Search

Starting from the two correct positions that, compared to the form of capitalism that preceded it, neoliberal capitalism has generally been more harmful to working people, and that in it finance plays a greater role in both scale and scope, some political economists argue that in neoliberalism financial capital is parasitic on nonfinancial (or "productive," or "industrial") capital. The central argument of this article is that, to the contrary, financial capital serves all capital through the various ways that it allows for neoliberalism to increase its appropriation of surplus value. To concretely support this position, the article considers a particular financial relation, debt, and indicates seven specific ways debt expansion facilitates neoliberalism's pursuit of increased appropriation of surplus value. Secondarily, this article rejects any stated or implied policy implications from the parasitic financial capital thesis that present "productive capitalism" as the desirable alternative to the deleterious effects of financialized capitalism. JEL Classification : G00, G51, H63 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article maintains that after a decade as a poster-child for neoliberal growth, (1) Turkey has definitely fallen from its former impressive growth performance, (2) the cause is exactly the rupture of its foreign capital-led growth model, just as its fragility critics warned, and (3) given the state of both external and internal economic and political factors, there is very little chance of Turkey returning to its strong growth over the next several years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the aspects of the relation of Cuba's economic reforms to the project of building socialism. It focuses on the economic effects of various norms with debated issue in Cuba. It mentions that the supporters of Cuba's started building socialism fear, and updating process in capitalism.

This work contributes to the almost nonexistent literature on the profit rate of the financial sector. It updates the single study to include financial variables to cover the past decade, compares this profit rate to the (almost unpublished) Weisskopf and NIPA financial profit rates, compares the financial and nonfinancial sector rates, and details the procedure to construct the profit rate in the financial sector including relevant financial variables which capitalists consider to make profit-rate decisions.JEL Classification: B50, E11 [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This paper looks at the most recent aggregate profit rate data for the United States. It then makes five arguments. First, the new data reinforce the rejection of "neoliberalism as successful capitalist restructuring that could possibly restore or surpass the pre 1970s rate of profit." Second, when the new data are viewed together with the rest of the post-WWII data, it reinforces the appearance of the fall in the rate of profit as a one-step fall between an earlier and a later period. Third, this result argues against understanding the fall in the rate of profit in terms of an increasing organic composition of capital. Fourth, the one-step fall understanding is consistent with understanding profit rate dynamics in terms of the change of economic regimes between the "Keynesian compromise" period and the neoliberal period. These first four results are all consistent with, though certainly not broad enough to claim to be a proof of all of, the recently reformulated social structures of accumulation theory by Kotz and Wolfson. Finally, when the new data are considered together with several now widely held general beliefs about the near-term performance of the U.S. economy, this paper makes arguments about some likely characteristics of the behavior of the aggregate profit rate over the next business cycle. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a commentary on the book "Beyond Capital," by Michael Lebowitz. He argues that the book "Capital" by Marxism co-founder Karl Marx is not a complete presentation of Marx's theory of capitalism, but rather a onesided presentation. Capitalism considered only from the viewpoint and the logic of capital, and the corresponding one-sided understanding of Marx's theory by the large majority of his disciples has yielded a Marxism that cannot achieve its self-declared goal of explaining capitalism.