capital-savings

[glevy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

> From GLOBAL KEYNESIANISM IN THE WINGS by James K. Galbraith
>
> "The information technologies do not require enormous amounts
> of capital (their prices have been falling at 15 per cent per year
> for several decades), and have greatly increased our reach and
> efficiency, improving everyone's living standards.

The price of various components of information technologies has been
dropping rapidly, but the price of the technologies themselves have not
been dropping nearly as rapidly (e.g. in manufacturing, industrial
robotics, FMS. CAM). The idea that this has improved "everyone's living
standards" is both factually absurd and technological romanticism.

 > It means that we do not need as much saving, or as
 >much > financial investment, as we once did.

Silly assertion.

 It means we can afford to
> spend more, not less, on public amenities for the middle class and
> minimum living standards for the poor. We can also afford to pay
> more in wages, especially minimum wages. It means we can invest and
> lend more abroad, to help and benefit from development in poor
> countries, with more dramatic results than ever before. We can do
> more to maintain and improve the environment, both at home and
> abroad,  taking advantage of the fact that new technologies are not
> only cheap, but often comparatively more energy-efficient and clean
> than the old technologies"

Who's "we"? None of these developments make any sense if we abstract from
the class character of society and the dynamics of capitalism.
---------
> From: Adam Rose <adam@xxxxxxxx>
>
> Isn't it John Kenneth Galbraith ? Are there two J.K.Galbraith's ?

No, it's James (not the old man).

> Meanwhile, it has massively reduced its workforce.

Empirical evidence?

> All this is just a particular example of the rising organic composition
> of capital ie in order to compete, each company is forced to invest more
> capital and employ fewer workers.

What about the output level? If the productivity of labor expands and
output expands, then there is no reason to believe that less workers will
necessarily be employed by a firm. Then, there are other branches of
production which come into existence and cause the demand for labor to
increase. Then, there is the overall condition of the economy and its
position in the world economy (this also has to be considered when we
consider whether workers who are dislocated by one firm will be hired by
others).

Jerry


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------