Karl Marx was right (partly) – Roubini

The great guru of the financial collapse, economist Nouriel Roubini, who is famously acclaimed as having forecast the crisis of 2008-9 (see my paper, The causes of the Great Recession), has now pronounced that Karl Marx was ‘partly right’ after all about capitalism (http://www.economonitor.com/nouriel/2011/08/15/is-capitalism-doomed/).

Roubini put it this way.  “Karl Marx, it seems, was partly right in arguing that globalization, financial intermediation run amok, and redistribution of income and wealth from labor to capital could lead capitalism to self-destruct (though his view that socialism would be better has proven wrong).

I don’t think Marx would have agreed that this was his theory of capitalist crisis at all.  It seems closer to the view of many followers of Keynes or those who have adopted a theory based on the crisis of  ‘neo-liberalism’ (see my post, Gerard Dumenil and crisis of neoliberalism, 3 March 2011).  Marx did not think capitalism was subject to slumps and financial collapses because income and wealth was distributed “from labour to capital”.  Income and wealth inequality are clearly products of a production system based on capital, where the owners of the means of production can often dictate the distribution of wealth and income through control of  taxation, the printing of money and above all the ownership of the means of production in an economy.  But inequality existed before capitalism in other modes of society and there have been periods of sustained economic growth under capitalism that were achieved not because inequalities were reduced.   Inequalities rose from the early 1980s to now in the major economies because capitalist production began to suffer increased problems, forcing the capitalist elite to squeeze the majority more.  The core of capitalist production is that it is production for profit.  If profitability can be sustained, capitalism will grow (albeit unequally and unevenly).   Capitalism goes into crisis because it cannot sustain profit rates for the owners of capital.  When profitability in the major capitalist economies  reached a low in the late 1970s, the strategists of capital adopted policies designed to raise profitability that led to greater inequalities.  It was not inequality that led to the crises of the 1970s, but vice versa.

And is Roubini really saying that if there was a shift in the share of national income from ‘capital to labour’ that the crisis would have been avoided?  If so, he is suggesting that the answer to a crisis in a system of production for profit is to lower profits!  For more on this issue, see the excellent paper by Guglielmo Carchedi, Behind and beyond the crisis (http://gesd.free.fr/carchedib.pdf) and of course, various chapters in my book, The Great Recession (http://gesd.free.fr/mrob2009.pdf).

When profitability falls to the point that the mass of profits for companies are in jeopardy, then investment stops, employment falls and spending contracts.  Roubini tells us that the crisis has happened because “Firms are cutting jobs because there is not enough final demand. But cutting jobs reduces labor income, increases inequality and reduces final demand”.    It’s a vicious circle.  Yes, but the firms did not start cutting jobs in the beginning because there was ‘not enough final demand’; they did so because profitability fell so much that it threatened the solvency of the weakest companies, which started making losses.  They stopped production and investment and the loss of their demand for other companies’ products intensified the reduction in profitability for the rest.   Thus overall final demand (starting with investment demand) began to plummet.   The data for the US and UK economic recessions clearly show that it was a collapse in investment, not a drop in consumption that triggered the slump.  So it was that part of ‘final demand’ that was subject to profitability.

This is the nature of the process of the slump.  Final demand falls because profits fall, driving down profits further.  During the slump, businesses slash back on costs , laying off labour and closing down plant.  The stronger companies buy out the weak at cheap prices, laying the basis for higher profitability for those that survive.  Eventually profitability picks up, even at lower level of demand and production, and then investment begins to recover.  The Great Recession did not end because governments came to the rescue, although government spending may have helped ameliorate the impact of the recession – at the expense of increasing the burden of debt on the capitalist economy that makes it more difficult to recover.  The GR came to an end because profitability started to rise and enabled companies to build up cash and begin reinvesting (see my post, Profit and investment in an economic recovery, 29 December 2010).  The current recovery, however, is one of the weakest seen since the second world war, because households and small businesses are still weighed down with debt from the credit boom before 2007 and now must pay higher taxes with stagnant wages, while governments are overloaded with debt that they are trying to reduce.  So consumer spending growth remains weak.

