This piece caught my eye because I know Sweezy as a prominent American socialist economist whose articles were often published in Monthly Review. But then the brief introduction to a lengthy quote from a 1982 article which was printed in the Monthly Review left me puzzled:
‘Secular stagnation’ is the talk of the town at the moment. It was one of the mayor interests of Paul Sweezy. Here, part of a 1982 lecture with a rather concise conclusion.So, why was this "the talk of the town"? And, what does "secular" refer to in the phrase "secular stagnation". I couldn't find the answer to the second question after wasting about 15 minutes looking for it. The term appears to have been coined by an American Keynesian economist by the name of Alvin Hansen whom Sweezy refers to. It seems to me that "capitalist stagnation" is what is meant by the term. (For some reason, capitalist economists tend to avoid using terms that refer directly to capitalism--it probably has something to do with their belief that there is no alternative, or that they don't want you to think that there is.)
As to the first question, it seems that the origins of this sudden interest in "secular stagnation" was ignited by a recent brief talk (Nov. 8th) given by Larry Summers at an IMF forum which Kevin Drum of Mother Jones summarized as simply this: "we might be in a permanent condition of slow economic growth—i.e., secular stagnation." It seems that capitalist ideologs have run out of solutions to the stagnant economy and Summers is simply acknowledging this.
Major wars in the past have served as a fix when capitalists were faced with this dilemma; but having arrived in this era of nuclear weapons, this solution is no longer feasible. So, I guess we of the 99 Percent are "screwed", unless, of course, we start to seriously consider alternative socioeconomic systems besides capitalism.
Could this be why the Sweezy quote from 1982 was resurrected in reference to the term "secular stagnation" without any explanation other than the term was "the talk of the town"? It appears to me that capitalist economists, even liberal ones who write for this website, don't want to direct too much attention to their dilemma and our plight. You see, we of the 99 Percent might get ideas--dangerous ones to the One Percent.
