Red Pepper forums Red Pepper forums
 
*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. Fri 19 Mar 2010 14:38


Login with username, password and session length


Pages: 1 2 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Kondratiev's Revenge  (Read 3902 times)
rob9443
Sr. Member

Posts: 852


« on: Mon 17 Nov 2008 19:10 »

Interesting stuff...

http://www.countercurrents.org/lendman171108.htm
Logged
rob9443
Sr. Member

Posts: 852


« Reply #1 on: Fri 28 Nov 2008 01:25 »

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11161

There is always market manipulation, that in itself does not invalidate Kondratiev.

I'm not saying I believe in the Long Wave theory. There are so many variables over such a long period of time that it's virtually impossible to test. Still who knows.

Kondratiev was murdered by Stalin by the way, although that of course neither proves nor disproves his ideas.
Logged
Brigg57
Sr. Member

Posts: 1521


« Reply #2 on: Fri 28 Nov 2008 11:24 »

Ernest Mandel, the Trotskyist leader of one of several sections of the Fourth International, but actually quite an acute thinker despite that, endorsed the Kondratiev waves in his Late Capitalism, written in the 1970s. I struggled through that book, with its enormous amount of statistical evidence, but in the end I wasn't convinced. I still have Mandel's book, though it's buried somewhere in my personal library..I may try to dig it out.

The reason I wasn't convinced was that it struck me as over-schematised. This seems to be part of the general criticism - that Kondratiev is drawing cycles on top of the normal business cycle in an attempt to predict periods of prolonged depression and periods or prolonged boom. Within those long periods, the normal business cycle operates. Many economic historians do that - you take a mass of statistics and try to draw historical laws  from them. Of course, a different approach reads the same statistics in a different way, and can draw different laws. Kondratiev's (memory now, but it could have been Mandel's interpretation) were based on changes in the mode of technology - steam, then electricity, then nuclear power.

He was no doubt a very nasty man scheming to further Hitler's aims, so it must have been all right to shoot the poor bugger (bet that taught him a lesson about reading statistics without thinking of what the Party might say!). Bukharin claimed to have been working for Hitler since 1916, and was surprised when the scoffing judges took his comment seriously and had him shot - that'll teach him. Or it would have taught him if he had lived..duh.
Logged
CharlieMcMenamin
Sr. Member

Posts: 692


« Reply #3 on: Fri 28 Nov 2008 12:22 »

Hey, Kondratiev's in fashion again!  Since his long wave theory is so difficult to prove - or indeed, disprove - it can function beautifully as a kind of 'magic bullet' which buttresses any particular argument anyone would like to make about the short term economic future.

But for some historians, Kondratiev is a wimp focused on piffling short -term issues - see http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/nov/28/credit-crunch-roman-republic-lecture

Here's Cicero on the Roman credit crunch:

Quote
"Defend the republic from this danger and believe me when I tell you - what you see for yourselves - that this system of monies, which operates at Rome in the Forum, is bound up in, and is linked with, those Asian monies; the loss of one inevitably undermines the other and causes its collapse."

Er, yeah. & then came Sulla, followed a generation or so later by the collapse of the Republic in favour of the Empire.
Logged
rob9443
Sr. Member

Posts: 852


« Reply #4 on: Fri 12 Dec 2008 16:47 »

the Kondratiev cycle as described by Carlota Perez of the University of Caracas (this is the long cycle which is superimposed on the shorter boom bust cycle which is already rooted in the housing market)

 Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital – the dynamics of bubbles and golden ages.

 The Irruption Phase:  A Time for Technology 1973-1988

 The irruption phase inaugurates the surge. It begins with the big bang of the technological revolution amidst a world threatened with stagnation as in Britain in the 1830s and 1870s or the USA in the 1970s. The new design, product and profit universe of possibilities inflames the imagination of young entrepreneurs, while the industries of the old paradigm are technologically mature, facing saturated markets and looking for solutions.

 There is a mass of potential investment money in the market, still being generated by the firms of the old paradigm. These are looking for opportunities and migrating further and further away, together with industry or alone. Soon the amazing growth and productivity feats of the new industries attract investors and new products, ever better and ever cheaper, begin massively to attract consumers and new competing entrepreneurs. The very intense activity of the new paradigm carriers contrasts more and more with the decline of the old industries. A techno economic split takes place from then on, threatening the survival of the obsolete and creating the conditions that will force modernization.

 This period is marked by increasing unemployment stemming form various sources, ranging from economic stagnation, through rationalisation efforts to technological replacement. The bulk of the old economy also exhibits perverse price behaviour, either persistent deflation as in the 1870s and 1880s or runaway inflation as in the 1970s and 1980s depending on the institutional framework of the period.

 Despair and impotence affect those losing out, be they workers who lost their jobs, industries with declining profits and markets or decision makers in government whose policies no longer work. For those wedded to the old model and especially to the ideas and ideals of the established paradigm these are times of bewilderment. The world seems to be falling apart and old behaviours and policies are impotent to save it. Meanwhile the new entrepreneurs are gradually articulating the new ideas and successful behaviours.  During this period political parties, both left and right are divided between the modernisers and the nostalgic, sometimes leading to splits and completely new movements.

 The Frenzy Phase:  A Time for Finance 

 Frenzy is the later phase of the installation period. It is a time of new millionaires at one end and growing exclusion on the other as in the 1880s to 1890s or the 1920s and the 1990s. In this phase financial capital takes over  its immediate interests overrule the operation of the whole system. The paper economy decouples from the real economy, finance decouples from production while there is a growing rift between the forces in the economy and the regulatory framework, turned impotent.

 This is a phase of fierce “free” competition, perhaps the closest to what the textbooks say, though gradually leading in the end to oligopolies or cartel by industry.  Individualism flourishes in both business and in political thinking sometimes confronted by anti technology or anti system ideas or groups. But the turbulent nature of the period derives from its fundamental tensions. The wealth that has grown and concentrated in relatively few hands is greater than can be absorbed in real investment. Much of this excess money is poured into funding the technological revolution, especially its infrastructure (canal mania, railway mania, Internet mania)  often leading to overinvestment that might not fulfil expectations. So at this time there tends to be a sort of gambling economy with asset inflation in the stock market, looking like a ridiculous multiplication of wealth. Confidence in the brilliance of financial wizards grows and attempts at regulation are seen as hindering the way to a successful society. This new capacity of money to make money attracts more and more people to get a piece of the action so late Frenzy is financial bubble time.

 Terminal Crisis and Turning Point   A Time for power struggle to reform the whole economic model 

 The turning point has to do with the balance between individual and social interests within capitalism. It is the swing of the pendulum from the extreme individualism of Frenzy to giving greater attention to collective well being, usually through the regulatory influence of the state and the active participation of other forms of civil society. The turning point is then a space for social re thinking and reconsidering. It is the time when the leading actors in the economy society and government recognise the excesses as well as the unsustainable nature of recent practices and trends, however wonderful they may have seen till then. The imbalances between the profile of potential production and that of existing demand lead to premature saturation of the market and become an obstacle to growth. The social unrest and anger at injustice that had become to manifest themselves during Frenzy hang over decision makers. The hard conditions that were already present for the poor worsen considerably after the collapse and can turn to desperation and anger.

 Conditions are ripe for regulation to be conceived and implemented and accepted both to put order in financial markets and to move towards full market expansion and greater cohesion. But nothing guarantees that decision makers will take this route. This is in fact a point of flux where the politics could go either left or right and the particular mode of growth that will shape the world of the next two or three decades is defined.

 The Synergy Phase;   A Time for Production

 Synergy is the early half of the deployment period. Depending on the political framework it can be the true golden age of the Kondratiev cycle. It is likely to be the closest the system ever comes to convergence within the economy of the core countries of the system. When a mode of growth based on social cohesiveness is established, moral principles are in force, ideas of confidence flourish and business is satisfied about its positive social role. It is a time of advance in labour laws and other measures for social protection of the weak, a time for income redistribution in one form or another, leading to large consumption markets. It is above all the era of the middle class. Fast and easy millionaires are rare, though investment and work lead to persistent accumulation of wealth. Production is the key word in this phase.

 The Maturity Phase; A Time for Questioning Complacency   

 This is the twilight of the golden age, though it shines with false splendour. It is the drive to maturity of the paradigm and to the gradual saturation of markets. The last technology systems and the last products in each of them have very short life cycles since accumulated experience leads to very rapid learning and saturation curves. Gradually the paradigm is taken to its ultimate consequences until it shows up its limitations. Yet all the signs of prosperity and success are still around. Those who reaped the full benefits of the golden age, or the gilded one, continue to hold their belief in the virtues of the system and to proclaim eternal and unstoppable progress in a complacent blindness which could be called the Great Society syndrome. But the unfulfilled expectations had been piling up with most people nurtured the expectation of personal and social advance. The result is an increasing socio-political split

...

 Roughly speaking the last “terminal crisis” was the Great Crash of 1929 which was only finally resolved by the second world war. This was followed by a “golden age” known in France as the glorious thirty years of post war Keynesian social democracy  leading to “maturity” and stagnation in the Seventies, the signal crisis of stagflation and the Thatcher Reagan counter attack against organised labour.  This in turn leads to  the Irruption phase” when the computer chip was making PCs commercially viable.  Having defeated the unions the conservatives lift capital controls and launch Big Bang in the City which triggers Frenzy which has lead to the terminal crisis we are in now.

 Presumably nanotechnology or biotechnology will start the next Kondratiev cycle off once we have figured out how to put in place the economic foundations for future growth.

Logged
wolfysmith
Sr. Member

Posts: 822


« Reply #5 on: Sun 17 May 2009 10:31 »

The peaks in Kondratiev cycle of the Price Index can be seen occurring in 1814, 1864, and 1918; between the peaks are two Kondratiev troughs in prices in 1841 and in 1893.

The three cycles from 1800 showed plateaus ending in 1818, 1871, and 1929. The vortices that followed this fall from plateau occurred in 1830, 1878 and 1932.

After 1945 democratic governments in the developed world followed Keynesian economic policies which use fiscal and monetary economic stimuli, this began with the New Deal in the mid 1930’s in the USA. Fiscal stimuli mean government expenditures on public works and monetary stimuli means increasing the level of money supply, government runs a deficit and this puts extra money into the economy than is taken in taxes. The Federal Reserve in the USA and Bank of England in Britain have recently increased the amount of money in circulation through government borrowing to stimulate economic growth.
 
It can be seen that the Reduced Price peaked in 1981, whereas the raw Price Index plot rises throughout the 1970's to 1990's. There is a peak in the Reduced Price in 1981; which means that the economy has actually been in a down-wave despite rising prices. The economy has received economic stimulus throughout the down-wave from deficit spending from Reagan through to the Bush governments and through growth in Money supply from the 1990's.

In 1992 there was a Kondratiev trough for Reduced Price and followed by a long plateau and a Kondratiev peaks before the sharp drop in Reduced Price to a vortex. Based on previous cycles the Deflationary growth peaks should occur about twenty years after the Kondratiev peak. The first two Deflationary growth peaks were in 1836 and 1881 occurred close to the ends of down wave on the stock markets in 1835 and 1881. If the year 2000 stock peak ends with a second precipitous drop, or fall from plateau as in 1929 this should drop into a vortex. The Kondratiev cycle would then indicates a further down-wave with a second trough with another fall from plateau to come.

This means as deflation has not yet occurred, if the world’s governments increase economic stimuli as they did in the 1940's this may reduced the real fall in price after inflation is taken into account. The reductions in the Federal Funds rate and administrations tax cut so far have failed to stimulation the economy enough to prevent a depression. The monetary economic stimulus on its own will not be sufficient. Government Fiscal policies with public building programmes such a building social housing are required to stimulate employment and create a demand for goods if a deep depression is to be avoided.

Kondratiev’s cycle shows down-wave in the stock market ended with a fall from plateau similar to 1929 for 2000 and that a large drop in Reduced Prices could  be about to occur and the vortex is still ahead and the Kondratiev trough. Prices could then fall dramatically this would indicate that a severe Depression may be on its way.

Therefore the stock market peak in 2000 could be equivalent to 1929, if so the cycle is due for a fall off the plateau and that the reduced price should peak. The trend in reduced price began to fall early in 2001 reduced price had fallen to the lowest level since the 1981 down-wave. Action by the US Federal Reserve was able to push the economy back up by cutting interest rate in 1998. But since 2001 the reduced price has continued to fall.

The most recent Kondratiev down wave occurred from 1981-87 with a recession, and incorporated contained a stock market shock.

The 1980's fall to price plateau and the 1940's trough showed different characteristics from similar periods in past cycles. In 1873 and 1929 a lack of economic stimulation and a resultant deflationary pressure prices resulted in an economic depression. Hopefully like the 1940's and 1980's the governments economic action will prevent the fall from plateau like in 1929-32 being repeated. In the last phase it was the end of an inflationary period in 1981 that saw the Kondratiev peak, after this date interest rates began to fall.

The economic stimulation in the 1940,s and in the 1980’s/1990’s avoided full depression and the resulted in upward movement of the stock markets therefore recent fall’s towards plateau and trough period shows that economic demand management of the market can reduce the deflationary effect on the market.

The 1980's fall to Kondratiev plateau was so different from previous falls. Stimulation fell parallel with the price in 1864-66. In the 1918-22 price fall to plateau stimulation peaked in 1919, giving the brief post-war prosperity and upward movement in stock markets, before the deflationary period started, with stimulation continuing until 1921. In the 1981-87 fall to a plateau Reagan and Thatcher deliberately cut back stimulation using high interest rates to begin the process of the fall to a Kondratiev plateau and then cut interest rates to preventing the 1980’s recession becoming a full depression and engineered an upward movement on the stock markets after 1982.

The higher level of stimulation in the Keynesian period made a significant difference to the economic outcome. A massive stimulation was effectively used in the late 1940's period producing the long boom period (known as the thirty golden years);

Reagan and Thatcher were both ideologically apposed to governments running up deficits but both had to resort to running up government deficits by the mid 1980’s. Economic and political realities of deflationary political policies followed in the early 1980,s could not be ignored as easily in a democracy as in fascist state such as Chile or Argentina in the 1970’s when they introduced free market economics which resulting in extreme poverty.

The financial stimulation by the USA, Britain and the other G8 countries plus the latest interest rate cuts would indicate that the World Bank, IMF and G8 leaders see a possibility of an economic depression similar to that of the 1930’s if action to stimulate economic activity is not taken. Financial stimulus alone will not be enough and governments will have to invest in building projects in order to generate enough economic activity thorough public works.

Soviet socialism along with Keynesian welfare capitalism show that there is an alternative to extreme poverty and inequality that is the results of free market capitalism. It also demonstrates that the capitalist elite only make concessions to ordinary people when the fears of the socialist alternative forces social and economic concessions which will then be removed once that threat has been removed as has occurred over the last 30 years. 

The financial stimulation by the USA, Britain and the other G8 countries plus the latest interest rate cuts would indicate that the World Bank, IMF and G8 leaders see a possibility of an economic depression similar to that of the 1930’s if action to stimulate economic activity is not taken. Financial stimulus alone will not be enough and governments will have to invest in building projects in order to generate enough economic activity thorough public works.

Socialism in the Soviet Union along with Keynesian welfare capitalism shows there is an alternative to free market capitalism and extreme poverty and inequality that is the results.

It also demonstrates that the capitalist elite only make concessions to the people when they fear the socialist alternative forcing social and economic concessions which they are now removing.

The forth economic cycle began during the Second World War with the ‘up-wave’ which lasted up to the 1970s. A Financial and commodity crisis in the 1970’s ended the first  ‘expansionary period’ and by 1973 the economy had ‘Peak’ and the economic ‘down-wave’ or phase of decline started ‘Reaganomics’ and ‘Thatcherite’ policy marked the end of ‘welfare capitalism’ and ‘social democracy’. The 1990’s saw a decrease in the rate of return on capital. Financial speculation on the stock market in the late 1990s and the mortgage market have occurred as technological progress in manufacturing no longer gives the level of return that the capitalist elite expect.
 
The rising phase ended from 1973 with a ‘primary recession’ until 1983 and a long ‘Plateau’ until about 2000, with the declining ‘secondary recession’ occurring since 2005 with the fall from the’ Plateau’ into the ‘vortex’ and ‘depression’.

In the declining phase of the 1970s, the new-conservatives proposed free-market capitalism as a solution to stagflation. Antony Crosland the Secretary of State in 1973 said ‘the party is over’ with the end of the Keynesian boom. The primary recession started with the collapse of the international finance system and falling rates of profit.  In the 1980’s and 1990’s stock market speculation on fictitious capital and the property market stimulating increase demand for consumer goods but today we see the level of debt reaching the point at which personal borrowing can no longer sustain the capitalist economy at the ‘Plateau’ as the forth economic cycle of capitalism descends into the ‘vortex’.

In 1973 the Labour secretary for state Anthony Crosland said ‘the part’s over’ this was a reference to the fact that the long period of boom that followed the Second World War was at an end and the capitalist world economy was entering a primary resection. This started with an international crisis of finance capital along with the falling rate of profit and approaches the ‘critical zone’. At this point the rate of profit made on capital investments have reached the point of ‘Critical Threshold’ At this point it dos not mater how much capital is invested in the production process the rate of profit has fell bellow the general rates of return on capital. In Britain in the 1970’s there was a better return on capital investment in finance than could be achieved from manufacturing consumer goods.
 
Marx noted within capitalism the ‘tendency of the rate of profit to fall’ as this happens it approaches the ‘critical zone’ and descends into the ‘vortex’. Development of new technologies has in previous periods of crisis increased the rate of profit above the ‘critical zone’. Another way that capital has solved the problem of a falling rate of profit is to obtain a supply of cheap labour or materials from less developed areas of the world by moving production through imperialist expansion of finance capital and multinational corporations.

The critical point in the expansion of capitalism will be reached when imperialist expansion can no longer solve the contradiction of capital, labour and nature. As the capitalist mode of productions is based on exploitation of labour, material resources and nature, the rate of return has declines from eight percent in the 1880’s to four percent by the year 2000 with peaks and troughs that have followed the general economic cyclical of the capitalist market in line with the rate of capital accumulation. Capitalist production has expanded in pursuit of profits by the use of new technologies cheaper labour and materials. Within this occur the cyclical crisis of capitalism, resulting in price inflation, over production, lack of demand ending in an economic downturn and unemployment and a financial crisis. Imperialist wars and new technology have in the past enabled a new phase of expansion to occur. Today we see the possibility that further expansion through globalisation and exploitation of labour and the world’s resources may have reached the limits for capitalist expansion and accumulation.

With the global ecological and financial crisis capitalism would appear to be on the edge of what could be the final ‘vortex’.  If so the next stage of human development will be either socialism or the destruction of civilization and descent into war and barbarism. Capitalism threatens the earth’s ability to support human society and life itself.

F Ibrahim ‘Capitalism – ‘The Edge of a Vortex’ Communist Review No. 51, Autumn 2008,

M A. Alexander ‘The Kondratiev Cycle Revisited: Part One, Current Position in Cycle’
http://www.safehaven.com/article-78.htm

M. A. Alexander. ‘The Kondratiev Cycle Revisited Part Two, Economic Implications’
http://www.safehaven.com/article-79.htm
Logged
Brigg57
Sr. Member

Posts: 1521


« Reply #6 on: Sun 17 May 2009 11:10 »

This is religious nonsense.

The Kondratiev cycle is only one among several explanations of the events described here. It needs to be defended theoretically against the other explanations, because it is no more valid than any other. In fact, it seems less valid, as it depends on a highly schematic approach which merely describes the trade cycles of a capitalist economy without ever satisfactorily explaining those cycles. Ernest Mandel gave a very full account of the Kondratiev version of history in his book Late Capitalism  back in 1975, but again failed to give a sound theoretical basis for preferring the Kondratiev approach to any other. What was p[resented was a very detailed account of the trade cycle in history

Marx's law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall is a complex law, not the simplification presented here of a vortex into which capitalist society would fall. He described it as the most important law working within capitalism, and the least easy to understand. he never, anywhere, presented it in its full complexity, because he died. Volume III of Capital, which does present the law, was gathered together by Engels from manuscript notes which were never revised by Marx, and presented in a very schematic form which in itself obscures rather than clarifies when read in teh context of that whole section. Conventional economists were able to make hay with that volume (especially over the solution to the transformation problem presented there).

What is presented here is another version of the end of capitalism. This belongs to eschatology rather than analysis. The last stage of capitalism has been presented to us for more than a century now. A major crisis such as that of the 30s, or the crisis now (whose length and nature is still not fully understood by anyone, the more arrogant among the intellectual Left or the best of the conventional economists) is presented to us as the last crisis without any evidence. Stuart hall wrote 50 years ago that he had been told over and over again that capitalism was in its final crisis, in its death throes, and that he had ceased to believe. I think that marx was too serious an economist to left to epigone such as this.
The poet Robert Lowell once wrote that in his youth, he had expected society to collapse at any moment. Instead, he did.
Logged
wolfysmith
Sr. Member

Posts: 822


« Reply #7 on: Mon 18 May 2009 19:07 »

Capitalism at the Edge of a Vortex

The economic cycle is a useful tool for analyzing the economic mechanism of capitalism. It shows how profit, prices or unemployment vary over time, in order to explore the process of capitalist production the relationship between the quantity of capital investment, the rate of and actual profit. Capital is defined by its use for making a profit. The third variable is profit.
 
If Capital X is operating at point B total investment is £1000 with a rate of profit of 20% resulting in a profit of £200. If, in the operating point moves to B1 on the same EP Curve the investment doubles but profits remain the same therefore the rate of profit has dropped by 50%.  However, if the operating point moves to B2 (RP = 16% and I = £1875) at EP2 profits increase to £300 despite the rate of profit falling from 20% to 16%. The capital investment has been increased by a rate higher than the drop in the rate of profit. An 87% increase in I compared with 20% drop in profit. Profits decline if the operating point moves to a lower-profit EP Curve.
 
If the operating points of a capital move year by year joining the operating points an operating Characteristic Curve produces the economic footprint of capital.
 
When the Characteristic Curve crosses the EP Curve from a low to a high EP Curve profits increase, profits fall as the operating point moves from a high to low EP Curve, when capital accumulation reaches a Critical Point. Capital cannot accumulate fast enough to compensate for the drop in the rate of profit and Profits begin to fall.  This is known as the critical zone of capital and is at the edge of the Vortex.
 
All industry and economies have an operating characteristic curve and economic footprint. These characteristic curve and economic footprint are determined by the level of economic development wage levels and capital accumulation. As capitalism develops a higher capital accumulation the economic footprint moves towards the critical zone.
 
In the actual economy the capital footprint fluctuates along with the economy cycle. The British economic footprint was approaching its Critical Zone in the non-financial sector of the UK economy (1965-79). Capital Investment increased from 1965 to 1973, the increase in capital investment was enough to ensure increased profits as the Characteristic Curve crossed  the EP Curve upwards despite the rate of profit actually falling during 1965-66, 1969-70 and again in 1972-73 as the drop in the rate of profit occurred the increase in capital investment was higher than the drop in the rate of profit ensuring increased profits: 10.2% increase in investment compared with 9.6% drop in the rate of profit (1965-66), 11.7% compared with 7.6% (1969-70) and 18.5% compared with 10.2% (1972-73). In 1973-74 although capital investment rose by £28.8 Billion (25.6%) but the drop in the rate of profit was 27.5%. Therefore profits fell as the characteristic curve crossed the critical zone Capitalism, production-for-profit was under threat. Capitalism had reached the edge of a vortex. In 1975 the rate of profit dropped again (9.5%) but the increase in capital investment was high enough (£34.3bn or 24.2%) to ensure increased profits.  The economy was pulled out of the critical zone but the economic and political climate had changed. It was the end of the post war era of social democracy and the beginning of the anti-trade union laws, privatisation, deregulation, free market neo-liberalism and neo-conservativism. 
 
The crises of capitalism since the 70s are more than just the normal economic cycle. The crisis today is caused by the fall in rate of profit to a critical point where profits are falling as well, hovering about the critical zone, with the Characteristic Curve moving from one EP Curve to another lower EP Curve.  Very high losses in parts of the economy in result in bankruptcies and closures. If this continues economic activity will gradually come to the point where production-for-profit is no longer possible.  Government action needs to be taken to pull the economy out of the critical zone.
 
When profits tumble and the economy enters the critical zone, the trajectory of the characteristic curve is such that further profit losses are likely unless action is taken to initiate a recovery. For recovery to take place the movement into the critical zone must first be halted and the operating point moved out and into the comfort zone (shaded area in Figure 5). The operating point may be made to move:
•        to the right (capital injection),
•        to the left (the removal of unprofitable capital),
•        upwards (Instant increase in the rate of profit)
 
 In practice of course, a combination of all three will probably take place.

An increase in capital investment sufficiently by government an international finance capital is required so that profits can be maintained and increased even though the rate of profit is falling.  If the economy is operating at point A along line X-Y and the rate of capital accumulation doesn’t changed, the operating point moves to apoint B1 on a lower EP Curve. If profits are to be maintained the operating point moves to B2 on the EP Curve This means an injection of new capital ∆B. If the operating point slips to point C1, capital investment has to increase by ∆C to take the operating point to C2 to maintain profits.  For point D1 an additional capital injection of ∆D is required etc.  For each drop in the rate of profit, the additional investment required to keep the amount of profit constant progressively gets larger. If profits are to increase, even larger amounts of capital investments are required. When the financial markets can no longer converting enough assets into capital, the market requires investment by the government.

Since the 1970s this has been done by:
•        Contracting Out,
•        Privatisation, turning public services into commodities,
•        Creating of entry points for private operators to tap into’ publicly funded enterprises such as the NHS, schools and colleges and council services.
•        Public Finance Initiative/Public Private Partnership (PFI/PPP) with guaranteed profits for private capital.   
 
Removing unprofitable capital:
Capital with a low rate of profit is removed, so the average rate of profit increase by.
•        Writing off capital made obsolete as a result of technological advance. 
•        Increasing turnover and effectively reducing total capital
•        Merger by which capital is reduced as a result of ‘rationalisation’.
•        Writing off large amounts of capital that normally takes place following any period of stagnation, recession or crisis.
•        The removal of unprofitable capital from production for profit, through nationalisation. Certain investment, such as transport and energy are essential to the overall running of the capitalist system. When unprofitable they are taken into public ownership but kept in operation with public subsidies .   
•        Exporting unprofitable capital to more profitable parts of the world. 
•        The destruction caused by war brings with it ‘re-construction’ and increase demand for weapons increasing the profits of the armament industry.
•        Chasing ever more miniscule rate of profit differentials through sophisticated mathematically-modelled of speculative business plans and financial products, a process which invariably ends in spectacular failures (sub-prime mortgages is just one example).

 
If capital is operating on the threshold of the critical zone, at point A along the Characteristic Curve X-Y, then increase in capital accumulation will move the operating point to a lower EP contour and profits fall. This can be avoided if the rate of profit is moved up from point A to point A1 on X1-Y1. Even with the same rate of decline in the rate of profit and same level of capital accumulation (X-Y and X1-Y1 have the same Slope) profits increase and the critical zone is shifted along the line. 
 
Edge of the Vortex

The actions above may take capital out of the critical zone as the Characteristic Curve is move away from the critical zone, but the tendency of the rate of profit to fall continues, maintaining downward pressure on the Characteristic Curve. Therefore the measures taken to lift the economy out of the critical zone have to intensify with more drastic measures taken each year. Failure to maintain and intensify measures taken by governments and international finance capital will mean capital moves back into the critical zone. Capitalism is therefore precariously on the edge of a vortex. The cost of maintaining profit is lower wages, weaker trade unions, insecurity, loss of liberty, poverty and war. This is why the capitalist economic system has required the neo-conservative and neo-liberal policies adopted by governments since the economy crossed the critical threshold in 1973-74.The policies of the Conservative and Labour governments since 1974 have been designed to keep Britain out of the critical zone.

Margaret Thatcher made profit-making respectable ‘Greed is good’, privatisation was used by the Conservative government, and for New-Labour profit-making became a must.  ‘It don’t mean a thing if it don’t make a mint’ was the Blair motto, Public services were transformed into commodities, patients and students into customers. 
 
The 1980s and 90s under the conservatives personal debt went up, there was growing inequality, a move from manufacturing and privatisation programme, with a the attack on the welfare state and deregulation of the finance institutions, and the assault on labour unions along with changes in taxation that favoured the wealthy.  ‘In the 1980s, a total of £60 billion of state assts were sold off to the private sector at well bellow the true market value.
 
The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) was revitalised and under New-Labour as privatisation was re-branded as Public Private Partnership (PPP), Up to 1997 only 17 PFI contracts were signed at a capital value of £2.95bn.  From 1997 to 2007 550 PPP contracts were signed with a total capital value of £51bn.
 
The question for those who believe in regulated capitalism is how a system that’s survival depended on deregulation be regulated?  For workers and the labour unions long-term real improvement in wages and conditions are no longer possible. For the environmental movement, the hope that capitalism can be reformed in an eco-friendly way are doomed to failure. The system that can’t solve the financial crisis of capitalism can solve the ecological crisis.  Keynesian welfare capitalism lost out to neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism because it could not rescue capitalism from the critical zone.

 From Fawzi Ibrahim’s article in the Communist Review:
Capitalism – the Edge of a Vortex

The future of humanity is either socialism or barbarism (Rosa Luxemburg)

Socialism is the only hope for humanity (Fidel Castro)
Logged
Brigg57
Sr. Member

Posts: 1521


« Reply #8 on: Mon 18 May 2009 19:26 »

wolfy,
I thought the first long extract was stuff and nonsense.

