Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

socialist_n_TN

(11,481 posts)
1. This is a simple equation IF you look at it from a Marxist perspective........
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 09:16 AM
Nov 2013

and the Marxist economists (most notably Michael Roberts) have pegged this phenomena all along. It's a factor of the RATE of profit falling. Yes overall profits are up and capitalists are sitting on a mountain of cash, but there's nowhere for them to invest it where it meets Wall Street expectations for returns. The closest sector for meeting those expectations is in the financial sector or, as Marx called it, fictitious capital. That's the only sector that has completely recovered and, as large as it is, it's still not big enough to absorb all of the investment.

Also the financial sector doesn't create the same number of jobs as the productive sectors of the economy, nor are the jobs as widespread, which results in further funneling of wealth to the top.

Roberts called this a "Long Depression". A situation that lasts for a long time and is characterized by low growth (comparatively speaking), low employment, and low wage jobs for the 99%. As I said above, he's been talking about this all along, right from the time the real estate bubble burst in '07. All the other macroeconomists have been dazed and confused by the crash and it's aftermath, but not the Marxist guys. They've been on top of everything.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Fed Reveals New Concerns ...»Reply #1