[lbo-talk] 8. Re: The Chinese stock market collapse in global context (Carrol Cox)

[Eugene Coyle]

Replying to me, Carrol wrote what is pasted below.
I  hoped to make clear in my original post that the "...the elimination of that reserve army would be the death knell of capitalism"
By cutting working hours -- i.e. shrinking the labor force and thus the reserve army -- would at the same time raise wages, add jobs, and simultaneously provide more time for the already employed to use for "what we will."
And, I might add, redistributing income from the rich to lower income deciles would be a positive step in dealing with global warming.

Gene


> capitalism." is the goal of cutting working hours.  Shrink the 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 07:20:00 -0500
> From: "Carrol Cox" <cbcox at ilstu.edu>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Kruman, China and secular stagnation
> To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
> Message-ID: <003001d0df30$5cf3f320$16dbd960$@ilstu.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"
> 
> "reserve army of the un-employed"
> 
> This is a bit misleading; correct to " reserve army of labor." In the past,
> for example, the main reserve army was the rural population.  
> 
> But the main error is seeing this reserve army as the "problem," when in
> fact the elimination of that reserve army would be the death knell of
> capitalism. Economic crises are NOT "crises of capitalism" but, rather, the
> _health_ of capitalism. 
> 
> Carrol
> 
> P.S. Marx's Critique of Political Economy is of course incomplete*. But no
> part of his theory is as rock-solid as this principle of the reserve army.
> 
> *If humanity escapes more or less whole from the barbarism of capitalism
> (which is looking doubtful) historians a few centuries from now, looking
> back on capitalism, can perhaps complete the Critique (as an interesting
> historical curiosity).
> 
> 
>> 
>> On Aug 25, 2015, at 12:56 AM, Eugene Coyle <e.coyle at me.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Krugman's August 24, 2015 column in NYTimes --    
>> 
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/24/opinion/a-moveable-glut.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region
>> 
>> In clinging to his simple Keynesianism -- Krugman seems bewildered.    He's embraced Bernanke's idea of a "global savings glut" sloshing around the world making waves like Governor Christie cannonballing into a swimming pool.  At least he's anti-austerity but he says in a pathetic insertion:  "Population growth is slowing worldwide, ... " -- an excuse popular in the 1930s when nothing else served.
>> 
>> And, the end of the same sentence:    " ... and for all the hype about the latest technology, it doesn?t seem to be creating either surging productivity or a lot of demand for business investment."
>> 
>> Why would business rush to add the latest labor-reducing technology when they can get all the labor wanted very cheaply?
>> 
>> Krugman has defined the framework of secular stagnation and refuses to say the name.
>> 
>> Again, Krugman advocates more public spending on good things like infrastructure, borrowing cheaply to do it.  Fine for all that but it is sad that the NYTimes Nobelist hasn't got a clue about WHY this is happening.  Nor have I seen anything on "the left" that explains what is going on either.
>> 
>> Here's a hint:  The biggest "global glut" is the reserve army of the un-employed.  Until a policy is adopted to deal with that we are condemned to listen to Bernanke, Krugman, Robert Reich and the rest.  At least the despicable Larry Summers sees the problem.  Go with Pope Francis:  cut the USA work week to four days WITH NO CUT IN PAY.  A massive redistribution of income within the North, and also between the North and South.
>> 
>> Gene
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk