I just returned from an event of BRIC (South Africa was not there) Ambassadors' perspective on globalization organized by the Danish Chamber of Commerce. Among other things, the Danes were caught by surprise by the presentations (one might say meanderings) of the Brazilian and Russian take on globalization. They rarely spoke of economics or business, which the Danes were interested in and hoped for but instead spoke of social development, security, and OECD-non-OECD divide. On the other hand, I and C ambassadors were the two with power point presentations with the former focused on economic reforms and the government's massive spending programs in a number of sectors and the latter about economic growth and the need for global symmetry. Later the Indian ambassador told me that he hoped he wasn't exaggerating about India, knowing that I am critical of many aspects of Indian development. It was interesting note that the Chinese ambassador used the phrase that 'globalization was an "objective" reality.' Both India and China projected high growth rates this year, 7% and 9%!
I also just returned from India yesterday. India is going places despite all the challenges, though there is considerable regional variation. Take Kolkata and Delhi. The former during my visit put in place an order to ban all two-stroke 3 wheelers. There was massive protests and strikes by taxis. So a go slow approach has been adopted. The CPM will get rid of two-stroke engines in a month or two by making sure clean fuel substitutes are available. Needless to say the air quality was horrendous due to emmisions and inversion in the winter months. Delhi on the other was much better despite several times the number of vehicles in Kolkata. The reason is that some years ago all two-stroke engines were banned and increasingly the age of vehicles is low, which have EU emission standards. In Delhi many major large-scale projects is taking place with the metro being being expanded all over the city and reaching the airport. A new terminal building and a runway are also under construction. Japan is investing in a major industrial corridor all the way from Delhi to Mumbai. Most importantly I could observe a real determination among a lot of Indians of all classes to move ahead. I think this is the most significant change India has undergone in the last 15 years. Cheers, Anthony xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Anthony P. D'Costa Professor of Indian Studies Asia Research Centre Copenhagen Business School Porcelænshaven 24, 3 DK-2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark Email:[email protected] Ph: +45 3815 2572 Fax: +45 3815 2500 PhD in INDIAN STUDIES WEBSITE http://frontpage.cbs.dk/jobs/stil.pl?func=details&id=1147 http://uk.cbs.dk/arc www.cbs.dk/india xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Chris Burford <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree with the passages from the interview below > > There is a strange synergy going on > > See this article in the International Issue of Newsweek on "Why China > Works" > http://www.newsweek.com/id/178810/page/2 > > I do not know where they get the statistic from but they claim that > > "The leadership's faith in its own ability to mold markets may derive from > the fact that most are engineers, trained to build from a plan. Eight out > of > the nine top party officials come from engineering backgrounds, and the > practicality of their profession may also help explain why they didn't buy > into risky and Western financial innovation." > > So *if* this works, and the article predicts7% growth for China this year, > it will be because China is run by a purer more single minded, > intelligentsia, so the argument implies. This could have a strong > influence > in the West if it remains difficult for quite some time to re-privatise the > banks, and populist anger is vented on the inflated salaries and the > irresponsible behaviour of poorly regulated finance capitalism. > > Something about monopoly capitalism being the eve of the socialist > revolution? > But against such a technological background how will the class struggle > become more, not less, transparent in each country? > > How best to make these processes "visible"? > > Chris Burford > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Charles Brown" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 9:21 PM > Subject: [Pen-l] Capitalism's Burning House > > > > Capitalism's Burning House: Interview with John Bellamy Foster > by WIN Magazine > > ^^^ > CB: Nice explanation of the end of classical political economy and the > founding of neo-classical economics > > ^^ > > -clip- > I think it is best to see this as a whole phase of capitalist development, > which we could call monopoly-finance capital, with neoliberalism as its > main > legitimating ideology. Of course this period generated extraordinarily bad > economics: monetarism, supply-side economics, rational expectations theory, > new classical economics, etc. Even the name of the system was changed from > capitalism to a vague and essentially meaningless ideological designation > of > the "free market." > John Kenneth Galbraith in the title of his last book called all of this The > Economics of Innocent Fraud. Like orthodox economics in general (not > excluding the bastard Keynesianism of the Cold War era) it was a means of > control and a way of justifying what capital found necessary. > > Orthodox economics is not innocent of class analysis; rather the class > position that it represents requires the ideological concealment of class > relations (class does not exist as a category in neoclassical economics). > This, however, does not prevent them from constructing concepts (for > example > the "natural rate of unemployment") which are means of maintaining class > power. In contrast, nineteeenth-century classical political economy was > explicit about not only class but also the political nature of economics. > As Marx explained in Capital, only when the bourgeoisie had conquered the > state in the 1830s and '40s did scientific political economy turn into > vulgar political economy. The new orthodoxy of marginalist or neoclassical > economics (Marx's "vulgar political economy") was based on a class-analytic > perspective that could no longer be openly confessed. Its interests were > no > longer revolutionary, as in the early stages of bourgeois economics, but > had > given way to the "bad conscience and evil intent of apologetics." It is > no > coincidence that this happened as soon as the working class began to become > a conscious force and thus a threat to the status quo. Eventually, > political economy was renamed economics. The latter was seen as > "scientific" because of its non-normative and non-political character (that > is, it succeeded ideologically in concealing its class character within its > analytical frame). In order to struggle effectively today, we need, for > starters, to change economics back into political economy, making the > economy a political/public issue once again. Capitalism works by way of an > "invisible hand": it needs to be made visible > > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > --
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
