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

From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Wed Oct 05 2005 - 09:55:28 EDT

At 1:36 PM +0100 10/5/05, Paul Cockshott wrote:
>I was making an implicit assumption in my argument
>that the economy moved from a phase of expanded reproduction with
>significant net accumulation of capital to a recesseionary phase
>in which accumulation stopped.

Yes but why the pre Keynesian assumption?

>  I was assuming that at this point
>the state stepped in with increased unproductive expenditure on
>arms which restored full employment. Compared to the period of
>full employment with expanded reproduction,

what period of full employment?

>the subsequent arms
>boom will involve a shift in employment from means of production
>to weapons, mediated by the intervening unemployment.
>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.
>Yes but by giving a market to div i and div ii excess capacity can be
>worked off, possibly
>creating the conditions for an investment led boom.
>Do you agree with Keynes or not?
>It is of course possible that the increase in government expenditure
>will stimulate private investment in means of production.

right, ok. On the assumption of course that there is not full employment!


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Oct 06 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT