i am not entirely sure about that. it is difficult to tell if things
have got worse in tamil nadu, given that the rivers were dry when they
were not transporting sewage and industrial waste even back in 1980,
but the increased pollution has made life quite difficult in the big
cities like madras
brad, thanks once again for a great response.
Brad DeLong wrote:
Jeff Sachs (who I heard talk about this last fall, when he was giving
his Tropical Underdevelopment talk
http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidwp/057.htmhttp://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidwp/057.pdf)
would answer your question with
brad, thanks for your response. your answers are helpful but perhaps
i should also mention the hidden question: do you see this rise in
growth/GDP as a "good thing" (for india)?
Yes...
do these numbers translate
to anything for the common man?
Not (or not yet) for the bottom 40% (or the
13: The Turkish people hear, for the first time, from an official
source (and Turks seem to know what is going on without the aid of such aids)
that their state bank is rotten to the core, and that the radical
restructuring needed is gonna require instant and substantial international
support
--- Rob Schaap [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe it's just because I did fall in love with Turkey (falling in love
always
induces pessimism in me), but I can't see a road heading anywhere good from
here. If Dervis wins, half the population will be getting dinner off the
tip,
and if he
Brad DeLong wrote:
2) to what do you attribute this change? economic liberalisation?
Well, that is economists' conventional wisdom--that the "neoliberal"
economic reforms of the Narasimha Rao government in the early 1990s were
the decisive change. Dani Rodrik, however, argues that the
Argentina was in "G7 ranks" back before World War II. IIRC, Argentina
was fifth in the world in automobile ownership per capita in 1929,
and B.A. was twelfth in the world in telephones per capita in 1913.
Ownership? G7 is about production, not consumption.
I don't see anything "structural"
Brad DeLong wrote:
And I do not understand the appeal of the BJP...
ravi replies:
why not? isnt it the same as a lot of the appeal of the republican
party here? religious fundamentalism, nationalism, etc?
yeah, why not? if Thomas Friedman and his ilk want to knock down all the "Olive
Brad, Argentina's success was largely a result of favorable terms of trade
rather than any structural advance. Sort of like the success of Brunei or
Kuwait.
that makes sense to me. Just as with the former Confederacy after the US Civil War,
when
the relative price of the key export
Brad, please refrain from the personal jibes. If you want to delete
somebody, you are welcome to do so, but there is no reason to announce it.
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 10:04:04PM -0700, Brad DeLong wrote:
While I agree that Brad's original note was certain to provoke, this
discussion is
Brad, you must know, of course, that I receive a good number of complaints
about what other people perceived to be your lack of civility. When you
ascribe what most is consider to be outlandish accusations regarding
political events or movements, some people regard that as a lack of
civility.
While I agree that Brad's original note was certain to provoke, this
discussion is getting increasingly personal.
I won't see Yates's stuff anymore...
You will also find horror stories with the CPM, and this is coming from a
CPM sympathetizer (that's me). From a distance everything looks
sanitized. The ground reality is far more complex.
Reality is always more complex. But that doesn't mean that Kerala's
accomplishments in education aren't
On this I will have to agree with Brad. I think the (advanced
capitalist country) left tends to dismiss growth. It is possible that
growth is likely to lead to inequality initially (Kuznets curve) but it
does not have to remain that way.
At the moment, however, the fact that so much of Indian
Anthony, I don't think any of the few paleo-Marxists on the list like
myself would argue that developing countries can enjoy spurts of remarkable
growth at a given time and in a given place. There is just too much
empirical evidence against such a view. What we do argue is that such
spurts tend
My questions to you would be: 1) do you see this as a
sustained trend
It has been ongoing for two decades. That doesn't mean that it won't
be reversed, but rapid growth in India is definitely not just a flash
in the pan.
2) to what do you attribute this change? economic liberalisation?
Brad DeLong wrote:
And I do not understand the appeal of the BJP...
why not? isnt it the same as a lot of the appeal of the republican
party here? religious fundamentalism, nationalism, etc?
--ravi
Brad, please refrain from the personal jibes. If you want to delete
somebody, you are welcome to do so, but there is no reason to announce it.
