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