> It seems to me that colonial subjection, industrialisation, and
> famines are related
> but different matters. Why are you lumping them together, Mark? The
> abstract talks
> about growth in per capital incomes...
Julien, I recently posted 2 reviews of Mike Davis' book, which you may have
missed, and this was a footnote to that.
>hatever the level of
> aggregate per capita
> incomes, not enough food and/or too unequal distribution means
> famines. It comes
> down to who gets the income. One can imagine industrialisation plus
> colonial
> subjection and famines. Isn't it precisely what happend?
>
> BTW, he's not an *Indian* economist but an Indian *economist*. Do
> economists
> have a country? :-)
Well, I thought it was sufficiently odd to be worth putting before the
assembled wisdom hereabouts.
Mark
_______________________________________________
CrashList website: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
