TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
I'm sorry, I don't understand your post.
Your original response to my post "RMP3 - top post, but again, you're missing the main trick." I'm not sure it was a top post. The Point I was trying to make was little to do with the economy, and the causes of the recession. I was trying to answer isitmes question about Thatcher and Blairs landslides'. My fundamental point was that what Thatcher represented was merely a change in tactics of the ruling class from the " hidden class war" to the "open class war". Faced with a watershed in capitalist history, the ruling class within Britain, and throughout the world had been divided on how to respond, and Thatcherism and Reaganomics had united the ruling class with a common agenda. The main nature of the change that Thatcher represented, was a change in the balance of class forces, and Tony Blair did not do anything significantly different because he and New Labour merely represents a continuation in that change in the balance of class forces.
However, with regards to the economy, I still don't understand your point. If you agree the end of the postwar boom was inevitable with or without the oil crisis, why did you say "RMP3 - top post, but again, you're missing the main trick." And then go one about the oil crisis as if it was the main trick? I don't understand this at all.
The main trick is always A Tendency For The Rate Of Profit To Fall. The GLOBAL fall in the rate of profit can can been measured before the oil crisis, fact. The fundamental cause of the postwar boom was not cheap oil, it was the circumvention of profit from "over investment" to arms spending. This was made possible by the bipolar imperialism of the Cold War, but undermined by the non arms spending economies of Japan and Germany, to put it in at a very inadequate neo-marxist nutshell.
