Re: Re: Re: the profit rate & recession

[Doug Henwood <dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx>]

Rakesh Bhandari wrote:

> yes what the previous collapse in basic memory chips suggests is
> that constant capital had cheapened so considerably (esp relative to
> consumer goods as is almost the case, I believe) that the rate of
> profit on the lower value of this constant capital can now be
> greater even if the rate of surplus value is not going to vary much
> one way or another. So the demand for constant capital is picking up
> (and therewith the prices of memory chips) not because consumption
> is higher (as a crude and even sophisticated unconsumptionist may
> think) but because profitability is being restored.
>
> Doug, you know i am an autodidact but isn't this the ABC's of the
> Marxian theory of the business cycle?

You're too modest with the autodidact label. But I'm not speaking
church Marxian - I was speaking vulgate, and bizcycle economics is
about as vulgar as it gets. My only point was that if Hyman is right,
then consumption won't be collapsing, and the recession is over, or
almost over.

And this recession had little to do with consumption - it was mostly
profit and investment-led (at least in the U.S.).

Doug