From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM
Date: Tue Dec 21 2004 - 09:24:48 EST
> I wasn't contesting the theory as a matter of logic; it does not seem > to me empirically robust at the present time. Rakesh: The reason you cited previously for your empirical skepticism concerned the international supply of labor: "the potential supply of labor has been increased manifold through the incorporation of India, China, and Eastern Europe." I was trying to draw your attention to the mechanisms by which a crisis becomes an international crisis. Your skepticism is based on the differing labor market conditions in different capitalist social formations. My point is that a crisis that originates in one capitalist nation can quickly become diffused internationally *despite these differences in labor market conditions* (and, hence, I question the grounds for your empirical skepticism). If you consider the point more I think you might agree with me. Suppose that there is a major crisis in the US economy which leads to (among other things) a condition of overproduction and a sharp increase in the size of the reserve army. How will that crisis -- which originally develops in the US -- affect the international economy and, more specifically, the economies of India, China, and Eastern Europe? For example, given the extent to which these other nations increasingly rely on exports to the US (or, e.g. in the case of IT, labor services sold to consumers in the US) , how will the decrease in aggregate demand in the US affect those nations' economies? Note that I wrote nothing above about labor power shortage theory. That's because the same argument cold be made regarding all (?) Marxian explanations for crisis. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 00:00:01 EST