The crisis of bourgeois economics

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14788
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The crisis of bourgeois economics

Post by blindpig » Wed Sep 03, 2025 2:42 pm

Image
“HUNGER and CAPITALISM: Pals.” Drawn by Hahn (Notecracker). From Volume 1, Number 2 of The Masses. WikiMedia Commons, Public Domain.

The chimera of a stabilized capitalism
By Prabhat Patnaik (Posted Sep 03, 2025)

Originally published: Peoples Democracy on August 31, 2025 (more by Peoples Democracy) |

THE vision of a capitalism that is “stabilised” through a rectification of its “excesses”, and hence pre-empts any social challenge to its existence, has always endured in one form or another among economists. This vision is in sharp contrast to the Marxist perception which holds that the only way that the so-called “excesses” of capitalism can be got rid of, is through a transcendence of capitalism itself. This vision of a rectified, and hence “stabilised” capitalism has of course been shown repeatedly to be a chimera; but that fact has not prevented the persistence of such a vision in one form or another.

The English economist John Maynard Keynes had seen this “excess” as consisting in the large-scale involuntary unemployment that the system was forever saddled with, not just in depressions when this unemployment got hugely magnified, but even in its ordinary quotidian existence. The mode of rectification according to him was through the intervention of the State by injecting demand into the system; and yet the capitalism which had supposedly been “rectified” with Keynes-inspired State intervention, instead of getting stabilised, got re-saddled once again by substantial unemployment, regarding which the State could do little in the new situation.

In a different context, in third world societies where the workings of capitalism have unleashed mass poverty that is increasing over time, a vision was held out that this situation could be stabilised, that the exclusion from resources of ever-growing number of people could be arrested, and even reversed, through the infusion of micro-credit, without any need for transcending the system. The World Bank was an enthusiastic promoter of the idea that while individual marginalised households might not be able to access credit on non-exploitative terms and hence take any initiative to improve their miserable living condition, through, for instance, the setting up of micro-enterprises, they could overcome this predicament by forming self-help groups. Institutional credit on easier terms could be accessed by such groups who could then take initiatives to improve their lot through small local business ventures.

What was striking about this World Bank vision is that it did not involve any simultaneous attempt on the part of the State to curb capitalism, to put restrictions on its spontaneous tendencies. In India for instance bank nationalisation was used to partially redirect institutional credit away from monopoly houses towards agriculture and small borrowers, which was an interference in, indeed a partial reversal of, the spontaneous tendency of capitalism to effect a process of centralisation of capital. The World Bank vision on micro-credit did not entail any nationalisation or any interference by the State in the spontaneous tendencies of capitalism. It visualised poverty and unemployment disappearing through the provision of micro-credit within the framework of capitalism itself (entities like the World Bank of course do not see capitalism as being characterised by any spontaneous tendencies whatsoever). So, for them it was a case of “having your cake and eating it too”; you could have your capitalism and yet overcome poverty, not through the usual route of transferring vast masses of hitherto unemployed or underemployed workers to capitalist enterprises, but by developing micro-enterprises locally, where the poor themselves live, through microcredit.

This of course was contrary to all experience. Wherever the setting up of micro-enterprises has succeeded in helping the poor, it has done so through significant State intervention rather than through the unrestricted functioning of capitalism; the obvious example here is the Kudumbasree experiment in Kerala, where, with the help of the state government, a large state-wide women’s cooperative has made significant progress in entering a diverse range of activities. But the World Bank, and a section of economists sympathetic to its view, persisted in believing in and propagating this chimera of micro-credit-sustained micro-enterprises eliminating poverty within the framework of an unrestricted capitalism.

Now a comprehensive study carried out by the All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA), which approached 9,000 women to share their experience of micro-credit, has revealed a truly alarming picture. The main findings of the AIDWA study which were presented along with testimonies by several witnesses at a public hearing in Delhi on August 23-24, were the following.

First, commercial banks, including even public sector banks like the State Bank of India, simply do not lend to women borrowers without some collateral and without several documents being presented which the potential borrowers find difficult to obtain. As a result, women borrowers from marginalised households are more or less completely excluded from direct institutional credit.

Second, these commercial banks lend instead to Non-Bank Financial Companies (NBFCs) and Micro Finance Institutions (MFIs) controlled by capitalists, which function as intermediaries. They borrow from banks at low rates of interest, less than 10 per cent, and lend to the final borrowers at exorbitant rates ranging between 21 and 26 per cent; and, what is more, such loans by banks to what are de facto the modern counterpart of the old village moneylender, are counted as priority sector lending!

Third, these NBFCs and MFIs resort to “loan pushing”, demanding very few documents from the borrowers, other than easily available ones like Aadhaar cards. But once the loan is taken, they harass the women ceaselessly for getting the EMIs, and subject them to terrible verbal and even physical abuse.

Fourth, since loans are often taken by the women for meeting education expenditure of the children and healthcare expenditure in case of sudden illness, which do not necessarily increase their income stream in the foreseeable future, repayment becomes difficult; and the exorbitant rates of interest further aggravate the problem. As a result, the borrowers are compelled to take loans from multiple sources on increasingly onerous terms, using a later loan to service the earlier ones. They get inexorably pushed into a vicious cycle of debt from which there is no escape. Thus, microcredit that was supposed to be an antidote to mass poverty within capitalism, becomes itself an instrument of pushing people, including women, deeper into poverty.

Ironically, this altered role of microcredit, from alleviating poverty within capitalism to accentuating it, occurs because of the functioning of capitalism itself. There are two ways in which the functioning of capitalism subverts what was considered to be an instrument of poverty alleviation into an instrument of poverty accentuation. The first is the macroeconomic consequence of the functioning of capitalism, which manifests itself in multiple ways: through the privatisation and hence commercialisation of services like education and healthcare that raise the costs of these services and necessitate borrowings by households that cannot be easily paid back; and through the crisis of stagnation of the material productive sectors, with which the system inevitably gets afflicted and which reduces employment opportunities, reduces household incomes, and hence pushes households further into debt. In other words, far from microcredit acting as an antidote to the tendency towards immiserisation that is immanent in capitalism, the microcredit system itself gets caught within the operation of this tendency and gets subverted over time, because it cannot prevent this tendency at the macroeconomic level.

The second way in which the functioning of capitalism subverts the microcredit system that is supposed to stabilise it by alleviating poverty, is by entering into this system itself. Capitalism in other words does not leave the microcredit system alone; it enters this system just as it enters into every other sphere where it sniffs some opportunity for making profits. As a result, instead of self-help groups of women from marginalised households getting institutional credit on cheap terms, NBFCs and MFIs controlled by capitalists become the receivers of cheap institutional credit and they try to make a “killing” by charging exorbitant rates to the marginalised households.

The tendency of capital is to enter every sphere where it sniffs an opportunity to make a profit, whether it is high finance or the manufacture of military equipment or retail trade; it should hardly be surprising therefore that it would also enter the very sphere that was created to provide an antidote to itself.

It is a chimera to believe that the immanent tendency of capitalism to create wealth at pole and poverty at another can be halted, and the system stabilised that way. It is a chimera to believe that arrangements like microcredit can be devised within capitalism itself to counteract the effects of such an immanent tendency. The entity that makes all such beliefs into a chimera is none other than capital itself.

https://mronline.org/2025/09/03/the-chi ... apitalism/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14788
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The crisis of bourgeois economics

Post by blindpig » Mon Sep 08, 2025 1:45 pm

Stablecoins Could Crash Our Economy
Posted on September 8, 2025 by Conor Gallagher

By Richard Murphy, Professor of Accounting Practice at Sheffield University Management School and a director of the Corporate Accountability Network. Originally published at Funding the Future

Stablecoins are being sold as safe, secure cryptocurrencies. In reality, they are shadow banking in disguise – with the same risks that nearly destroyed the global economy in 2008. Nobel Prize–winning economist Jean Tirole is worried, and so am I. If these private tokens collapse, the public will pick up the bill. It’s time to call stablecoins what they are: a threat to financial stability and democracy.



Stablecoins could crash our economy.

Now, admittedly, they will probably crash the US economy before they crash the UK economy, but once one economy crashes, most follow on. And stablecoins are a fundamental threat to our financial stability at present.

Let’s be clear what stablecoins are.  They are simply a form of cryptocurrency that are supposedly asset-backed. In other words, if you buy a stablecoin, and $280 billion has been invested in these things at this moment, then you buy an asset that is supposedly backed by US government bonds, and therefore, they are secure.

The emptiness of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies is avoided, supposedly, as a consequence, but as Nobel Prize-winning economist  Jean Tirole said recently, he is very, very worried by stablecoins. And he’s right to be so, because although people talk about them as if they are money, they are not.

They carry no guarantee from any government. And worse still, they’re not subject to any real supervision.

The danger is simple. When they collapse, and they may well do so, taxpayers are very likely to be forced to pick up the bill.

Tirole issued his warning in an interview with the Financial Times when he said that there is insufficient supervision of stablecoins. It’s a point I’ve made on this channel before now, and I’m glad to see somebody like him joining in, because what he’s saying is that  the whole multi-billion-dollar stablecoin market is at risk of failing, and that could create a future financial crisis,  and I really do not think he is over-egging his claim.

If depositors, whether retail or institutional, believe that they’re holding safe deposits, and that is the impression that they are given, then, when everything goes wrong, they will demand a government rescue. And governments fearing contagion and public anger will, at that time, probably have no choice but to intervene.

Now, what are the parallels?

Stablecoin recreates the dangers of shadow banking that we saw before the 2008 financial crash.

They pretend to be fully backed assets, just as the bonds that were marketed at that time claimed to be. But the risk is that the US Treasury bonds, that stablecoin funds are supposedly invested in, provide too low a yield in real terms to provide the backing for those who promote these funds, and they will therefore abandon this form of asset backing and instead go for riskier assets with higher returns. At that point,  the very idea of stability, which is implicit in the name stablecoin, will disappear, and one shock could collapse the whole system.

I’m already aware of the risk to US financial markets from the overvaluation of tech companies as a consequence of AI.  The S&P 500 is massively overvalued, as is the FTSE 100 in the UK. But stablecoins exaggerate this risk and elevate it to a different plane.

And that’s particularly the case because of the political involvement in stablecoins. Let’s be clear.  The US administration from Donald Trump onwards is heavily invested in stablecoins. In fact, in many cases, much of their personal wealth will be dependent upon the success of the stablecoin market.

As a consequence, they are likely to understate the need for effective regulation. Weak regulation is already a problem, but it’s going to get worse with cronyism, corruption and inevitable disaster, potentially following.

And the scale of the problem is big. I’ve already mentioned  $280 billion is now held in so-called stablecoins, and that’s not trivial.  It is a systemically significant sum equivalent to the size of a major bank failure. And when we know that major bank failures were the cause of the 2008 financial crisis, the world could not  afford Lehman to go, as happened, then we can see that this is something that could unravel and could unravel fast, creating the pressure for a taxpayer-funded bailout.

Stablecoins, however, do something even worse than bank failures did.  They actually link themselves to the US dollar. But at the same time, they are not dollars. They are not money, but they undermine, by the way in which they’re issued, the ability of the government and central banks to control money.

Effectively, they’re creating a parallel private currency, and they shift control over money creation to private speculators and crypto-oligarchs as a consequence. That means democratic states could lose the ability to run their own economic policies.

And when we look at who is behind these currencies, we might believe that this is deliberate because, remember, the far-right and some crypto enthusiasts in the USA are closely related. And the far-right has no love for the US state or the state in any other country , or the power that it has over economies.

So is the risk another 2008?

Could we have a repeat of the financial breakdown of that year when shadow banking nearly destroyed the global financial system?

The answer is, of course, that is possible.

Private actors now chasing high returns, just as they did in 2008, when regulators looked the other way,  could exploit the current situation when regulators are going to be doing exactly the same thing under pressure from the Trump administration.

When the bubble burst, governments bailed out the system in 2008. The risk is that the same might happen now.

This risk is something that we have to understand. Finance loves to dress old risks in new language and call them innovation. Stablecoins are just another form of unregulated deposit-taking, in fact. They aren’t innovative. There is nothing genuinely new about them, or in pretending that private tokens are as safe as state-backed money.  All the gains go to speculators. The losses will be dumped on the public.

And stablecoins aren’t just a technical issue. That risk of failure also makes them a democratic one. If private money creation replaces public authority, accountability disappears. The economic policy risk that could flow from this, as a consequence of the greed of oligarchs and their political patrons, is to the whole idea of elected government.

Stablecoins erode democratic sovereignty and hand control to unaccountable elites.  So, regulators must stop pretending that stablecoins are harmless experiments. They must recognise them for what they are: systemic risks in the making. And governments should not allow the private minting of tokens that mimic safe deposits.

Every single stablecoin must come with the most prominent government-issued economic health warning because they really do require them.

The fact is, money is and must remain a public good managed under democratic authority. And that is the role of democracy. The debate is not about financial stability. It is about political power.

Who controls money creation, governments or private speculators?  Stablecoin has tilted power away from democracy, at the time being, towards oligarchs and political insiders. Now we have to be honest. There is a fight on our hands as to who is to run our economies and in whose interests.

Jean Tirole is right in that sense to be very, very worried, as he said he was to the Financial Times.  But you don’t need to be a Nobel laureate to be so.

Stablecoins are shadow banking with new branding, cronyism, plus systemic risk, in other words.

The path that they set us on is one to bailouts, lost sovereignty, and weakened democracy.

If we value stability and democracy, governments must act now to shut them down, whatever those who are making a supposed fortune at present from those who are depositing funds, which are put at risk as a consequence, will say.

The technocrats, the oligarchs, and those who are exploiting the weaknesses of regulation have to be prevented from destroying a great deal that is of value in our societies.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2025/09 ... onomy.html
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14788
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The crisis of bourgeois economics

Post by blindpig » Fri Sep 12, 2025 1:50 pm

A.I. Valuations Reach La La Land

The Artificial Intelligence mania has officially reached la la land.

Oracle, OpenAI Sign Massive $300 Billion Cloud Computing Deal (archived) - Wall Street Journal
The majority of new revenue revealed by Oracle will come from OpenAI deal, sources say

OpenAI signed a contract with Oracle to purchase $300 billion in computing power over roughly five years, people familiar with the matter said, a massive commitment that far outstrips the startup’s current revenue.
...
The Oracle contract will require 4.5 gigawatts of power capacity, roughly comparable to the electricity produced by more than two Hoover Dams or the amount consumed by about four million homes.
Oracle shares surged by as much as 43% on Wednesday after the cloud company revealed it added $317 billion in future contract revenue during its latest quarter that ended in Aug. 31.


The increase in Oracle's potential future revenue (not profits) does not justify the increase of its share price. Especially as the whole deal is unlikely to ever being fulfilled:

The OpenAI and Oracle contract, which starts in 2027, is a risky gamble for both companies. OpenAI is a money-losing startup that disclosed in June it was generating roughly $10 billion in annual revenue—less than one-fifth of the $60 billion it will have to pay on average every year. Oracle is concentrating a large chunk of its future revenue on one customer—and will likely have to take on debt to buy the AI chips needed to power the data centers.

OpenAI promises to pay $300 billion for computing power provided by Oracle. It is unlikely to ever make that much in revenues. Oracle does not have the money to build up the computing power it has sold. It is also already over-indebted:

Compared with Microsoft, Amazon and Meta, the biggest spenders of the AI age, Oracle has a far greater debt load relative to its cash holdings. The cloud company’s spending to keep up with the AI boom is already outstripping its cash flow, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence. Microsoft has a total debt to equity ratio of 32.7% compared with 427% for Oracle.

OpenAI is making large losses and is unlikely to be profitable within the next five years. The company does not even have a profitable product that could allow it to sustain the cost of the Oracle deal:

OpenAI’s billions in annual losses are set to accelerate in the near term. Altman told investors last fall that OpenAI would lose $44 billion through 2029, the first year in which he predicted the company would turn a profit. It also faces other challenges, like converting its corporate structure to a for-profit. Roughly $19 billion of committed funding is conditional on OpenAI completing that restructuring.
...
The company is expecting that money will flood in from corporations paying for more advanced features and other AI companies using its technology. But that rests on an assumption that its AI models will improve dramatically—and that companies will find ways to wring profits from the technology.


The launch of ChatGPT 5.0, the latest Large Language Model (LLM) OpenAI provides, was a disappointment. The new version is little better than its predecessor. LLMs continue to based on be pretty simple machine learning technics. They do not have an internal 'world model' that would allow them to contextualize the static results their machine learning parts are generating:

Many of generative A.I.’s shortcomings can be traced back to failures to extract proper world models from their training data. This explains why the latest large language models, for example, are unable to fully grasp how chess works. As a result, they have a tendency to make illegal moves, no matter how many games they’ve been trained on. We need systems that don’t just mimic human language; we need systems that understand the world so that they can reason about it in a deeper way.

In the quest of a general artificial intelligence machines LLMs are a dead-end street.

Gary Marcus, who has forgotten more about AI than I know, calls the Oracle-OpenAI deal Peak Bubble - It’s hard to see how this won’t end badly:

]Oracle’s new market cap, near a trillion dollars, up nearly 50% this week, driven largely by this one apparently non-binding deal with a party that doesn’t have the money to pay for the services, seems more bonkers than most.
..
It’s not just Oracle, though. The other problem here is that the total value of the tech market as whole, which is supposed to reflect the future of value of the companies within it, far exceeds what is likely ever to be delivered.
...
We are well past peak bubble, in fact, and into peak musical chairs. It’s not going to be pretty when the music stops.


Even the Economist is warning of the oncoming crash:

What if the $3trn AI investment boom goes wrong? (archived) - Economist
Even if the technology achieves its potential, plenty of people will lose their shirts

IT ALREADY RANKS among the biggest investment booms in modern history. This year America’s large tech firms will spend nearly $400bn on the infrastructure needed to run artificial-intelligence (ai) models. OpenAI and Anthropic, the world’s leading model-makers, are raising billions every few months; their combined valuation is approaching half a trillion dollars. Analysts reckon that by the end of 2028 the sums spent worldwide on data centres will exceed $3trn.
The scale of these bets is so vast that it is worth asking what will happen at payback time. Even if the technology succeeds, plenty of people will lose their shirts. And if it doesn’t, the economic and financial pain will be swift and severe.


When the bubble burst comes, and it will come, there will be little of value left from it:

What would such an ai chill be like? For a start, a lot of today’s spending could prove worthless. After its 19th-century railway mania, Britain was left with track, tunnels and bridges; much of this serves passengers today. Bits and bytes still whizz through the fibre-optic networks built in the dotcom years. The ai boom may leave a less enduring legacy. Although the shells of data centres and new power capacity could find other uses, more than half the capex splurge has been on servers and specialised chips that become obsolete in a few years.

The AI stocks are all overvalued and their shares, which currently make up a third of the total S&P500 market value, will eventually crash. The consequences will be harsh:

To make matters worse, falls in the stockmarket could cause asset owners to cut back on their spending. Because the valuations of ai-related companies have rocketed, portfolios today are dominated by a handful of tech firms. And households are more exposed to stocks than they were in 2000; if prices fall, their confidence and spending could take a knock. The poorest would be spared, because they tend to hold few stocks. But it is the rich who have fuelled consumption in America over the past year. Robbed of its sources of strength, the economy would weaken as tariffs and high interest rates take a toll.

I well remember the crash of dot-com bubble as many of my friends in the IT industry got hurt in it. The upcoming AI-bubble crash is likely to have a worse outcome.

Posted by b on September 12, 2025 at 13:09 UTC | Permalink

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2025/09/a ... .html#more
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14788
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The crisis of bourgeois economics

Post by blindpig » Thu Sep 25, 2025 2:39 pm

“US Will Drive Its $35T Debt Into Crypto:” Senior Putin Advisor Anton Kobyakov

This accusation was made during an Eastern Economic Forum symposium.
Karl Sanchez
Sep 25, 2025

Image

The crypto world’s media websites and even some mainstream ones like Forbes have covered this latest issue that has yet to go mainstream, which it might not given the implications if Mr. Kobyakov’s correct. A Yandex web search using Anton Kobyakov stablecoin as the search terms yields many pages of results most of which are articles that echo each other, although the sites aren’t very user friendly with all their ads. I did manage to find a very informative article that I’m about to share from crypto.news that covers the history of previous Outlaw US Empire manipulations to offload its debt issues onto the global system. Given the gangster behavior of Team Trump, such a scheme cannot be discounted, and IMO must be anticipated. So, without any further introduction, here’s “US will drive its $35T debt into crypto”, Kremlin warns — reset or propaganda?
Is the US preparing a debt escape plan hidden as Putin’s adviser suggests — one that could devalue trillions and force the world to adjust?

Kobyakov’s debt reset accusation

During the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok on Sep. 6, Anton Kobyakov, senior adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin, gave a sharp view on how the U.S. may be attempting to manage its $35 trillion national debt.

He claimed that Washington is exploring a strategy to transfer part of its liabilities into cryptocurrencies, specifically stablecoins, which he described as a kind of “crypto cloud.”

In his view, such a move could allow the U.S. to devalue its obligations and trigger a rapid financial reset, once again pushing economic risk outward onto the global system.

Kobyakov presented gold and digital currencies as increasingly viable alternatives to traditional government-backed money. He argued that these instruments could be used to ease domestic fiscal strain while reshaping the global financial order.

To back his claim, he pointed to earlier turning points in American monetary history, including the 1930s abandonment of the gold standard and the 1971 exit from the Bretton Woods agreement.

Both episodes, he said, reshaped global monetary dynamics and shifted the costs of adjustment onto other nations. He also suggested that a similar transition today could unfold within 3 to 5 years.

Let’s try to understand what may be occurring behind the scenes and examine whether these claims stand up to the current realities of global finance.

How the U.S. used rule changes to manage its debt

Historical records show that the U.S. has, at key moments, altered its monetary system in ways that allowed it to manage debt pressures without defaulting in formal terms.

While domestic reasons such as deflation, reserve imbalances, or inflation control were cited as triggers, the outcomes frequently involved global ripple effects that supported U.S. solvency at the expense of creditors.

The first instance unfolded between 1933 and 1934 during the Great Depression. Faced with plunging prices and widespread bank failures, the Roosevelt administration moved quickly to break the dollar’s link to gold.

Laws were passed to seize gold holdings, nullify gold-payment clauses in both public and private contracts, and revalue gold from $20.67 to $35 per ounce.

That change alone created nearly $2.8 billion in paper profits, which seeded the Treasury’s Exchange Stabilization Fund, a vehicle used to influence currency markets with minimal Congressional oversight.

These measures not only lifted domestic prices but also reduced the real weight of dollar-denominated debt, in part because contracts once tied to fixed gold weights were now settled in paper currency that had already declined in real terms.

The Supreme Court upheld these changes in 1935, effectively insulating the U.S. from legal challenges to the re-denomination of obligations.

Nearly four decades later, a second transformation took place. The Bretton Woods system had anchored the global monetary order since the 1940s, with the dollar convertible to gold at a fixed rate of $35 per ounce.

But in the 1960s, rising external liabilities and insufficient U.S. gold reserves created doubts about that commitment. Stopgap measures such as the London Gold Pool and the introduction of IMF Special Drawing Rights delayed but did not resolve the imbalance.

In 1971, President Nixon suspended gold convertibility for foreign governments and imposed domestic price controls. The move unilaterally ended the dollar’s gold backing and forced the rest of the world to absorb a floating fiat regime.

In 1973, global currencies were no longer anchored to gold, and the dollar’s value was now shaped by market forces rather than metal parity.

These two episodes are widely studied for their effects on debt dynamics. After each shift, U.S. inflation accelerated. In the 1970s, consumer prices rose more than 13% annually at their peak while interest rates often lagged behind, resulting in negative real returns.

That meant creditors holding fixed-rate claims, whether pension funds, savers, or foreign central banks, saw the real value of those assets shrink. In economic terms, the government reduced its debt burden through inflation and currency devaluation without missing a payment.

Viewed from this perspective, Kobyakov’s argument is not without precedent. In both cases, the 1930s and early 1970s, the U.S. changed core monetary rules in response to internal pressures while the financial cost of adjustment was partially absorbed by external creditors.

That distinction forms the basis of what critics have long described as an asymmetry embedded in the dollar system.

The phrase “exorbitant privilege,” coined in the 1960s by French finance minister Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, captured this frustration by pointing to the ability of the U.S. to borrow in its own currency, rewrite rules when necessary, and leave others to adjust.

GENIUS Act formalizes the crypto–debt connection

In July, President Donald Trump signed the GENIUS Act, creating a federal framework for payment stablecoins and opening a new chapter in how crypto finance connects with government debt. Sovereign debt refers to the money the U.S. borrows through bonds and Treasuries.

The law sets strict requirements for issuers. Stablecoins must be backed fully by cash or short-term U.S. Treasuries; issuers must publish monthly reserve disclosures, follow anti-money laundering rules, and obtain direct federal licenses.

Its passage comes at a time when stablecoin reserves are already becoming intertwined with the U.S. public debt market.

Leading issuers such as Tether and Circle back their tokens with short-dated government securities and repo instruments. Repo instruments are short-term loans secured by Treasuries. That practice creates a direct link between crypto platforms and government funding.

As of Sep. 9, the combined supply of stablecoins stands near $300 billion. Tether accounts for roughly $169 billion, while USD Coin is close to $72 billion.

The figure remains small compared to the $35 trillion national debt, yet the reserves behind these tokens represent a steady source of demand for Treasury bills. Crypto platforms are now tied into the short-term borrowing system Washington relies on to keep its financing running.

Concentration risk adds another layer. Tether’s most recent attestation showed holdings of more than $127 billion in Treasuries, an amount comparable to a mid-size sovereign nation’s creditor position.

Tether is based offshore and serves a global user base, so its inflows and redemptions follow international market conditions rather than U.S. domestic cycles. Sudden changes in activity can shift demand for Treasury bills and ripple into the broader market’s liquidity.

The connection matters because stablecoin reserves do not reduce federal liabilities, but they influence how those liabilities are financed.

Continuous demand for Treasury bills helps anchor the short end of the yield curve, pushing yields lower and reducing government borrowing costs.

When inflation runs above those yields, the real value of debt shrinks over time. The burden is not eliminated but instead transferred onto global holders of tokenized cash, ranging from everyday users to large institutions in crypto markets.

The pattern recalls earlier U.S. moves that reshaped debt repayment terms without outright default. Whether deliberate or emergent, the stablecoin structure now makes it possible to ease the real weight of federal debt while leaving existing contracts formally intact.

The “crypto cloud” doesn’t erase debt

The issue raised by Kobyakov is not whether the U.S. can erase $35 trillion in liabilities through stablecoins. The more pressing question is whether the global financial system can withstand another shift in U.S. monetary rules without breaking trust in the dollar.

The dollar has anchored international finance since the mid-20th century, and its importance was never only about convertibility or trade. It was also about consistency.

After the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1971, the dollar remained dominant. Its share of global reserves peaked around 85% and still stands near 58 to 59% today, according to IMF data.

That share is no longer fixed. Central banks have been steadily diversifying their reserves. IMF reports show more allocations to the euro, gold, and smaller currency baskets that include the Chinese yuan.

The World Gold Council reported record levels of official gold buying in 2023 and 2024. Central banks in China, Turkey, and India added hundreds of tonnes combined, pushing gold’s share of global reserves closer to 24%.

Alternative systems are also growing. China and Russia have expanded cross-border settlement in local currencies. Trials of China’s digital yuan have processed billions in volume, and Russia’s central bank is running pilot programs for a digital ruble.

That environment makes U.S. stablecoin legislation more complicated in its effects. On one hand, the GENIUS Act and the participation of large asset managers in tokenized funds expand the reach of the dollar into digital finance.

On the other hand, the structure brings more users and institutions into a system where U.S. policy choices directly shape their returns.

That broader participation changes how risk is spread. In the past, monetary shifts were absorbed mainly by foreign governments or large institutional creditors. The stablecoin era creates a much wider base.

The concept of a “crypto cloud” does not remove debt from view. It spreads the consequences across a larger pool of holders many of whom may not realize the part they play in carrying that burden.
Here’s what Mr. Kobyakov said while a symposium panelist at the Eastern Economic Forum that also includes video or his performance:
The U.S. is now trying to rewrite the rules of the gold and cryptocurrency markets. Remember the size of their debt—35 trillion dollars. These two sectors (crypto and gold) are essentially alternatives to the traditional global currency system.

Washington’s actions in this area clearly highlight one of its main goals: to urgently address the declining trust in the dollar.

As in the 1930s and the 1970s, the U.S. plans to solve its financial problems at the world’s expense—this time by pushing everyone into the “crypto cloud.” Over time, once part of the U.S. national debt is placed into stablecoins, Washington will devalue that debt.

Put simply: they have a $35 trillion currency debt, they’ll move it into the crypto cloud, devalue it—and start from scratch.

That’s the reality for those who are so enthusiastic about crypto.”
Since he was a panelist, it must be assumed he said much more than the 75 seconds we have on record. I haven’t done a deep dive to try and find more; my effort was more like a very shallow dip. Escobar was at the Forum yet has said nothing about this very important issue. Dr. Hudson was asked about the stablecoin during his quarterly Patreon chat on 13 June which I’ve reported on before. Here he explains it beyond what was relayed above:
Well, the dollar’s gone down 10% so far under Trump, and falling.

So suppose you say: Oh, I’m going to buy 10-year Treasury securities. They’ve been yielding 4.5% for the last couple of months.

Well, what’s the point of investing in Treasury securities, getting your 4.5% in dollars? That’s okay, but if the dollar goes down by 10%, then you end up losing 5.5% on your investment. So it’s not really something that is safe at all.

This is the same problem with stablecoin. Stablecoin says: We’re investing every dollar that you put into the crypto stablecoin in Treasury securities.

Well, that’s fine. That means that the holder of stablecoin gets a Treasury security, but he or she doesn’t get any of the interest payment on it.

It’s the stablecoin or the other crypto company that organizes the crypto that says: Okay, you know, we’ve invested their money in stablecoin. We’re taking all of the interest for ourselves. We’re making billions and billions of dollars on this.

Well, one problem is they also will get the capital gain, if the dollar goes up, or the capital loss, if the dollar goes down.

So, suppose that you’ve invested in stablecoin and now all the investors say: Okay, we don’t want to be part of an international financial system whose purpose is to finance America’s military deficit and NATO’s war on the 85% global majority. So please give us our money back.

Well, the stablecoin company [says]: Alright, we’ll sell all of the Treasury securities that we’ve invested your money safely in.

But as they sell these securities, they’ll be getting much less dollar money than was put in because the interest rates will probably go up, meaning the price of these securities is going to fall as people cash into securities and make withdrawals.

Even though it’s all safely invested in securities, the securities prices go up and down.
For many years, I watched Dr. Hudson as a guest of Max Keiser on his Keiser Report that heavily promoted bitcoin and other crypto; and while Max clearly valued Dr. Hudson’s macroeconomic views, he could never get him to endorse crypto, nor could Max refute Hudson’s strong arguments against crypto. Another voice that sang in the wilderness on this issue was Yanis Varoufakis issuing the alarm over Technofeudalism. In this recent short essay, he describes why stablecoins are a threat and offers a very unique way out from the problem. Yet, he also shows why his suggestion will be rejected by the West’s bankers. In this long conversation with Dr. Hudson, Yanis gets into the issue of cloud capital and the threat it poses which he sees as the basis for the rise of technofeudalism. Digital national currencies aren’t the problem as they’re merely a medium different from paper or metal and are controlled by central banks that issue transparent reports to their citizen (in most cases) bosses.

The bottom-line problem was announced above—the dollars consistency, or nowadays with its having been weaponized, its great inconsistency and massive lack of trust in the system the Outlaw US Empire created in 1944-5 that it upended on one major occasion and seems bent on doing so again. Thus, the global migration away from the dollar. What appears to be the preferred method out of this dilemma for the Global Majority is to use their national currencies for most commerce and to use special central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) to deal with trade imbalances, both of which circumvent the dollar. CBDCs will require a specialized bank and transmission network to properly function, and both are now being formulated. If the world is to avoid getting financially screwed again by the Outlaw US Empire, it must hustle to finish its new international financial system before the stablecoin scam gains enough capital to become detrimental internationally. The oligarchs behind and within Team Trump have figured out a way to use debt as a weapon but it takes awhile to load the gun. The Trade War won’t end with Trump; the interest on the debt is too big a problem as it must be paid annually without relying on the printing of more money to pay it as that’s very inflationary. And much of that interest is owed to US-based oligarchs who will demand it be paid—their wealth is the debt owed to them. If the debt isn’t paid, their wealth disappears.

https://karlof1.substack.com/p/us-will- ... nto-crypto
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14788
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The crisis of bourgeois economics

Post by blindpig » Mon Oct 13, 2025 2:03 pm

Image

Private data tells the story Washington won’t: Jobs are disappearing

Originally published: The Black Press USA on 2025 by Stacy M. Brown (more by The Black Press USA) (Posted Oct 13, 2025)

With the federal government shutdown grinding on, the nation’s economic picture is collapsing into silence and uncertainty. For the first time in decades, there is no official monthly employment report from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics–the same agency many now say can no longer be trusted after the White House moved to control its data release following a weak jobs report earlier this year. In the vacuum, private firms have stepped forward with independent analyses that show the country losing jobs and faith at the same time.

ADP’s National Employment Report found that private-sector employers shed 32,000 jobs in September, reversing the modest gains of the summer. Annual pay for job-stayers rose 4.5 percent, showing that wages are inching up even as hiring slows. “Despite the strong economic growth we saw in the second quarter, this month’s release further validates what we’ve been seeing in the labor market–that U.S. employers have been cautious with hiring,” said Dr. Nela Richardson, ADP’s chief economist. The ADP data showed the heaviest losses in manufacturing, construction, and professional services, with small and medium-sized companies suffering the steepest cuts. The Midwest lost 63,000 jobs, and gains in the West could not offset the slide.

Bank of America’s Institute Employment Report reinforced that picture, finding “a continued cooling of the labor market.” Its data showed a 10 percent year-over-year rise in unemployment payments made to customer accounts, nearly double the most recent increase reported by the government before the shutdown. Lower-income workers continue to trail others, with after-tax wage growth of just 1.4 percent compared with 4.0 percent for higher-income households.

Goldman Sachs produced its own estimate after the Labor Department was forced to halt publication. The investment bank calculated that initial claims for unemployment benefits rose to 224,000 in the week ending September 27, up from 218,000 a week earlier. The number of people receiving benefits slipped slightly to 1.91 million, using state-level data and seasonal adjustments that were pre-released before the shutdown. Reuters reported that the Chicago Federal Reserve used private “real-time” indicators to estimate the national unemployment rate at 4.3 percent, though without federal verification, that figure is uncertain.

Global investment firm Carlyle also stepped in, releasing its own economic indicators drawn from its portfolio of 277 companies and nearly 730,000 employees. Carlyle estimated that U.S. employers added only 17,000 jobs in September and that real private residential construction spending declined 2.5 percent, even as business investment rose 4.8 percent, driven by technology and artificial intelligence projects. “Corporate spending, particularly in technology and AI infrastructure, continues to power growth while household consumption ends the quarter on a high note,” said Jason Thomas, Carlyle’s Head of Global Research and Investment Strategy.

Yet while private analysts fill the gap left by a silenced federal government, the shutdown’s impact on workers and families has become its most defining consequence.

A newly revealed memo from the Office of Management and Budget claims that federal workers forced into furlough during the ongoing shutdown may not receive back pay once the ordeal ends. In open defiance of the law, the administration argues that the 2019 Government Employee Fair Treatment Act does not automatically guarantee wages to workers sent home or ordered to labor without compensation. The government that once promised fairness has now declared that those who serve it may be discarded. This is not confusion. It is control. Mark Paoletta, the administration’s top lawyer at the budget office, wrote that Congress must pass new legislation to authorize those payments. His reasoning is what one former Republican official called “clearly against its intent.” In other words, the government rewrote the law to justify punishing the very people who keep it running.

President Trump offered no compassion, only contempt. “It depends on who we’re talking about,” he said when asked if furloughed workers would receive back pay. “There are some people who really don’t deserve to be taken care of, and we’ll take care of them in a different way.” Those words echo not from a leader, but from a ruler measuring human worth as though it were a currency. Across the country, millions now live the consequences of those words. Families of federal workers stare at empty refrigerators–the most recent estimate revealed that more than 49,000 District residents, or 13 percent, are federally employed–and rent notices pile up. CNN reported that many workers will receive smaller paychecks this week, the last they may see until the shutdown ends. What kind of democracy weaponizes hunger against its own citizens?

The administration’s defiance also contradicts its own Office of Personnel Management, which stated that “employees who were furloughed as a result of the lapse will receive retroactive pay for those furlough periods” once the shutdown ends. But this White House does not deal in law; it deals in loyalty. It rewards obedience and punishes dissent. It governs by threat and humiliation. And as the government remains closed and official data suppressed, America’s workers–both public and private–are left to piece together their own picture of a country in economic and moral decline.

https://mronline.org/2025/10/13/private ... appearing/

(It'll take a lot more than Trump's departure from the scene to halt this country's moral decline. Only a revolution to topple capitalism can do that.)
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14788
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The crisis of bourgeois economics

Post by blindpig » Fri Oct 31, 2025 2:44 pm

The worst ever capitalist crisis can only be solved by a socialist planned economy

Only socialist planned production can overcome the crises of capitalist overproduction and deliver wealth, peace and equality to the working masses.
Proletarian writers

Wednesday 30 April 2025

Image
Socialist production is planned to meet the physical, social and cultural needs of the people, as seen in the modern cities of today’s DPRK and China.

Congress notes that it is 200 years since the global capitalist system experienced its first crisis of overproduction, and that, since that time, the whole of humanity has experienced the economic disruption and social dislocation of its periodic recurrence roughly every decade. We note that the incumbent Labour administration has no answer to this most profound crisis of capitalism, despite Labour’s former chancellor Gordon Brown arrogantly claiming in his 2000 budget speech that he had “abolished the cycle of boom and bust”.

Congress notes that it was this very same Gordon Brown, as Labour prime minister in 2008, who led Britain to bail out the banks, in response to the 2008 ‘subprime mortgage’ crisis – a crisis of capitalist overproduction. When the housing market was collapsing; when the stock exchange was plunging and big banks were failing, Brown declared that the private institutions of the billionaire financial elite, the means by which the monopolist exploiting ruling class use their wealth to dominate global production and therefore humanity, were “too big to fail”.

Brown’s mass programme of financial aid from the public sector – principally the taxes of the working people – to the finance capitalists cost the national exchequer an estimated £1.16tn. (Bank reforms: how much did we bail them out and how much do they still owe?, The Guardian, 12 November 2011)

The global bail-out was so large that economists and politicians still argue over its magnitude, in an attempt to hide the extent of their crime. The bailout in the USA alone has been estimated in trillions. (The Special Inspector General for TARP summary of the bailout says that the total commitment of government was $16.8tn dollars with the $4.6tn already paid out [by 2012].) (The big bank bailout by Mike Collins, Forbes, 14 July 2015)

Congress notes that the 2008 ‘subprime’ crisis was a classic overproduction crisis. It followed the ‘bursting of the dotcom bubble’ in 2000 and was followed in turn by the ‘Covid’ crisis, during which not one but two consecutive ‘black days’ (Black Monday, 9 March 2020 and Black Thursday, 12 March 2020) bedevilled the global stock markets and saw billions wiped off their value.

“In total, the Dow Jones Industrial Average bottomed out with a loss of 37 percent of its value in 2020 while the S&P 500 lost 34 percent. Global indexes, such as the FTSE 100 in the UK, the DAX in Germany, and the Nikkei in Tokyo, all posted double-digit percentage declines.” (An international comparison of the cost of energy support packages, Office for Budgetary Responsibility, March 2023)

Donald Trump’s incumbent (first) administration pumped an estimated $3tn to the corporate elite (as well as to other businesses) to prop up their shares, while Britain’s ‘Covid bailout’ was variously estimated between £500bn and £850bn over three years. This was the money from which healthcare, welfare payments and social services of all kinds would otherwise have been funded.

This rampant state spending to prop up failing private companies has resulted in a mountain of government debt, which the working people are paying via taxes, and which has resulted in a period of deepening austerity.

The looting of national assets by capital is just one aspect of the growing polarisation of wealth – a demonstration of the way in which the bourgeoisie is able to use its hold over the state power. But these periods of intense crisis also lead to the killing of many smaller capitalists by the largest. They are periods of intense monopolisation and concentration of wealth.

Deepening poverty, perversely, leads to a decrease in ‘apparent demand’ (demand backed by money). The growing ranks of the destitute and penniless, under capitalism, exercise no demand. Markets stagnate, further reducing demand, deepening and accelerating the global crisis. Consequently, poverty levels and income disparity are worsening – in Britain and globally.

The world’s ten richest men more than doubled their fortunes from $700bn to $1.5tn – at a rate of $15,000 per second or $1.3bn a day – during the first two years of the Covid pandemic that saw the incomes of 99 percent of humanity fall and over 160 million more people forced into poverty.

“If these ten men were to lose 99.999 percent of their wealth tomorrow, they would still be richer than 99 percent of all the people on this planet. They now have six times more wealth than the poorest 3.1 billion people.” (Ten richest men double their fortunes in pandemic while incomes of 99 percent of humanity fall, Oxfam, 17 January 2022)

Wealth inequality is high and rising and more marked than income inequality. In the UK, the bottom 50 percent of the population owned less than 5 percent of wealth in 2021, and the top 10 percent a staggering 57 percent (up from 52.5 percent in 1995). The top one percent alone held 23 percent. (World Inequality Lab, 2022)

The ratio of wealth to income has risen in Britain from 2.3 to one in 1948 to 5.7 to one in 2020. All of which has a significant impact on life chances and outcomes and generates high levels of poverty amongst those with no wealth assets to fall back on. (Changing the narrative on wealth inequality, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2024)

More than one in five people in the UK (21 percent) were in poverty in 2022/23 – 14.3 million people. Of these, 8.1 million were working-age adults, 4.3 million were children and 1.9 million were pensioners. To put it another way, around two in every ten adults are in poverty in the UK and around three in every ten children. (Poverty report 2025, Joseph Rowntree Foundation)

Meanwhile, real unemployment – the ‘economically inactive’ portion of the working-age population – in the UK is in excess of 25 percent.

Congress notes that the cause of these stark statistics in the sixth-richest nation on earth is capitalism. And that each one of the crises listed above has been a classical capitalist crisis of overproduction, as vividly described by Engels:

“As a matter of fact, since 1825, when the first general crisis broke out, the whole industrial and commercial world, production and exchange among all civilised peoples and their more or less barbaric hangers-on, are thrown out of joint about once every ten years. Commerce is at a standstill, the markets are glutted, products accumulate, as multitudinous as they are unsaleable, hard cash disappears, credit vanishes, factories are closed, the mass of the workers are in want of the means of subsistence, because they have produced too much of the means of subsistence; bankruptcy follows upon bankruptcy, execution upon execution.

“The stagnation lasts for years; productive forces and products are wasted and destroyed wholesale, until the accumulated mass of commodities finally filters off, more or less depreciated in value, until production and exchange gradually begin to move again. Little by little the pace quickens. It becomes a trot. The industrial trot breaks into a canter, the canter in turn grows into the headlong gallop of a perfect steeplechase of industry, commercial credit, and speculation, which finally, after break-neck leaps, ends where it began – in the ditch of a crisis. And so over and over again.

“We have now, since the year 1825, gone through this five times, and at the present moment [2025!] we are going through it [once more]. And the character of these crises is so clearly defined that Fourier hit all of them off when he described the first as crise plethorique, a crisis from plethora [from plenty, from ‘too much’].

“In these crises, the contradiction between socialised production and capitalist appropriation ends in a violent explosion. The circulation of commodities is, for the time being, stopped. Money, the means of circulation, becomes a hindrance to circulation. All the laws of production and circulation of commodities are turned upside down. The economic collision has reached its apogee. The mode of production is in rebellion against the mode of exchange, the productive forces are in rebellion against the mode of production which they have outgrown.

“The fact that the socialised organisation of production within the factory [and within the global division of labour, operated by the monopolists in their transnational corporations] has developed so far that it has become incompatible with the anarchy of production in society, which exists side by side with and dominates it, is brought home to the capitalists themselves by the violent concentration of capital that occurs during crises, through the ruin of many large, and a still greater number of small, capitalists.

“The whole mechanism of the capitalist mode of production breaks down under the pressure of the productive forces, its own creations. It is no longer able to turn all this mass of means of production into capital. They lie fallow, and for that very reason the industrial reserve army must also lie fallow.

“Means of production, means of subsistence, available labourers, all the elements of production and of general wealth, are present in abundance. But “abundance becomes the source of distress and want” (Fourier), because it is the very thing that prevents the transformation of the means of production and subsistence into capital.

“For in capitalistic society the means of production can only function when they have undergone a preliminary transformation into capital, into the means of exploiting human labour-power.

“The necessity of this transformation into capital of the means of production and subsistence stands like a ghost between these and the workers. It alone prevents the coming together of the material and personal levers of production; it alone forbids the means of production to function, the workers to work and live. On the one hand, therefore, the capitalistic mode of production stands convicted of its own incapacity to further direct these productive forces.

“On the other, these productive forces themselves, with increasing energy, press forward to the removal of the existing contradiction, to the abolition of their quality as capital, to the practical recognition of their character as social productive forces.” (F Engels, Anti-Dühring, 1877, Part 3, Chapter 2)

Congress notes that one need hardly to add more; that while capitalism exists, humanity will continue to be thrown into crises, begetting all the ills of unemployment, misery and want amid plenty. But we note also the following factors that compound and exacerbate the crisis we are now experiencing, making it the most protracted and drawn-out that humanity has known.

The unprecedented global extent of the domination of imperialism (monopoly capitalism) has drawn the majority of the world’s population and productive capacity into one enormous world market, particularly since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the people’s democracies of eastern and central Europe. The crisis is therefore all-embracing, and there are fewer markets that capital can seek to conquer, more extensively or intensively, in order to escape the crisis.
The undreamt-of increase in the productivity of labour with modern mechanisation, electrification, information technology, computing, the microchip and microprocessor, telecommunications and enormous advances in scientific, heavy and light engineering, chemical engineering and biotechnology, and scientific technique in general, together with increased automation of many productive processes (robotics employed in factory-line production, complex logic algorithms and so-called ‘artificial intelligence’ employed in the IT sector, accounting, customer service and administrative roles, etc) has decreased the number of working hours and therefore (under capitalism) working people who are needed to manufacture goods sufficient to meet humanity’s needs. Unemployment has risen accordingly, with its consequent downward pressure on wages.
All these advances could and should have been used to lighten human labour and improve human lives, but, as Marx explained in Capital Volume 1, capitalism does not aim to lighten the load of the worker, or spread that toil evenly among mankind, but to maximise profit, at the expense of the working class. The unprecedented increase in productivity therefore intensifies the workers’ misery, and deepens his relative and absolute poverty. (Chapter 15)

The concentration of the means of production into ever fewer hands, and the global scale of monopolies in general, has meant that the number of real monopoly capitalists in whose hands today’s enormously productive socially-operated productive forces are concentrated is an ever dwindling and numerically insignificant proportion of humanity – who nonetheless play a decisive role in decision-making in production and in global politics and governance.
The acceleration, since the times of Reagan in the USA and Thatcher in Britain, of the export of capital has transformed not just a few wealthy areas in Britain and France, but the majority of western imperialist country’s populations into “coupon clippers” living as a “parasitic excrescence” on the backs of the labouring and toiling masses of Asia, Africa and Latin America. The percentage of the working population in the UK engaged in productive labour, in manufacture, is at an all-time low – just 8 percent or around 2.6 million of our 68 million population (30 million of whom are actually working, and 43 million of whom are of working age).
The advent of China’s rise as the ‘workshop too big for the world’ has exacerbated the overproduction crisis of the western monopolists, who find markets are supplied more cheaply and efficiently by the Chinese (this is complicated by the fact that many western monopolists have relocated their production facilities to China), and that their own workforce is on the one hand ‘too expensive’ to employ, and on the other hand has become deskilled. Moreover, China’s technological and scientific advance has surpassed their own in one field after another – and is now poised to do so in the fields of microprocessor (microchip) manufacture and AI programming.
Britain’s finance capitalists, faced with decreasing avenues for the productive investment of their capital, have turned increasingly to the financing of mergers and acquisitions (corporate credit), and to the field of personal credit extended to the workers, who in Britain and the imperialist world are now carrying an unprecedented level of mortgage, personal loan, credit-card and motor-vehicle finance debt.
Total household debt in the UK now exceeds £2tn – the equivalent to £71,000 per household – and is just below the level of the national GDP (£2.2tn). US household debt is $18.036tn, or $105,056 per household. When the debt cannot be repaid, the banks carrying the ‘bad loans’ – and that is all of them – face crisis and collapse, as in 2008. (Household debt tops £2tn for the first time as new data shows that less than half of UK consumers can correctly answer basic financial questions, Price Waterhouse Cooper, January 2023)

The advent of the petrodollar as the global reserve currency, linked to and underpinning the other imperialist currencies (pound, Euro) has been fatally undermined by the programme of ‘quantitative easing’ – that is, of inflationary money-printing – which has been intermittently continued ever since the 2008 crisis. This has led to rampant inflation and the consequent ‘cost of living crisis’ (in other words a real decrease in wages, as well as increasing unemployment) that has put downward pressure on the real pay and quality of life of workers in Britain and elsewhere. The resulting decrease in consumption is deepening the crisis of overproduction.
Since the collapse of the USSR (which gave a temporary reprieve to finance capital from its crises as it looted the wealth of the Soviet Union and people’s republics), the other chief means adopted by imperialism to try to escape its crises has been war. There has been an unending series of post-Soviet neocolonial wars for control of markets and access to cheap labour-power and raw materials. Far from representing the promised “peace dividend”, these have been an expansion of the murderous rampage of the Anglo-American imperialists between the end of WW2 and the collapse of the USSR.
The first intervention in Iraq in 1990 and the destruction and balkanisation of Yugoslavia marked the rosy dawn of ‘peaceful’ post-Soviet imperialism. The genocidal rampage has continued through Sierra Leone, Cote D’Ivoire, Congo, the Sahel, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Nicaragua, Libya, Yemen, Panama – and, of course, Palestine and Ukraine. All these wars and interventions, to the extent of their ‘success’, have tended to reduce their victims to a state of penury and abject subjection. And all of this, despite funnelling trillions of dollars to arms and energy monopolies, has further polarised wealth distribution, intensifying the capitalist crisis.

The system of destabilisation and sanctions used against independent governments, particularly socialist states, including Cuba and the DPRK, China, Iran, Zimbabwe (after land and mineral nationalisation), Venezuela (after land and mineral, particularly oil nationalisation), etc, has all been used to reinforce and extend the global capitalist system of economic slavery, backed by the ever-present threat of Anglo-American, EU and Nato intervention.
Nato’s proxy war on Russia (recently admitted as such by Trump’s secretary of state Marco Rubio) was intended to be a ‘brief’ war, culminating in the balkanisation of Russia and the plunder of her resources, as well as those of Ukraine. The economic sanctions that accompanied this proxy war were of international magnitude, and backfired spectacularly.
The expulsion of Russia from the Swift banking system and the unprecedented level of economic sanctions (including the attempted sequestration of some $900bn of Russian state-owned funds held in overseas US and European banks) spectacularly backfired. The US-organised bombing of the Nord Stream pipeline severed European supplies of cheap Russian gas, sending market energy prices rocketing and further exacerbating inflation and the ‘cost of living’ crisis in Britain.

The ‘Ukraine’ war on Russia has cost Britain, besides £12bn in direct weapons supply, increased costs through inflation, energy price hikes and subsidies to the energy companies, in excess of £150bn so far. While the incoming Trump administration heads for the exit, the European imperialists, with a ‘Labour’ leader and government at the helm, are proving themselves further to the right than President Trump and are exerting all their efforts to keep the war going – despite its reckless cost of one million Ukrainian and one hundred thousand Russian lives, and at times bringing the hostile nuclear states of Nato and Russia dangerously close to direct conflict.

Congress is fully cognisant of the fact that capitalism has no answer to this most protracted crisis of global monopoly capitalism and, as we have repeatedly seen, in a desperate effort to save its own skin in the face of its failing economics, the system’s rulers are pushing the world ever closer to the catastrophe of a third all-out global war. Capitalism is a system long passed its sell-by date, and the British working class has everything to gain by its revolutionary overthrow.

Congress therefore resolves to redouble its efforts to:

1.Spread this knowledge and popularise a Marxist understanding among the working class.
2.Oppose the idea that capitalism is the “end of history”, and that market economics holds any hope for the salvation of humanity.
3.Oppose the idea that simple tinkering with the electoral system while preserving capitalist economics offers any hope to the British working class – as is the endless assertion of ‘left’ Labour and its revisionist and Trotskyite hod carriers.
4.Oppose the dead hand of Labour social democracy, which is a fully confirmed imperialist party (top to bottom, ‘right’ to ‘left’) and the inveterate enemy of the working class.
5.Build a party and movement capable of abolishing capitalism, exploitation and war and of replacing the market and private production with a balanced socialist planned economy that will provide for the ever-increasing material needs of the working class, through our own socially organised and administered production.
6.Understand in all our daily tasks, in our outlook and in our attitude to work, that while decades have passed in which it seems that ‘nothing happens’, revolutionary days will come in which those decades of concentrating capitalist misery and wage-slavery are expressed. Our task is to ensure that we are a force capable of giving guidance to the working masses when this moment of systemic political crisis arrives – a moment that the global capitalist economic crisis of overproduction is tending to bring ever closer.

In the words of Friedrich Engels: “Whilst the capitalist mode of production more and more completely transforms the great majority of the population into proletarians, it creates the power which, under penalty of its own destruction, is forced to accomplish this revolution. Whilst it forces on more and more the transformation of the vast means of production, already socialised, into state property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution.

“The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production in the first instance into state property. But, in doing this, it abolishes itself as proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, abolishes also the state as state.

“Their political and intellectual bankruptcy is scarcely any longer a secret to the bourgeoisie themselves. Their economic bankruptcy recurs regularly every ten years. In every crisis, society is suffocated beneath the weight of its own productive forces and products, which it cannot use, and stands helpless face to face with the absurd contradiction that the producers have nothing to consume, because consumers are wanting.

“The possibility of securing for every member of society, by means of socialised production, an existence not only fully sufficient materially, and becoming day by day more full, but an existence guaranteeing to all the free development and exercise of their physical and mental faculties – this possibility is now for the first time here, but it is here.

“Only from that time [the rule of the working masses themselves, and a socialist planned economy] will man himself, with full consciousness, make his own history – only from that time will the social causes set in movement by him have, in the main and in a constantly growing measure, the results intended by him. It is humanity’s leap from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom.” (F Engels, Anti-Dühring, 1877, Part 3, Chapter 2)

https://thecommunists.org/2025/04/30/ne ... d-economy/

******

<snip>

Image
https://archive.ph/zyKnE

The United States is facing a consumption crisis. One of the world’s largest food producers, Kraft Heinz, states that the US is approaching the worst downturn in history, as consumers are not even buying basic food products.

“We currently have one of the worst consumer sentiments in decades,” said CEO Carlos Abrams-Rivera on Wednesday during a conference call with analysts. Kraft Heinz shares fell 4.3% on Wednesday — down 17% since the start of the year, while the S&P 500 index rose 17%. Other major food companies have also pointed to pressure on American buyers, especially low-income families. Mondelez International said on Tuesday that consumers in distress are focusing on essential goods.

American restaurants are also facing problems with customer turnout. Chipotle on US consumers: “Earlier this year, amid a sharp decline in consumer sentiment, we saw a significant drop in restaurant visit frequency across all population categories. Since then, the gap has widened, and guests with low and middle incomes have been dining out even less.

Image

We believe that guests with a household income of less than $100,000 account for about 40% of total sales, and they dine out less due to concerns about the future of the economy and inflation. The most problematic age group is 25 to 35 years old. We believe this trend is not unique to Chipotle and is observed in all restaurants as well as many product categories.”

Almost 60% of restaurant companies reported negative sales dynamics this year, and 51% reported negative dynamics over two years.

Operators have launched more than 40,000 discount offers, a record number, in an attempt to attract customers who are not returning. But increasing check amounts cannot solve the traffic problem. Nearly 40% of Americans are eating out less, and half of low-income people are cutting expenses. 82% say restaurant prices are rising sharply, and a quarter call the increase unjustified.


Image

The fact of the matter is that the posturing with China is really all about obscuring the US’s economic demise, while also gaining leverage, sabotaging, and undercutting China as much as possible. This is because the US political class has no answers at all for its own failing economy, and thus must rely exclusively on the strategy of hamstringing its competitors. It’s all an act meant to forestall China’s takeover to buy time for the US corporo-political class to figure out a way to reset US’s runaway debt spiral and hyper-financialized Babylonian tower—which many now believe will happen by crypto-izing US debt:

AMERICA WANTS TO HAVE ALL THEIR 37 TRILLION DEBT IN CRYPTO then crash the market, eliminating the debt.

Translation: EXPORT THE DEBT TO OTHER NATIONS


This plan was enumerated in particular at the Eastern Economic Forum recently by Putin’s special advisor Anton Kobyakov:

U.S. CRYPTO PLOT EXPOSED: Wiping $35 trillion debt on world’s dime

“The US will solve their financial problems at the expense of the whole world, driving everyone into the crypto-currency cloud. Over time, when part of the US state debt will be placed in stablecoins, the US will devalue this debt,” Putin’s advisor Kobyakov revealed. (Video at link.)

Everyone is talking about it now, from major MSM publications like, in this case, Reuters:

Image
https://www.reuters.com/markets/stablec ... 025-09-10/

To even Larry Fink himself, who made some coincidentally ‘interesting’ statements on crypto recently, just as Peter Thiel hinted that BlackRock might have coopted all Bitcoin:

Image

When a guy managing $13T says owning crypto makes sense because governments will keep killing their currencies... that’s your clue. The system’s insiders are quietly admitting what Bitcoiners knew all along. Watch what they do, not what they preach.

As stated earlier, at this point the theatrics with China and various tariff seesaws appear more a distraction and desperate time-buying theater. The US is insolvent and its entire economy is increasingly hinged on nothing more than an empty AI capital washing machine spinning the same inflating ball of lint in circles as the plebs are immiserated beyond the breaking point.

A new caste of crypto and finance speculators ride the wave of vapor-tech euphoria, enriching themselves to unseen heights while lending the false sense of an economic ‘boom’. In reality, they are merely bone oracles of a modern technomantic gematria—the black magic of finance, which has garrotted the world with its all-consuming art. Under such a shadow, what possible significance could Trump’s petty pilpul sessions on tariffs really have in the long run?

Image

The rest of the world only follows suit into the abyss, while useless leaders with 11% approvals play dress up in vain attempts to stem the coming storm.

https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/tru ... he-marbles
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14788
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The crisis of bourgeois economics

Post by blindpig » Sun Nov 02, 2025 5:43 pm

Stagflation: Stagnation, Inflation, and Beyond

Since my prediction in April of 2007 of an impending economic crash, I've vowed not to risk my unblemished record with any further predictions. But a simple thing that I learned from the run-up to that catastrophe was when the “little people” -- the “every man and every-woman” -- found their way into stock market speculation, trouble was looming. Early in 2007, I recall acquaintances then announcing that they were day-traders, bragging that they were making more money buying and selling on their devices than from their regular job.

The Wall Street Journal headlined in early October that More Working-Class Americans Than Ever Are in the Stock Market. “Among Americans with incomes between $30,000 and $80,000, 54% now have taxable investment accounts. Half of these investments have entered the market in the last five years according to…Commonwealth and the BlackRock Foundation.”

A red flag.

And also, I learned that when the investment commentariat-- not the media cheerleaders-- sound the alarm, Marxists should listen. It’s a curious thing that academic Marxist economists, who frequently claim to foresee future crises in broad terms of overproduction and rate of profit, seldom cite the views of those solely driven by money-making realities. The Wall Street Journal, hedge fund managers, investor consultants, and others of the pursuing-alpha herd are good sources of alarm for market volatility as opposed to the capitalism-boosters of The New York Times and The Washington Post.

When a few weeks pass with the front page of The Wall Street Journal warning Credit Markets Are Hot, But Froth Is Worry and OpenAI’s For-Profit Restructuring Draws Pushback, Rattling Executives and Persistent Inflation, Soft Jobs Data Pull Fed in Two Directions and Shutdown Starting To Exact Its Toll on Business and Volatility Returns To Haunt Stock Market, it might be time to sit up and take notice.

When financial sites like QTR’s Fringe Finance-- not one to mince words-- announces Sh*t is Breaking… And it’s Going To Get Worse or when Reuters Morning Bid coins the jingle Bubble, bubble toil and trouble or when Wolf Street raises the alarm that Corporate Profits in Nonfinancial Industries Plunge by Most Ever in $, amid Massive Downward Revisions, it might be just the moment to question the health of the US economy.

More red flags.

The truth is that the US economy is strapped with two intractable, life-sucking issues.

First, the post-2007-2009 economic crisis has never been resolved. The US has foisted the damage onto its partners, subsidized sick and floundering corporations, run up enormous debts through monetary pump-priming schemes, fostered new armament production through escalating global confrontations, and sold investors on shaky, over-hyped “innovations.” That same concerted effort to overcome the deflationary tendency spawned by the financial collapse overshot the mark, generating a powerful inflationary trend.

As I’ve argued emphatically since 2021-- contrary to the punditry-- inflation is rarely, if ever, a momentary, episodic development. It does not go away with policy tinkering or rebalancing. Once prices begin to rise, businesses and corporations try to catch up or get ahead. The floodgates of profit-taking and profit-preservation will not be easily closed. For those who fashionably love to borrow Marx’s concept of commodity fetishism, the conventional thinking on inflation fetishizes price rises, hiding the fact that inflation is the result of human decisions and human (capitalist) interests. And when capitalists see an opportunity to raise prices, they seize it.

Compounding the last four years of persistent inflation is stagnation in the non-financial economy. Economic growth-- apart from the stock market, the pocketbooks of the very rich, and the bloated military budget-- is slow and slowing. In November of 2021, I reminded readers of the dangerous return of 1970s “stagflation” in an article aptly entitled When Have We Seen This Before?. Of course, the dilemma is that government efforts to invigorate the stalling economy will only further increase inflation.

Second, the economy is currently in the hands of a helmsman without a compass. President Trump’s economic policies are decidedly a departure from the conventional reliance on the Federal Reserve as a somewhat independent arbiter and navigator of economic policy, from the reliance on and guidance from Bureau of Labor Statistics and Commerce Department data, from some self-preserving restraint of corporate and financial excess, and from muting obscenely deep and unrestrained graft and corruption. Trumpism is elite enrichment on steroids, the public be damned. Reportedly, Communist Party of China Chairman Xi believes that Trump is not ideological, but “transactional.” That would well summarize his economic program.

Whether Trump’s approach is politically sustainable is one question. Whether it will add confusion and misdirection to escaping stagflation is not in question. It will make things worse.

What are the markers, suggesting economic hardship and a rocky road ahead?

Inflation shows no sign of a letup, still well above the consensus goal. While Trump has “declared” it defeated, consumers are even more alarmed than the numbers suggest, with grocery store prices a particularly sensitive arena for shoppers. The full weight of Trump’s tariffs has yet to spread through the economy, promising even further price elevation.

Hiring is falling off; businesses are hiring fewer people. Though limited hiring has not yet resulted in a dramatic change in unemployment, it foretells an increase in those jobless.

Real average hourly earnings growth is tepid, growing .7% from August 2024 to August 2025. Median household incomes remained largely unchanged last year, adjusted for inflation. When higher incomes are extracted, the numbers for most households are in decline.

Outlandish financial schemes are back and collapsing, especially around the used-car market. As in 2007-2009, irrational, super-exploitive lending patterns have generated unserviceable debt with lower-income consumers. Car-loan delinquencies have reached 5.1%, a level approaching that of the earlier financial crisis.

While stocks appear to be booming, their price-to-earnings ratio-- a traditional measure of overvaluation recently hit 22.5, one of the highest readings in the last forty years.

Investor fear of market volatility is reflected in the great demand for the safety of gold, a commodity hitting its all-time high in price. Other signs of the turn toward safety are emerging.

The driver of stock-market growth is almost entirely artificial intelligence (AI) and its data centers. With immediate investment in AI estimated in hundreds of billions of dollars (as much as three-quarters of a trillion globally), little return on investment has materialized. OpenAI is expected to return only $13 billion this year. Morgan Stanley calculates that the entire industry only sold $45 billion in products last year. Many see a bubble much like the fiber-optic mania of 2000.

Bank failures have prompted JP Morgan Chase’s top dog, Jamie Dimon, to quip “When you see one cockroach, there are probably more”.

Private, direct credit-- a growing factor in finance-- has a default rate of over 8%, the highest ever.

Class divisions are intensifying. Annual wage and salary growth for the bottom third of households through August of this year was lower than any year since 2016. At the same time, growth for the top third grew four times faster than that of the lower third. For the first time, consumer spending by the top 10% of earners was nearly half of total consumption.

The Black unemployment rate went from 6.1% last August to 7.5% this August, a harbinger of employment trends: last hired, first fired.

Recent college graduates are experiencing one of the highest unemployment rates of the last decade, another harbinger of a weak labor market.

More children are claimed to suffer from some food inadequacy than at any time in nearly a decade; the US Department of Agriculture estimated the number at 13.8 million in its 2023 report. The Census Bureau similarly reports that nearly ten million children live in poverty, the most since 2018. The Trump Administration has halted the USDA survey of hunger in the US.

The high interest rates established to contain inflation are predictably slowing real, material economic activity and large consumer purchases for the majority. Four years of rising interest rates have made debt service a growing burden, as well as making the refinancing of debt costly.

Economic royalty and their courtiers are publicly downplaying the growing inflation in a desperate effort to convince the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates and stimulate tepid economic activity. Should the Federal Reserve comply, inflation will undoubtedly accelerate to the great harm of most working people. Historically, stagflation ends with a deep recession, like the painful Reagan recession of 1981-1982.

Many in ruling-class circles believe that a new wave of innovation will rescue the sluggish, fragile economy with the exploitation of Artificial Intelligence. They foresee a new age of high productivity and growth.

However, research by JP Morgan Chase economists has failed to find a significant connection yet between the use of AI and industrial productivity. So far, it has boosted stock market values enormously, without showing a concurrent return on investment.

James Meek, writing in the October 9, 2025 issue of The London Review of Books, may well have captured where AI has taken us and how far it has to go:

Leaving aside the known problems…-- their massive energy use, their ability in malign human hands to create convincing fake versions of people and events, their exploitation without compensation of human creative work, their baffling promise to investors that they will make money by taking the jobs of the very people who are expected to subscribe to them, their acquired biases, their difficulty in telling the difference between finding things out and making things up, their de-intellectualizing of learning by doing students’ assignments for them, and their emerging tendency to reinforce whatever delusions or anxieties their mentally fragile users already carry-- leaving aside all this, the deep limitations of generative AI make it hard to see it as anything but a dead end if AGI is the goal.



Faith that AI is more than a possibly malign novelty is based on confidence that the tech oligarchs have a vision of our future that benefits us all.

Not likely.

Is economic reckoning on the horizon?

Greg Godels

zzsblogml@gmail.com

https://zzs-blg.blogspot.com/2025/10/st ... n-and.html
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14788
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The crisis of bourgeois economics

Post by blindpig » Thu Nov 20, 2025 2:49 pm

Bitcoin’s latest crash shows what it really is: speculation, not money

November 19, 2025 Gary Wilson

Image
Bitcoin’s 20% crash erased all 2025 gains, revealing its speculative nature.

Bitcoin just crashed again. After hitting over $126,000 in October, it dropped more than 20% in a few weeks, falling below $90,000. All the gains it made in 2025 — gone.

This wasn’t random bad luck. Real pressures drove the crash: Electricity costs soared, making Bitcoin mining less profitable. Over $2.3 billion flowed out of Bitcoin investment funds in just the first half of November. Data shows miners dumped about 71,000 Bitcoins onto exchanges in early November, plus another 210,000 in October — some of the biggest sell-offs since 2022.

These constant wild swings raise a basic question: What is Bitcoin, really? Fans say it’s revolutionary money that gets around capitalism’s problems. But when you look at it through a Marxist lens, you see something different: Bitcoin isn’t money at all. It’s a way to gamble on prices going up — what Marx called “fictitious capital.”

What does it take to be money?

To understand why Bitcoin fails as money, we need to start with what Marx said money actually is. For Marx, money isn’t just a symbol or something the government declares valuable. It’s something real that comes out of how people produce and trade goods.

Marx was clear: Money itself must be a commodity — a real thing with physical form. He wrote that money, “the universal commodity,” must exist “as a particular commodity alongside the others.” Through trading, this “universal equivalent” takes on “the bodily form of a particular commodity.”

Throughout history, gold and silver played this role. Why them? Because they have real uses, and because their value comes from the hard work it takes to dig them out of the ground and refine them. That labor-based value made them stable enough to be the anchor for the whole trading system.

Marx insisted this physical foundation matters even when credit systems develop. Paper money and bank deposits aren’t new kinds of money — they’re IOUs that stand in for the real money (gold) behind them. Capitalism constantly tries to get around the limits of physical money, but as Marx said, “again and again it breaks its back on this barrier.”

So for something to be money, it needs three things: It must be a real physical commodity, it must be useful for something besides being money, and its value must come from the labor that went into making it.

