Re: Re: Sweden

[Doug Henwood <dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx>]

Rakesh Bhandari wrote:

> > This brings us back to the discussion that set off the thread on
> > crises.  Capitalism has proven resilient and has withstood a number of
> > shocks over the centuries.
>
> yes, michael, but the question is how are crises overcome? jim's
> theory leads to one conclusion--raising consumption and/or prices
> should work to restore a crisis of overaccumulation as jim d defines
> it ; grossman's, mattick's, yaffe's and cogoy's, shoul's,
> dunayevskaya's, daum's and moseley's present another diagnosis of
> the crisis, which implies that it will be cured in a different way.
>
> the historic evidence and theoretical reasoning are  clearly in
> favor of the latter school of thought (which by the way has its
> origins in Grossman's recovery of the essence of Marx's crisis
> theory).

Wouldn't many bourgeois economists and executives agree? Liquidate,
said Mellon; creative destruction, said Schumpeter; Enron's just the
say things work, said Paul O'Neill just the other day. What's
specifically Marxist about the notion? It's the Keynesians who are
the odd ones out.

Doug