So far, economic recovery has favored capital rather than labor, at least in America and Britain, and you follow several leads as to why (“Marx, Mervyn, or Mario?” March 26, 2011). Marx is neither here nor there, as he did not deal with economic recoveries. Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England, explains the squeeze in living standards “as the inevitable price to pay for the financial crisis and subsequent rebalancing” of the economy. Hmm. You favor Mario Puzo of “The Godfather” fame for the explanation of the latest habit of central banks to keep interest rates so low that they amount to a hefty subsidy to capital. As you say, “attempts to remove that subsidy are met by threats from international banks to move elsewhere.” This is indeed reminiscent of the protection rackets run by gangsters. Returning to Marx, though, at this stage of development of capitalism labor has been shifted elsewhere—say, the emerging economies. As he foresaw, labor in America and Britain is being starved out. Thanks to globalization, capital and labor are now living in different parts of the world. And under very different regimes. To wit, the subsidy dolled out by central banks is likely to become a permanent feature of global capitalism.