The problem with Brenners argument as I see it is that he is, if he waits long enough be vindicated periodically. Marx and subsequent Marxist economists (cf. P. Mattick Sr.) emphasized that a profits crisis is the form that capitalists crisis always take. The more interesting question is what causes any given crisis in profits in any given region or regions and what means are eventually found to overcome the profits crisis.
At times (frequently it seems actually) Brenner wants to suggest that the US for example is stuck in a permanent profits crisis. At other times Brenner merely seems to be arguing that a profits crisis cannot ever be permanently overcome. But that observation often leads him to conclude that profits are permanently in crisis (strong version of proposition 1). But being correct about the second proposition (and we don't need Brenner for this) does not lead to the first. And the data on profits certainly can't sustain the first proposition.
So in a sense the second proposition amounts to a so-what statement as Marxist economists have argued this since Marx and the first proposition is dubious. More interesting is Brenner's argument about what caused the profits crisis of the 70's. Panitch and Gindin are interesting because they advance a thesis about how that crisis was ultimately overcome. The crisis of 2007 is not a point against Panitch and Gindin nor for Brenner.
Travis
On 9 March 2011 08:55, brad <babscritique at gmail.com> wrote:
> @ Ren:
>
> I never said Brenner had no data to back up his claims. The problem
> is that since then there has been twice as much data produced by
> others to dispute his claims.
>
> @ Matthias:
>
> Arrighi uses a total of three historical examples to then project that
> into the future and claim that this is what is going to happen. It is
> ahistorical to make a claim about the future based purely on past
> experience. As you yourself claim, the current situation is quite
> different from that of the Italian city-states era.
>
> Chris Rude has written about the functional role of financial crises
> for capital in neoliberalism in a couple of Socialist Register issues.
> And of course, Panitch and Gindin, and Panitch and Konings also make
> a strong case for this. There are others too. You might also want to
> examine Marx's view of the role of crises for capital also.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>