Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts with the label profitability

Britain’s Model of ‘Extractive Capitalism’

A liberal summary of the political economy of Britain  “Britain has been a  high-inequality, high-poverty nation  for most of the last 200 years, with significant consequences for life chances, social resilience, and economic strength. With the exception of the immediate post-war era, the struggles for share over the last 200 years have been won by the richest and most affluent sections of society, often with the compliance of the state. Under extraction, economic activity becomes detached from new wealth creation, with the boost to profitability and rising corporate surpluses of recent times used to reward executives and investors rather than boost productivity.” *** Unsurprisingly, not a single mention of Britain’s ‘extractive’ capitalism within its functioning as imperialist state, analysing the British economy in isolation of the global economy and global sociology. (e.g. defeat and weakening of social forces/struggle at home and abroad,‘neoliberalism’ as a global form of capitalis

Capitalism, Profitability, Reform

“If profitability is threatened, reforms must go.” Roberts should have added: but the state intervenes to maintain stability in society because absence of reforms sharpens class struggle. In orde to save capitalism, the capitalist state initiates reforms even if those reforms are minor or undermined in a later stage. The debate continues …

Has ‘Globalisation’ Ended?

The claim was  global expansion and harmonious development of the productive forces and resources of the world .  The 2008-09 crisis, the Arab uprisings and social movements in the West itself, wars and civil wars, migration, fall in living standards for many people, environmental degradation, rise of neofascism and more racism, increase in inequality and corruption, the handling of the pandemic and vaccine apartheid … has exposed what ‘globalisation’ has really meant.

Political Economy

A very illuminating interview. "The Fundamental Questions About Capitalism Seem to be Coming Back" An example from the US and UK that the effects are asymmetrical. The BBC here does not mention any socio-economic background (education, marginalisation, inequality, overlapping of race and class.) which is structural and precedes the current pandemic for a long time. Are minorities being hit harder by coronavirus
"Stolen  [by Grace Blakeley] leads the reader through the various periods of Anglo-American capitalist development from 1945 to the Great Recession of 2008-9 and beyond.  And it finishes with some policy proposals to end the thievery with a new (post-financialisation) economic model that will benefit working people. This is compelling stuff. But is Blakeley’s account of the nature of modern Anglo-American capitalism and on the causes of recurring crises in capitalist production correct? An accessible read/economics made simple Theft or exploitation — a review of Grace Blakeley's  Stolen   Related: It's not just profitability
As Trump raises tariffs on Chinese goods (again) , a big picture of world trade since mid-19th-century is very useful. After a historical level of a 'globalisation' wave/openess, the U.S. sees its hegemony threatened and its power in relative decline vis-a-vis the rising of new powers like China. Thus it wants reassert itself. That makes the possiblities of conflicts in the coming decade higher. World trade and capitalism
A recommended read "If what I call vanguard neoliberalism established this phase of capitalist development (in the UK: 1979–97, and social neoliberalism then consolidated it (1997–2007)), the current period of crisis neoliberalism (2007–) is primarily defensive, an attempt to preserve the now decaying order through ever-more generalised attacks on the subaltern classes – not as ‘occasional’ incursions to enable budget cuts here or prevent industrial action there, but as permanent aspects of the political regime (Davidson, 2017)." Neoliberalism as a class-based project You may need to open a free account to access the essay
"Carillion is a very graphic confirmation that outsourcing public services and sectors to private companies to ‘save money’ on ‘inefficient’ public sector operations is a nonsense.  The reason for privatisation and outsourcing has really been to cut the costs of labour, reduce conditions and pension rights for employees and to make a quick buck for companies and hedge funds.  But such is competition for these contracts that, increasingly, private companies cannot sustain services or projects even when they have cut costs to the bone.  So they just pull out or go bust, leaving the taxpayer with the mess. It’s a microcosm of capitalist economic collapse." Interesting links about studies on privatisation. Carillion and the 'dead end' of privatisation