Instead of answering me, you poduce another long article whihc is more of the same - chiliastic stuff and nonsense.

At least the Judeo-Christian chiliasm had a bit of excitement about it. Read the Book of Revelation - boy, is that scary.

But this is mathematical hocus-pocus with a bit of historical info brought out of thin air and stuck in.

Wouldn't it be better to engage in dialogue rather than produce long extracts, one after the other, to be answered presumably by long extracts from opposing texts, as though they are self-explanatory and all must bow before their authority?

I take Marx too seriously to bow before the authority of this chiliasm dressed up in verbal-mathematical graphs.

If you believe in it, engage in a dialogue.
Logged
wolfysmith
Sr. Member

Posts: 822


« Reply #9 on: Tue 19 May 2009 14:22 »

I am a self taught ‘Marxist’ trying to understand the mechanisms of capitalism and how to bring about a fairer socialist society. Have always considered my self a Marxist and eco-socialist, am an ex-Labour Party/Co-operative Party member recently joined the Communist Party and believe that the left in Britain must find a way to work together as the GUE/NGL left group do in Europe. This is why the electoral alliance No2EU for the European Election is an important step, although I personally believe it would have been better if it had formally been part of the GUE/NGL or Party of the European Left but at least the CPB, Socialist Party and Alliance for Green Socialism have come together. Sorry if I have gone off the point as I started to say I am trying to get a better understanding of the social, political and economic mechanisms at work within capitalist society through reading Marxist Leninist theory so that the forces of neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism can be counteracted.

I hope that helps you see where I am coming from.
Logged
Brigg57
Sr. Member

Posts: 1521


« Reply #10 on: Tue 19 May 2009 19:04 »

wolfy,
I respect where you're coming from. We all come from different directions.

I'm not trying to belittle you; you're evidently a committed socialist; so am I as it happens.

I do hope that you see where I'm coming from in my comments. Reading and udnerstanding the works of Marx and Lenin is just the start if you're serious about them; you need to take as gospel Marx's comment, "doubt everything". He described that as the motto to rule his life. That means not reading them in a biblical manner, but in a critical manner. That's hard, as the analysis presented is cogent and hangs together, and is often used biblically because biblical language is so persuasive. But it's also necessary if your socialism is at all serious.

I always looked on Marxism as a weapon against the existing order, an order which is profoundly unjust and potentially lethal to those living within it - us. We need to look at that order with fresh eyes - always - and that means taking the critical apparatus left by Marx (and a rich Marxist tradition) and constantly testing it in the most critical manner possible. Otherwise, it becomes dogma, and we become as ineffective, or worse counter-productive.

I hope you understand.
Logged
wolfysmith
Sr. Member

Posts: 822


« Reply #11 on: Wed 20 May 2009 17:41 »

I agree with the comment "doubt everything" by Marx. I hope and try to read it in a critical manner and know some of what I have written has been regarded as no Marxist by some traditionalists. Again I agree Marxism is a tool not a religion and as socialists we have to engage no Marxists and Greens. My own perspective is that the economic growth that the capitalist mode of production dictates is unsustainable and that the key to a sustainable and equitable future is eco-socialism.

This should give you an insight to where I am going:

Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Thoughts on Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism: Lenin (1917),
Cuban Eco-Agriculture, Further thoughts on the Political Ecology of Marx and Marxist media theory & Oxfam’s campaign that international news coverage remains on our TV screens

http://www.midlandscommunists.org.uk/ Resources / Personal Contributions 

Hopefully it isn’t dogma which as you say is counter-productive or as John Lennon said ‘’You ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow’’
Logged
willp
Sr. Member

Posts: 517


« Reply #12 on: Thu 21 May 2009 15:05 »

It's worth reading "The gods that failed: how blind faith in markets has cost us our future", by Larry Elliott and Dan Atkinson (paperback, 326 pages, ISBN 978-1-847-92030-0, Bodley Head, 2008, £12.99.)

In this brilliant book, Larry Elliott, the economics editor of the Guardian, and Dan Atkinson, the economics editor of the Mail on Sunday, explain why the economy is in such a mess.

Previously, strong unions, progressive taxation, managed trade and controls on capital and immigration produced higher living standards for the majority. As the authors note, “A fifth factor, immigration controls, also contributed to rising real incomes of blue-collar workers.” Now the opposite policies are producing stagnant or falling incomes, massive debts, tepid growth, and soaring income inequality and economic insecurity. Workers are subjected to material losses and moral uplift. GB plc is not a decent industrial company but a dodgy hedge fund.

Elliott and Atkinson blame what they call the twelve gods of globalisation - communication, financialization, privatisation, liberalisation, competition, and their partners speculation, recklessness, greed, arrogance, oligarchy and excess. They show how the Labour party, the European Commission, the IMF, the World Bank, the World Trade Organisation and the International Court of Justice have all embraced these gods. As the authors note, bodies like the EU “far from being essential in order to exercise some sort of control over large companies … look rather more like being essential to the simplification of large companies’ dealings with political authorities.”

The present crisis arose because US companies promoted enormous ‘ninja’ loans to those with No Income, No Job or Assets. So US household debt is now three times the economy’s annual output, the highest proportion since 1929. Two million insolvent borrowers means insolvent lenders, builders and hedge funds. Every previous crash in the US housing market has led to a full-blown recession and this one will too, largely because the US economy has relied not on increased production but on growing debt. Its productivity has grown less since 1973 than it did in 1947-73 and it created no more jobs between 2000 and 2005 than anywhere else.

Elliott and Atkinson show how the Treasury, its Financial Services Authority, and the Bank of England all failed in the Northern Rock debacle which signalled the start of the crisis in Britain. Their answer was to nationalise the losses and privatise the profits. The authors sum up finance capitalists’ plight, “They have to borrow money from the public purse because their system does not work.”

Instead, Elliott and Atkinson urge a New Populism focusing on a real-world agenda of jobs, living standards and security in retirement. Its aims should be to subordinate finance to industry, establish personal and social security (mainly by providing high-quality pensions), enhance democracy, curb the semi-detached super-rich, strengthen the professions, value social stability above market efficiency or shareholder value, and reaffirm the liberty of the person.

They urge protection for our industries, tighter controls on lending and credit, splitting retail from investment banking, smaller banks, proper vetting of all financial products, higher taxes on hedge funds and private equity partners, and deregulation for smaller businesses and the self-employed.

   This is a bold set of proposals, whose implementation would go a long way towards saving industry and rebuilding Britain. Those who worship the twelve gods would, of course, fiercely resist, and it would take the strength of the organised working class to make this New Populism work – but we could do it.
Logged
wolfysmith
Sr. Member

Posts: 822


« Reply #13 on: Thu 21 May 2009 17:03 »

Willp,
Isn’t this just a form of neo-Keynesianism, designed to save a failing system of free market capitalism? plus nationalist protectionism.
Logged
willp
Sr. Member

Posts: 517


« Reply #14 on: Mon 25 May 2009 11:22 »

Wolfy, it seems to me to go well beyond 'free market capitalism'.
And protecting your economy seems to make better sense than not protecting it, which means letting it be sold off, dismantled and wrecked, as we are experiencing.
There's nothing wrong with workers' nationalism, meaning that the British working class, who are the vast majority, act for their own interests, overriding the interests of that tiny corrupt minority, the capitalist class. Every other working class could do likewise.
Logged
wolfysmith
Sr. Member

Posts: 822


« Reply #15 on: Mon 25 May 2009 19:22 »

Unfortunately I think working class nationalism only leads fascism not to international socialism. It will always be reactionary and appeal to the prejudices of xenophobic racists,
I will leave that to New-Labour, Conservatives, UKIP and the BNP as it’s not a place I  wish to go.
Logged
willp
Sr. Member

Posts: 517


« Reply #16 on: Tue 26 May 2009 12:38 »

You can think 'unfortunately' whatever nonsense you like - you're the one ending up allying with the forces of reaction, with the employers who run the EU.
Logged
wolfysmith
Sr. Member

Posts: 822


« Reply #17 on: Tue 26 May 2009 14:10 »

We will have to differ on this one, I see it as taking concrete action the same as being an activist for Oxfam. Whilst I understand the inability of capitalism to reform it is necessary to show solidarity with all the people of the world whether an unemployed British worker or an exploited worker in Africa, Asia, South America or the USA. It’s all part of the struggle against the exploitative nature of globalized finance capital in its pursuit of profits. The left must unite against the forces of global capitalism. Concrete action requires both industrial and political action of the labour movement and the progressive social movements. That is were a Marxist understanding of the development of capitalism to its final imperialist stage is important. Let’s hope that we can unite the broad left in the common cause of saving humanity and the environment from the barbarism of global exploitation. I know we are in broad agreement over the Cuban revolution and the fight is with the neo-conservatives and neo-liberals of multi-national finance capital and all its political institution IMF, World Bank, WTO, World Economic Forum etc. socialists have to adapt to the conditions existing at any particular time, to further the cause of social revolution and development from capitalism towards a socialist society.
Logged
Free Radical
Sr. Member

Posts: 826


« Reply #18 on: Tue 26 May 2009 22:43 »

Sadly the very un-bourgeois democracies of the Soviet Union did not do terribly well on the environment either - but I'm not quite sure what we can blame that on?

I agree with you on international solidarity by the way.

 
Logged
willp
Sr. Member

Posts: 517


« Reply #19 on: Wed 27 May 2009 15:09 »

Wolfy, you write, " the fight is with the neo-conservatives and neo-liberals of multi-national finance capital and all its political institution IMF, World Bank, WTO, World Economic Forum etc."
Why isn't the fight also with 'the neo-conservatives and neo-liberals of multi-national finance capital' in the EU too? Or don't you think there are any there?
Or do you fear being labelled as a nationalist for allying with the mass of the British people against the EU ? The EU, incidentally, is not foreign (pace the humorous Brigg) it is very much led by the British state.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.5 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC

Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM