IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.
You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.
On Tue, 15 May 2007, Rakesh Bhandari quoted:
From John Bellamy Foster...
For the owners of capital the dilemma is what to do with the immense surpluses at their disposal in the face of a dearth of investment opportunities. Their main solution from the 1970s on was to expand their demand for financial products as a means of maintaining and expanding their money capital. On the supply side of this process, financial institutions stepped forward with a vast array of new financial instruments: futures, options, derivatives, hedge funds, etc. The result was skyrocketing financial speculation that has persisted now for decades.
Where did the people who write this sort of thing learn their macroeconomics? It's the ABC of Keynesian/Kaleckian theory that financial investment is not a sink for income, in the sense of an alternative to consumption or the purchase of capital goods. For every financial asset purchased, a financial asset is sold by somebody; so it does not in the least solve the "problem" of disposing of an excessive surplus.
Good point.
It is possible for the capitalist class of a particular nation to "solve" this sort of "problem" by net acquisition of financial claims against the capitalists of another nation (which means running a trade surplus). But that is far from the case in the USA, which has been running an increasing trade deficit. Both private consumption and private investment have been increasing as shares of US GNP of late, matched by a decline in government expenditure and a rising trade deficit.
The main claim here is that finance capital has been able on the basis of its enlarged resources to discipline governments with the threat of flight and corporations with the threat of hostile take overs. Hence neo liberal, anti social democratic governance on one the one side and more ruthless corporations on the other hand.
Rakesh
Yes, we've seen an increased "layering" of financial transactions, but these are not in any real sense an alternative to good old fashioned consumption and investment; they are a complement, with certain (malign) redistributive effects.
Allin Cottrell
- Re: [OPE-L] The Financialization of Capitalism, (continued)
- Re: [OPE-L] The Financialization of Capitalism, Paul Cockshott Wed 16 May 2007, 22:52 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] The Financialization of Capitalism, paul bullock Fri 18 May 2007, 10:59 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] The Financialization of Capitalism, Paul Cockshott Wed 16 May 2007, 22:41 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] The Financialization of Capitalism, Allin Cottrell Wed 16 May 2007, 03:38 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] The Financialization of Capitalism, Rakesh Bhandari Wed 16 May 2007, 15:34 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] The Financialization of Capitalism (2), Allin Cottrell Wed 16 May 2007, 04:10 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] The Financialization of Capitalism, Francisco Paulo Cipolla Wed 16 May 2007, 20:27 GMT
- [OPE-L] There-Is-An-Alternative, glevy Mon 14 May 2007, 12:07 GMT
- [OPE-L] Historical Materialism , issues 14.3, 14.4, 15.1, Jerry Levy Thu 10 May 2007, 23:39 GMT