> Well, I don't really believe that you can take any of Brenner's statements
> outside of his overall theoretical framework. You can't simply take them at
> face value without understanding the theoretical framework supporting them.
> That would be like reading some of Marx's letters to Engels post-Capital
> without reading Capital.
>
> As for how the current crisis is connected to the alleged overcapacity
> problem - and again, I'm only defending Brenner from the point of view of
> his own theories - I would say how: is it NOT connected? If Brenner's
> central idea is that the overcapacity problem is causing pretty much EVERY
> major economic problem then the two must be connected in a multitude of
> different ways.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you seem to be saying that we should give credence to Brenner's argument on the logical grounds that "if Brenner is right, then Brenner is right."
I tried to show that, even if we were to assume the alleged overcapacity crisis is real, Brenner still hasn't presented a plausible explanation for how it could have caused the current crisis. You write that this shouldn't matter because if overcapacity is real then "pretty much every major economic problem" must be caused by it. Well no, you have to show how. The standard causal accounts of the crisis are very different; if Brenner wants to posit a contrarian account, he needs to show how his works. Plus, frankly, I was a little shocked that Brenner didn't seem to know, or make the connection, that empirically, U.S. wages have not been cut to the benefit of profits. (He claimed this happened specifically in the US, because he needed to explain why the debt bubble happened in the US.)
SA