Roubini tells us that Marx’s alternative of socialism has proved to be wrong.  Roubini does not say why, but probably we would get the usual mantra that the failure of the Soviet Union shows this.  But what does Roubini offer as the way out?

He says that “to enable market-oriented economies to operate as they should and can, we need to return to the right balance between markets and provision of public goods. That means moving away from both the Anglo-Saxon model of laissez-faire and voodoo economics and the continental European model of deficit-driven welfare states. Both are broken.”     He is right that both ‘models’ are broken, although how we can say Anglo-Saxon model avoids government deficits, when we have 8-10% of GDP deficits in the US and the UK; or that the European model avoids deregulation and privatisation, when these were just as prevalent there before the crisis. Be that as it may, Roubini’s prescription that we must get market-oriented economies to operate as they should and can, is utopian as it defies the experience of history.  Presumably ‘market-oriented’ economies should operate to provide sustained economic growth, reasonable equality in incomes and wealth, good pensions, healthcare, education and other social needs.  Since when have ‘market-oriented’ economies ever done that even in the developed capitalist economies, let alone across the globe?

Roubini argues that market economies will work better if “the right balance” is found between markets and the public sector.  But he does not make it very clear what he means by this.  He wants more investment on infrastructure and that is certainly badly needed.  Remember the report of the American Society of Civil Engineers on the state of the US national infrastructure (see the details in my post, Criminality – pure and simple, 10 August 2011).   But is this infrastructure spending to be done by capitalist companies for a profit or by state-owned operations as a public service.  If the latter, how is it to be paid for?

Roubini says we need more “progressive taxation”.  But is this because it is fairer or is it the way to find funds for the state to invest?  Maybe it is both.  And as billionaire investor, Warren Buffett has pointed out in a revealing NYT article this week (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html), America’s super-rich continue to pay way less tax as a share of their income and wealth than the average American.   But does Roubini really believe that taxing the rich more will be enough to provide the funds for national investment and, more important, the control of investment so that it can be directed towards the needs of the whole country and not just towards ‘profitable investment’.   Roubini does not recognise the contradiction there between profit and social need.

Even his ‘short-term’ solutions are contradictory.  He says that market economy needs “more short-term fiscal stimulus with medium- and long-term fiscal discipline”.    So stimulate now and then make everybody pay back the handouts to business through taxation later.   He wants “a reduction of the debt burden for insolvent households and other distressed economic agents”, but does not tell us how that can be done if these agents cannot repay it themselves.  Somebody has to pay if households and other agents cannot – will it be the lenders (the banks) or the taxpayers (government)?  Would we have to bail out the banks again, still leaving them privately-owned or not?  Apparently, we would because they would need to be ‘regulated’.

And anyway, how are we to avoid another big slump or financial crisis, something Roubini recognises is inherent in the “self-destructive nature of capitalism”?  Apparently, all we need is  “stricter supervision and regulation of a financial system run amok; breaking up too-big-to-fail banks and oligopolistic trusts.”    So send in the regulators who so dismally failed last time to spot the financial bubble and warn about the crash.  But this time also ‘break up oligopolistic trusts”.  So do not abolish the market economy, but break it up into smaller bits.  Not only is this the height of unrealism but also flies in the face of very trend of capitalism towards the concentration of capital.  To break up modern capitalist entities poses the question of their survival as profitable enterprises.

Roubini ends his piece with this profound observation:  “Over time, advanced economies will need to invest in human capital, skills and social safety nets to increase productivity and enable workers to compete, be flexible and thrive in a globalized economy. The alternative is – like in the 1930s – unending stagnation, depression, currency and trade wars, capital controls, financial crisis, sovereign insolvencies, and massive social and political instability.”

Yes, but how can this better world be achieved while it is dominated by a market-oriented system that only invests in human capital and skills if it is profitable?    Is not that where Marx was right?  The dismal alternative that Roubini poses is the most likely result if the capitalist system of production remains in place.

6 Responses to “Karl Marx was right (partly) – Roubini”

  1. mon78432@hotmail.com Says:

    great blog. keep writing!

  2. purple Says:

    I noticed this too. Roubini doesn’t understand Marx. However, the massive public investment undertaken by the U.S. during World War 2 shows that its potential to end ‘slumps’. I don’t think Keynes has been really proven wrong on this account. Kalecki identified in his ‘The Political Aspects of Full Employment’ the political reasons Keynesianism would rarely be fully implemented. Kalecki noted that it was only in Nazi Germany that state investment fully overcame the Great Depression (pre WW2), and that this state investment was only supported by the bourgeoisie because the union and socialist leadership had been killed.

  3. Jurriaan Bendien Says:

    Mr Roubini is merely saying, that there exists no *economic* mechanism within the capitalist system which can prevent the income distribution from tilting further and further toward Capital and away from Labour. Yet global competitive pressures – which individual states can only mitigate to some extent by legal-political means – do have the longer-term effect of realizing such a shift in the income distribution. The argument is that, beyond a certain magnitude, this shift in the global income distribution begins to brake the possibility of further market expansion. At that point the production system and the debt structure based on it start to self-destruct, because keeping all transactions going, and thus realizing acceptable yields, is predicated on a certain growth rate of output sales. As Marx put it, “The ultimate reason for all real crises always remains the poverty and restricted consumption of the masses as opposed to the drive of capitalist production to develop the productive forces as though only the absolute consuming power of society constituted their limit.”

  4. michael roberts Says:

    Jurriaan
    Yes I agree that may be what Roubini is saying. Roubini’s explanation of capitalist crises and also the way you put it are basically the Keynesian-Luxemburg-Minksy view of crisis, namely as a result of underconsumption, inequality and debt instability. It’s a view. But it was not Marx’s (despite your well-known quote – see Carchedi on that quote) and more important, I don’t think it is right.

  5. Jurriaan Bendien Says:

    Michael, I think abstractly Marx may well have been correct about the tendency of the industrial rate of profit to fall; there is substantial evidence suggesting that at least in “value” terms – using value-added statistics, acording to which profit equals GDP less employee compensation for productive labour – the industrial profit shows a secular longterm tendency to decline. Leaving aside the theoretical problems of using value-added statistics, if true production capital is at the most say 30% of total capital assets in advanced capitalist countries, it would be foolish to single out the industrial profit rate as being the only or the most decisive factor determining crises. It would mean among other things: ignoring the trade in 70% or so of capital assets which are not tied up in production in advanced capitalist countries – a trade in financial assets, real estate and durables. Carchedi shows some awareness of this, hence he talks about the “essential” realities which are “behind” the observable crisis phenomena. But he is still convinced that the pure falling rate of profits thesis is the fundamental problem – because of relatively low industrial profitability, so the argument goes, capital hives off into speculative and non-productive activity. There is certainly some truth in that, but it ignores that corporations don’t calculate their profits in Marxist terms anyway. Their profit is a profit from a total packet of activities which include both profit from production, and profit from the trade in property and financial assets. I think that the main problem of these Marxist analyses is that writers confuse the laws of motion of the capitalist mode of production, with the laws of capitalist society as a whole.

  6. Craig Says:

    Karl Marx argued that revolution was impossible in a society that lived on the family farm. He believed that urbanization and industrialization were both requirements for a Communist revolution. In the 1920s, half of all Americans lived on a farm. Family farms that remained free of debt, enjoyed full-employment during the 1930s. Those that used debt to expand, were destroyed.

    The Federal Reserve Bank is a Marxist and Fascist institution. It creates the debt necessary to enslave a Republic, and the politics that are required to increase our indebtedness. Whether this country spends money on social programs (Socialism), or military expansion (Fascism), we end up borrowing money from the Federal Reserve. As an added bonus, the privately owned corporation also charges us interest to use its Federal Reserve Notes as our currency!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: