Re: Estimating the surplus\Doug's question

[Michael Dawson <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> paul phillips wrote:
>
> >Since that time, we have been in a period of demand constraint.
>
> Not hardly in the U.S. The 1990s expansion was the most
> consumption-intensive in history. The MPC was something like 104%
> measured over the whole cycle. It's been something like 99% since the
> early-2001 peak.
>
> Doug

But, despite the higher-than-ever MPC, the problem could still be demand
constraint, right?  "Underconsumption" is really over-accumulation -- too
much investment-seeking wealth at the top -- right?  (Not enough new buyers
to justify building new factories/hiring new workers.)  So, even if people
are spending like mad, isn't it possible that investors _still_ can't find
enough "new markets" to justify enough new investment to make the economy
grow quickly?  If plebe spending-power doesn't rise quickly, where _does_ a
blueblood put his/her dividends and capital gains?

Doesn't this kind of "demand constraint" explain the pattern we're in --
high profit and productivity gains yet continuing job losses and
quasi-recession?  Too much money at the top.  After Reagan/Bush/Clinton, the
system has been "fixed" so that it works according to capital's logic, with
less  interference from (non-military) Keynesian forces.  The only problem
is that capital's logic only knows one solution -- push harder on
productivity gains and trim workforces even more.  Lather, rinse, repeat...