Doug Henwood wrote:
>
>My guess is that while a second leg
> down is possible, we're more likely to see a grindingly sick economy
> than a real collapse. But who knows?
"Sick" from either of two perspectives: (1) those who are hurt by it and (2) the premise that the post-WW2 economy represents a "well" economy, what an economy "should" be.
But what if this is part of a permanent (until the next) change in the structure of capitalist economy, representing a more-or-less 'normal' grinding poverty for up to 20% of the population, pins & needles for another (say) 40%, and doing fine for the top 40.
Something like but not the same as the pre-WW 1 world.
Why assume that capitalism's (projected) failure to "work" for a large populattion is any failure from the perspective of either the "system" or its favored elements?
Carrol