[lbo-talk] Goodbye to the export of surplus capital?

Shane Mage shmage at pipeline.com
Sun Feb 6 12:49:46 PST 2011


On Feb 6, 2011, at 3:08 PM, SA wrote:


> On 2/6/2011 2:41 PM, Marv Gandall wrote:
>
>>> This is the Harvey/Brenner/Fitch line. It's not what these authors
>>> are saying.
>> How much are they departing from that thesis?
>>
>> "Capital became plentiful, and long-term interest rates declined
>> too – primarily as a result of falling investment in assets such as
>> infrastructure and machinery. Global investment fell dramatically,
>> creating a fall in the demand for capital substantially larger than
>> the growth in supply created by Asian current account surpluses."

In Marxian political economy there can be no such notions as "Capital became plentiful" or "demand for [or supply of] capital" because capital is not a thing but a social relation of production. And there can be no such thing as "surplus" capital because capital is formed only as capitalized surplus value--that is by *investment*. In Marxian political economy the net "supply" of capital is necessarily identical to net investment. And the basic contradiction of capital accumulation is that accumulation drives down the average rate of profit, which implies that the Marginal Efficiency of Investment falls to a level incompatible with the level of capital formation needed to maintain full employment of the existing [constant and variable] capital stock. From which follows the need for "creative destruction" of capital *values* in order to restore a sufficient level of accumulation. An analysis that treats fictitious capital as real capital is a...fictitious analysis.

Shane Mage

"All things are an equal exchange for fire and fire for all things, as goods are for gold and gold for goods."

Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr, 90



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list