[gwynned]

Originally Posted by historycircus

Hi gwynned,

The article by Gray was interesting - for me, from a historical perspective, there is a lot to disagree with him about. I'll spare you that, however, and say that I think his big-picture analysis identifies problem.

The numbers you give here on corporate profits are scary, and I think they underscore the unsustainability of the system as is. Isn't it funny that Democrats in the United States are billed as the economic wizards, and the trillion dollar surplus of 99' is always trotted out (Bam-Bam did it in the debate last Tuesday)? But, as you succinctly put it, that balance and surplus was directly dependent upon the acceleration of speculative venture capitalism. Clinton gets the white wash treatment in history simply because it didn't fall apart on his watch, and as sour and unpleasant as the following words are for me to type, Bush Jr. simply inherited - did not create - the situation we have today (ok, after that last sentence, I need a shower). That being said, the Enron debacle and market crash of 2001 right after 9/11, should have been an eye opener for the White House and Congress, but the Bush administration did nothing, and as adherents to the supply side philosophy (the Laffer curve is no laugher) used the Clintonian mechanisms of high risk market speculation to justify our unprecedented national debt.

Considering all of that, I still think the global economic crisis is the result of bungling and mistakes, not an orchestrated crash. I don't want to dismiss the NWO/Illuminatti crowd who believe that the crash is engineered to bring down tighter control, but, as noted in this thread, I disagree with that scenario. I am more concerned about the way the PTB will try to keep the wounded beast alive, not what they will replace it with.

Totally agree on Clinton. I'm not suggesting that the crash was orchestrated (though I might agree there have been attempts to direct the decline), nor would I agree that the current situation is the result of bumbling. The real question in my mind is whether or not Marx was right in that, because of the inherent contradictions within the system itself (such as the tendency for profit to decline over time) and because now raw materials come at an increasing cost, is it inevitable that the system will periodically go through convulsions which lead to depressions and which lead to wars. Because if this is true it is pointless to talk about good capitalism or bad capitalism, as 'good' capitalism will inevitably resolve into 'bad' capitalism once the contradictions reach a crescendo and the gloves come off.