Destruction of capital
Submitted by shug on Tue, 2011-06-28 21:45
Another question from a befuddled brain. The 50’s and 60’s boom years for capital were a result of the massive destruction of capital in WW2. In October 2007, the 54 stock exchanges monitored by the World Federation of Exchanges had a combined market capitalisation of 63 trillion dollars. By the end of November 2008 this had fallen to 31 trillion dollars. In under a year, half the entire value of publicly tradable shares on earth had been wiped out. Why has this not allowed another cycle of accumulation?(When are you going to reprint/update your economics article of RP2, back in the 70’s – that for a fleeting while made me think I understood fecking economics?)
Forum:
ICT sections
User login
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
I think that it has to
I think that it has to involve the real material productive forces, specifically the ratio between living and dead capital/materials etc.
Eh?
Eh?
Steve, my response wasn’t
Steve, my response wasn't meant to be facetious - I was hoping for clarification as to what you said.
What I am saying is that
What I am saying is that currency, dollars etc is like measuring with an eastic ruler.
For example I paid 1 300 Pounds for a Pentium 120 computer. Today I could buy something 12x more powerful for 1/4 of the price.
Today's productive forces are ever more efficient, ever less labour intensive and despite being marvellous from the point of view of mass production, are ever more unable to generate the profit margins required hence unemployment and constant erosion of working class conditions.
Regardless of any price, stocks etc, the productive forces are ever more at odds with the relations of production.