Re: Re: Re: the profit rate & recession

[Rakesh Bhandari <rakeshb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
> >
> > > At any rate, the crisis hit Dept I first. Consumption was not a
> > > problem. We also know Marx's famous vol II passge in which he
> > > criticizes underconsumption. Consumption will now give.
> >
> > We'll see. Wall Street's favorite economist, Ed Hyman, has a piece
> > out today claiming the U.S. recession probably ended in November
> > (citing, as most recent evidence, a decline in unemployment claims,
> > higher-than-expected chain store sails, a 23% surge in DRAM prices
> > over the last week, and several major positive profits surprises).
> > And, he says, a "synchronized global recovery is underway," citing
> > higher Taiwanese exports, UK retail sales, Malaysian industrial
> > production, and Canadian housing starts over only the last few
> > weeks. Finally, in November, his composite leading indicator for
> > the OECD had its biggest monthly increase in 18 years.
> >
> > For what it's worth, of course....
> >
> > Doug

let  me rephrase for clarity (hope this helps):


yes  this form of constant capital (memory chips) 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 (memory chips) is finally picking up again (and therewith the
prices of these memory chips) not because consumption is higher (as a
crude and even sophisticated unconsumptionist may think) but because
profitability is being restored.

rb