Re: [OPE-L] [Fwd: Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics and financial services]

From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Tue Oct 04 2005 - 16:10:22 EDT

Neither of these.

If the rate of profit is too low relative to long term rates
of interest capitalists decline to accumulate constant capital.
This prevents extended reproduction and, if nothing is done will
lead to contracted reproduction. In either case unemployment will
rise significantly. 

State expenditure on unproductive activities can create additional
demand which allows simple reproduction to take place by converting
some of the output into commodities which are not accumulated.
This corresponds to a shift in the working population out of the
production of means of production and into  the production
of weapons etc. The absorbtion of another part of the population
in unproductive financial activities also prevents accumulation since
the people who work in stock exchange offices of banks are people
who are not working in factories producing means of production.

-----Original Message-----
From: OPE-L on behalf of Rakesh Bhandari
Sent: Tue 10/4/2005 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: [OPE-L] [Fwd: Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics and financial services]
At 11:35 AM +0100 10/4/05, Paul Cockshott wrote:
>I agree that mature capitalist economies can have a tendancy to spiral
>into unemployment, and that the expenditure of the state on  weapons
>can prevent this. But it prevents unemployment by at the same time
>preventing accumulation and shifting the economy from expanded to simple

Not following. Prevents higher levels of employment? And how is the
state preventing accumulation if the economy is already spiralling
into unemployment as a result of slow down in accumulation? Or are
you saying that the state causes that downward spiral by, say,
regressive taxes or the coddling of labor? Were Thatcher and Reagan


>Paul Cockshott
>Dept Computing Science
>University of Glasgow
>0141 330 3125

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 05 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT