Talk:Differential accumulation

Recession

This page is not very careful with its use of recession. Nitzan and Bichler's theory would not say that a period of stagflation necessarily coincides with "recession" when the GDP may actually contract. The trouble is the "plain-language example" tries to explain it by describing the entire economy as three firms. I think they get tied up in some misleading terms, but I'll need to research a bit more to show how. --Nubeli (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I created the plan language example on the original stagflation page in response to a Wiki notice stating that the page contained "too much jargon" and needed to be simplified in plain, clear language. The problem with "plain language examples" is that they do indeed tend oversimplify things Ubikk (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The plain language example suffers from some serious shortfalls and doesn't reference the differential accumulation to back up some assertions that are simply wrong. For one, it leaves out the whole political economy part. It tends to borrow from neo-classical economics that still holds that there exists such a thing as market equilibrium. Diff. accum. isn't based on market equilibrium of any kind, it is instead a direct critique. The example suggests that central banks lower interest rates during recessions, yet we're specifically talking about stagflation and not just any recession. The usual thing is to increase interest rates as inflation increases, not the reverse. Differential accumulation doesn't talk about oscillations between "recession and inflation"; it's about dominant capital swinging between stagflation and mergers and acquisition (where inflation is low). When neither strategy works deflation (where dominant capital is unable to sustain either stagflation or mergers and goes into crisis) is a threat (as it is in Jan 2009). It's dominant capital that creates these shifts in strategy, not outside entrepreneurs - the example is confusing it with traditional monopoly theory. Nubeli (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the original "plain language" example was oversimplfied, however, since it was removed the page now lacks a tangible tie-in of how the effects of the "mergers and aquisitions" can cause stagflation. Can someone perhaps come up with a substitute for that part of the theory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.63.195.2 (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That's part of the point. It's not clear that mergers and acquisitions can "cause" stagflation. There are still real people and companies making decisions on strategy. When mergers and acquisitions no longer seem sustainable there must be a general expectation among businessmen that raising prices is safe. Certainly it requires a strong core of capitalists but it doesn't mean that there's a "causal" effect. You are still stuck in the idea of the automaticity of the market. And that is something that Nitzan and Bichler have argued strongly against. So if you want to come up with a plain-language example, try not include original work and stick to the theory. Nubeli (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Misstates and Distorts Thesis

Will rework in my draft space after I finish Nitzan's original '98 paper. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ready to dismiss this; essentially the work redefines capital as a power relation and that based on differential ability to expropriate profit between competing sections of "dominant capital". 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)