[Marxism] Robert Fitch: only Marxism can explain the financialcrisis

[Charles Brown <cdb1003@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

 Robert Fitch: only Marxism can explain the financialcrisis 
From: "S. Artesian"

 Charles,

Then could you please explain why the previous recovery begins, and is 
extended with a decline in real wages, and ends with an increase in real 
wages.

^^^^
CB: No. I can't (smile)

Maybe all the borrowing
and bubbling
papered over the decline in wages
at the beginning;
and the paper was broken
through and bubbles burst
 undermining
the increases in effective
demand because the increases
were used to pay debts 
instead of used for new
consumption at the 
end of the recovery. 
A lot of those mortgages
had ballon payments, and
ARM's that didn't kickin
until "later". Then there
were multiple refinancings
that finally ended.

But actually, Waistine
found a passage in 
_Anti-Duhring_ explicitly
contradicting the
"poverty and restricted
consumption" language.
Of course, that would
be Marx and Engels
contradicting their
own language in _Capital_III
Except that there is that
 term "ultimately" in the
Capital III language. The
difference may between
"ultimate cause" and "trigger".
The poverty only bites with
a lag time. It's a sort of
accumulating "underground deficit" in
demand that doesn't contribute to 
a general crisis until the
other factors behind the 
FROP combine with it, only causing
a few businesses to fail
during the boom. Businesses
are always failing, even
during recoveries, just
fewer and "individusl"
"crises" during the boom.
Also, there is an increase
in out right unemployment
as the bust starts, which
is a sort of vicious cycle
people with no wages bigger
"declines" in wages, but
they aren't counted in
the measure of wages, are
they ? 



________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu