I haven't read the whole thread - has Arrighi's thesis on cyclic financialization been mentioned yet?
On Mar 7, 2011, at 5:32 PM, c b <cb31450 at gmail.com> wrote:
> [WS:] But that is exactly what Brenner argues. Contrary to what Brad
> claims, Brenner shows a secular decline in mfg profit rates (i.e.
> surplus value/capital invested) in the time period preceding
> financialization (1950s to 1970s) - and argues that financialization
> that started in the late 1970s and 1980s was the capital's solution to
> this systemic problem of falling rates. That timing supports the
> cause-effect relationship as claimed by Brenner. His writing may be a
> bit dense and tedious, but unlike conventional economists who
> seemingly love circular arguments, he makes a great effort to
> establish a cause-effect relationship. From that pov, Michael is right
> that high profit rates achieved through financialization could not be
> achieved in mfg.
>
> Wojtek
>
> ^^^^^^^^
> CB; Wouldn't capitalism tend to financialize whether profits are
> falling or rising , if they can get away with it, since
> financialization is the most efficient way to concentrate wealth ?
> Capitalists don't only try to raise their profit rates when those
> rates are falling. Capitalists trying to raise profit rates is a
> secular not cyclical "trend". Capitalists are always trying to raise
> profit rates. Capitalist try to raise profit rates : dog bites man.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk