On 8/31/2010 1:29 PM, c b wrote:
> CB; Does the Marxist fetish concerning the profit rate claim that
> high profit rates for some companies at a given time indicate that a
> capitalist nation is "healthy" and not about to go into another crisis
>
I guess it depends on which version of the fetish is in question. There are a lot of competing varieties to choose from.
SA
^^^^ CB: (smile) Here I am referring to the fetish you mentioned when you said.
"Wouldn't this analysis suggest that the profit rate - an indicator fetishized by Marxists - is a pretty irrelevant indicator of the health of capitalism? "
SA
^^^^^ CB: You were commenting on Julio's analysis as follows:
On 8/31/2010 12:24 PM, Julio Huato wrote:
> If you survey the S&P500, you'll get the picture that businesses are
> sitting on a pile of cash and that their returns are healthy. But
> that financial health is in a sense illusory, because it's at the
> individual level. An individual business can be financially healthy
> for a little while because it can suck the blood off its dying
> competitors and workers. But that financial health is not lasting.
>
> To put it in more Marxist terms, the crisis bankrupted a large number
> of businesses, melted away the value of the entire capital stock,
> reduced the wage share. So, no wonder the profit rate of the
> individual businesses that survived appears robust. For how long
> depends on whether the whole economy recovers.
^^^^^^^ CB: I like this sub-thread you started, and I like your later post opening up a discussion on the nature of the "health" of capitalism. It was, though, you who introduced the concept of "the health of capitalism", not Julio. Julio refers to the "financial health" of a specific firm or "particle of capital', not the "health of capitalism".
Anyway, carry on !