Your new post is loading...
There could not be a sharper analytical difference between Andrew Kliman and I on how we understand the trajectory of U.S. capital and U.S. labour over the quarter century leading to the Great Financial Crisis. He sees it as a period of “secular stagnation” – i.e. protracted low growth – while I argue, along with my co-author Leo Panitch, that it has been one of the most dynamic eras for capital in American history.[1] He views the alleged stagnation of that period as rooted in a profitability crisis that was temporarily masked by a credit bubble, which allowed the U.S. economy to limp on until it burst. We argue that corporate profits have in general not been squeezed and that the role of finance in creating the conditions for the crisis went far beyond advancing credit. He sees labour as largely holding its own over this period; we understand labour as having suffered a most profound defeat.
