosures reached pandemic levels.
http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/a-list/2009w07/msg00044.htm