adam at pmel.com
Wed Oct 25 04:15:58 MDT 1995
> I am reading the former finance editor of Business Week Jeffrey Madrick's
> The End of Affluence: The Causes and Consequences of America's Economic
> Dilemma--a short, non-specialist overview of the US economy. I will make
> some comments on it for the list in a few days.
> However, Madrick makes an interesting claim, and I am wondering whether he
> is right about this.
> "For all itts ups and downs, [the post- WWII boom] produced the fastest,
> broadest-based economic growth and rising living standards a major economy
> has ever seen. There is not one forecast on record that suggested it
> might not last." (p.35) Is this true?
> Thanks for the help.
> --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
The International Socialist tradition bases a lot of its Marxist
Economics on the work of Mike Kidron and T.E. Vance ( Vince ? not
quite sure ).
The basic thrust of this argument was that the permanent arms economy
implicit in the cold war lead to a temporary reduction in the decline in
the rate of profit, but that the decline would reassert itself later.
I'm not sure of the titles but one or both of them wrote something like
"Imperialism : the highest stage but one ?".
If you can get hold of a copy of Chris Harman's "Explaining the crisis"
( published by BookMarx ) this will explain the theory and give you
Now I believe that this theory was the only one to both explain the long
boom and predict a return to crisis. But then I would, wouldn't I ?
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism