<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: MR Zine:The Crisis of Capital: Economy, Ecology, and Empire</title>
	<atom:link href="http://leftnews.org/archives/2010/01/23/19846/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://leftnews.org/archives/2010/01/23/19846/</link>
	<description>News And Views From The Left</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:50:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Geoff</title>
		<link>http://leftnews.org/archives/2010/01/23/19846/comment-page-1/#comment-173074</link>
		<dc:creator>Geoff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 Jan 2010 17:39:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://leftnews.org/?p=19846#comment-173074</guid>
		<description>A very interesting lecture. This is the &quot;monopoly school&quot; take on the U.S. economy.  It&#039;s based on Baran and Sweezy&#039;s 1966 book, &lt;em&gt;Monopoly Capital&lt;/em&gt;.  The argument is that stagnation is the normal state of affairs in monopoly capitalism due to the so-called &quot;tendency of surplus to rise&quot;.  Stagnation, however, is punctuated by periods of moderate growth caused by external stimuli such as speculation.  This is their famous inversion:  Stagnation is the normal state of affairs, so it&#039;s the periods of growth that we have to explain.  I don&#039;t subscribe to the theory, but I think JBF points to some important empirical tendencies that have to be account for.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A very interesting lecture. This is the &#8220;monopoly school&#8221; take on the U.S. economy.  It&#8217;s based on Baran and Sweezy&#8217;s 1966 book, <em>Monopoly Capital</em>.  The argument is that stagnation is the normal state of affairs in monopoly capitalism due to the so-called &#8220;tendency of surplus to rise&#8221;.  Stagnation, however, is punctuated by periods of moderate growth caused by external stimuli such as speculation.  This is their famous inversion:  Stagnation is the normal state of affairs, so it&#8217;s the periods of growth that we have to explain.  I don&#8217;t subscribe to the theory, but I think JBF points to some important empirical tendencies that have to be account for.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