Bitcoin fails on every count

Bitcoin doesn’t meet any of these requirements.

First, Bitcoin has no real-world use beyond speculation. Gold works in electronics, dentistry, and jewelry. Even if nobody used it as money, gold would still be valuable for these practical purposes. Bitcoin? You can’t do anything with it except buy and sell it. It’s just data on computers — not a physical thing with actual uses. Without those uses, it can’t be the solid foundation Marx described.

Second, Bitcoin’s value doesn’t come from labor. Gold’s value is tied to the hard, costly work of mining and refining it. Bitcoin’s price comes from three things instead: its built-in scarcity (only 21 million can ever exist), people betting prices will rise, and collective belief in the system. Yes, Bitcoin “mining” uses tons of electricity, but that’s not the same as productive labor that creates something useful. It’s just the cost of keeping the network running and checking transactions. That doesn’t create value the way mining gold does.

Third, Bitcoin’s wild price swings make it useless as a measure of value. Money needs to be stable so people can price things reliably. Something that loses 20% of its value in weeks can’t do that job. The recent crash proves it: When electricity got expensive and AI companies offered miners better money, they dumped Bitcoin. That’s not how real money behaves.

So what is Bitcoin?

If Bitcoin isn’t money, what is it? It’s what Marx called “fictitious capital” — a financial asset whose value comes from hoping someone will pay more for it tomorrow, not from any real production.

Stocks and bonds work this way too — they’re bets on future profits. Bitcoin fits perfectly. Its price depends entirely on what investors think others will pay for it later.

Think of the art market. A painting by a famous artist can sell for millions, but not because it’s useful or produces income. It’s expensive because it’s rare and people believe others will want it. Bitcoin works the same way. Neither pays dividends nor rent. Both have artificially limited supply — Bitcoin by computer code, art by how much an artist can create. Both markets are controlled by the super-wealthy: “whales” in crypto, big galleries in art. And in both cases, something is worth whatever the next buyer will pay — nothing more, nothing less.

Bitcoin also shows what Marx called “commodity fetishism” — when relationships between people look like relationships between things. Value seems to magically come from the object itself, not from human work. All the computing power and electricity that keeps Bitcoin running is hidden. Its value looks like it just comes from the code, growing on its own without any connection to real work or production. It’s the ultimate magic trick.

Reality crashes the party

The proof that Bitcoin is just another investment — not some new kind of money — came with this latest crash. When electricity prices rose, miners had a choice: Keep mining Bitcoin or do something more profitable. They chose profit.

Big mining companies like Core Scientific and Iris Energy signed deals to host AI computers instead. They get paid 3-4 times more per kilowatt-hour than Bitcoin mining paid them. Bitfarms went even further, announcing plans to quit crypto mining completely by 2027.

This shows that even digital “assets” like Bitcoin follow the basic rules of capitalism. Miners ditched Bitcoin because they could make more money elsewhere. It’s just another place to invest, not a magical new form of money that escapes capitalism’s logic.

Marxist economists point out that if governments could really create crisis-proof money out of thin air, they could solve economic crashes just by printing more. They can’t, because money is tied to real commodity production. Bitcoin’s failure as stable money proves this point.

Bitcoin isn’t a challenge to the system. It’s a volatile bet that reflects all the financial chaos of the capitalism it claims to replace. It’s trapped by the same contradictions and the same endless chase for profit.

https://www.struggle-la-lucha.org/2025/ ... not-money/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14788
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The crisis of bourgeois economics

Post by blindpig » Wed Dec 03, 2025 3:31 pm

Image
The AI sector is booming, but much of the investment is speculative. (Saradasish Pradhan/Unsplash/The Conversation)

The AI bubble isn’t new — Karl Marx explained the mechanisms behind it nearly 150 years ago
Originally published: The Conversation on November 30, 2025 by Elliot Goodell Ugalde (more by The Conversation) | (Posted Dec 02, 2025)

When OpenAI’s Sam Altman told reporters in San Francisco earlier this year that the AI sector is in a bubble, the American tech market reacted almost instantly.

Combined with the fact that 95 per cent of AI pilot projects fail, traders treated his remark as a broader warning. Although Altman was referring specifically to private startups rather than publicly traded giants, some appear to have interpreted it as an industry-wide assessment.

Tech billionaire Peter Thiel sold his Nvidia holdings, for instance, while American investor Michael Burry (of The Big Short fame) has made million-dollar bets that companies like Palantir and Nvidia will drop in value.

What Altman’s comment really exposes is not only the fragility of specific firms but the deeper tendency Prussian philosopher Karl Marx predicted: the problem of surplus capital that can no longer find profitable outlets in production.

Image
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman recently told reporters he believes the AI sector is in a bubble. Altman speaks at the Federal Reserve in Washington, D.C., in July 2025. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)

Marx’s theory of crisis
The future of AI is not in question. Like the internet after the dot-com crash, the technology will endure. What is in question is where capital will flow once AI equities stop delivering the speculative returns they have promised over the past few years.

That question takes us directly back to Marx’s analysis of crises driven by over-accumulation. Marx argued that an economy becomes unstable when the mass of accumulated capital can no longer be profitably reinvested.

An overproduction of capital, he explained, occurs whenever additional investment fails to generate new surplus value. When surplus capital cannot profitably be absorbed through the production of goods, it is displaced into speculative outlets.

Tech investments mask economic weakness
Years of low interest rates and pandemic-era liquidity have swollen corporate balance sheets. Much of that liquidity has entered the technology sector, concentrating in the so-called “Magnificent Seven”–Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia and Tesla. Without these firms, market performance would be negative.

Image
Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang speaks about how AI infrastructure and AI factories are powering a new industrial revolution, at Washington Convention Center in October 2025 in Washington, D.c. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

This does not signal technological dynamism; it reflects capital concentrated in a narrow cluster of overvalued assets, functioning as “money thrown into circulation without a material basis in production” that circulates without any grounding in real economic activity.

The consequence of this is that less investment reaches the “real economy”, which fuels economic stagnation and the cost-of-living crisis, both of which remain obscured by the formal metric of GDP.

How AI became the latest fix
Economic geographer David Harvey extends Marx’s insight through the idea of the “spatio-temporal fix,” which refers to the way capital temporarily resolves stagnation by either pushing investment into the future or expanding into new territories.

Over-accumulation generates surpluses of labour, productive capacity and money capital, which cannot be absorbed without loss. These surpluses are then redirected into long-term projects that defer crises into new spaces that open fresh possibilities for extraction.

The AI boom functions as both a temporal and a spatial fix. As a temporal fix, it offers investors claims on future profitability that may never arrive–what Marx called “fictitious capital.” This is wealth that shows up on balance sheets despite having little basis in the real economy rooted in the production of goods.

Spatially, the expansion of data centres, chip manufacturing sites and mineral extraction zones requires enormous physical investment. These projects absorb capital while depending on new territories, new labour markets and new resource frontiers.

Yet as Altman’s admission suggests, and as U.S. President Donald Trump’s protectionist measures complicate global trade, these outlets are reaching their limits.

The costs of speculative capital
The consequences of over-accumulation extend far beyond firms and investors. They are experienced socially, not abstractly. Marx explained that an overproduction of capital corresponds to an overproduction of the means of production and necessities of life that cannot be used at existing rates of exploitation.

In other words, stagnant purchasing power prevents capital from being valorized at the pace it is being produced. As profitability declines, the economy resolves the imbalance by destroying the livelihoods of workers and households whose pensions are tied to equities.

History offers stark examples. The dot-com crash wiped out small investors and concentrated power in surviving firms. The 2008 financial crisis displaced millions from their homes while financial institutions were rescued.

Today, large asset managers are already hedging against potential turbulence. Vanguard, for instance, has shifted significantly toward fixed income.

Speculation drives growth
The AI bubble is primarily a symptom of structural pressures rather than purely a technological event. In the early 20th century, Marxist economist Rosa Luxemburg questioned where the continually increasing demand required for expanded reproduction would come from.

Her answer echoes Marx and Harvey: when productive outlets shrink, capital moves either outward or into speculation. The U.S. increasingly chooses the latter.

Corporate spending on AI infrastructure now contributes more to GDP growth than household consumption, an unprecedented inversion that shows how much growth is being driven by speculative investment rather than productive expansion.

This dynamic pulls down the rate of profit, and when the speculative flow reverses, contraction will follow.

Image
(X/Twitter)

Tariffs tighten the squeeze on capital
Financial inflation has intensified as the traditional pressure valves that once allowed capital to move into new physical or geographic markets have narrowed.

Tariffs, export controls on semiconductors and retaliatory trade measures have narrowed the global space available for relocation. Since capital cannot readily escape the structural pressures of the domestic economy, it increasingly turns to financial tools that postpone losses by rolling debt forward or inflating asset prices; mechanisms that ultimately heighten fragility when the reckoning comes.

U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s openness to interest rate cuts signals a renewed turn toward cheap credit. Lower borrowing costs let capital paper over losses and pump up fresh speculative cycles.

Image
Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell speaks at a news conference after the Federal Open Market Committee meeting in October 2025 at the Federal Reserve Board Building in Washington, D.C. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

Marx captured this logic in his analysis of interest-bearing capital, where finance generates claims on future production “above and beyond what can be realized in the form of commodities.”

The result is that households are pushed to take on more debt than they can manage, effectively swapping a crisis of stagnation for a crisis of consumer credit.

Bubbles and social risk
If the AI bubble bursts when governments have limited room to shift investment internationally and the economy is propped up by increasingly fragile credit, the consequences could be serious.

Capital will not disappear, but will instead concentrate in bond markets and credit instruments inflated by a U.S. central bank eager to cut interest rates. This does not avert crisis; it merely transfers the costs downward.

Bubbles are not accidents, but recurring mechanisms for absorbing surplus capital. If Trump’s protectionism ensures that spatial outlets continue to close and temporal fixes rely on ever riskier leverage, the system moves toward a cycle of asset inflation, collapse and renewed state intervention.

AI will survive, but the speculative bubble surrounding it is a sign of a deeper structural problem–the cost of which, when finally realized, will fall most heavily on the working class.

https://mronline.org/2025/12/02/the-ai- ... years-ago/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

Post Reply