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 10:04:04PM -0700, Brad DeLong wrote:
While I agree that Brad's original note was certain to provoke, this
discussion is
Brad, Argentina's success was largely a result of favorable terms of trade
rather than any structural advance. Sort of like the success of Brunei or
Kuwait.
On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 05:02:59AM -0700, Brad DeLong wrote:
I don't see anything "structural" about
Anthony wrote:
On this I will have to agree with Brad. I think the (advanced
capitalist country) left tends to dismiss growth. It is possible that
growth is likely to lead to inequality initially (Kuznets curve) but it
does not have to remain that way. If as we find in the Korean case,
correction:
Anthony, I don't think any of the few paleo-Marxists on the list like
myself would argue that developing countries can [should be CAN NOT] enjoy
spurts of remarkable
growth at a given time and in a given place.
Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Anthony wrote:
I think the (advanced capitalist country) left tends to dismiss
growth. It is possible that growth is likely to lead to inequality
initially (Kuznets curve) but it does not have to remain that way. If as
we find in the Korean case, labor-intensive export-led growth did
Not to flog a dead horse, but to return to Ken Hanly's response to the uses and abuses
of GDP . . . The two options given were that the rich get $1 million and the poor 1c,
and the poor all get $100 and the rich loose $100. Is there something about Pareto
optimatlity that makes it impossible
are. Hence even an increase in GDP that put the poor in a
worse position would increase welfare according to standard welfare
economics.
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 11:52 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:10276] Re: What is going on?
N
Ken wrote:
P.S. My only interest in talking about Pareto optimality is that it is a key value
assumption in mainstream welfare economics. Actually an increase in GDP itself does
not entail Pareto Optiimality since some could be made worse off by the growth, but
presumably it would be a
Friends,
You are amazing. I checked my mailbox after a few days today and there were 82
unread mails. And I am using this address for PEN-L only.
Like Michael, I also like to hear from other countries and I am writing this
mail to tell this to the friends from these countries.
Prior to June
2) Most of these lists are dominated by posters from the first world.
Most posters from the non-english speaking countries are from the first world.
One potential reason is that, despite lack of real democracy, these countries
are not as repressive as the non-first world countries and
How can we encourage those subscribers from S. Korea, Indoneasia, Brazil,
Argentina, Turkey and the like, some of whom most likely are non-experts and
some of whom most likely are not-so-well-known experts to join the
discussions?
Best,
Sabri
Perhaps we can encourage Michael Perelman to spend a
Lou is absolutely correct about my narrow horizons. I have spent a week
or so in Cuba, under the tutelage of Jim Devine, and a week in Puerto
Rico. Not much, I admit.
Perhaps we can encourage Michael Perelman to spend a year travelling in
Africa and Asia.
Actually Sabri wrote me before he
Actually Sabri wrote me before he came on the list, introducing himself as
an Indonesian. I did not know where he was located.
Now I am confused. I was under the distinct impression that Sabri was from
Turkey!
Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
--- Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually Sabri wrote me before he came on the list, introducing himself as
an Indonesian. I did not know where he was located.
Michael,
Sabri is an arabic/muslim name (not that I have any religion) so it is possible
that an Indonesian with the
Michael Perelman writes: Lou is absolutely correct about my narrow horizons. I have
spent a week or so in Cuba, under the tutelage of Jim Devine...
hey, I was under _your_ tutelage...
In reality, we were both on an urban planning tour in 1970 (run by the late New York
GUARDIAN). It's pretty
Average life expectancy in India is 63 years, 44% of Indians over 15
are illiterate, 53% of Indians under 5 are malnourished. India's
poverty rate appears to have held constant over the decade of the
1990s. But I don't see how anything is going to push India's poverty
rate down until
-
From: Brad DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 10:04 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:10226] Re: Re: Re: Re: What is going on?
Brad DeLong wrote:
Rates of growth of GDP per capita, India:
1950-1980 1.1% per year
1980-1990 3.3% per year
1990-2000 4.2% per year
Although this thread began with some early taunts and flames, I think it is
helping to shape out a picture of what growth means. I have not seen any
professional academic journal article -- probably due to my own ignorance --
that describes how growth affects difference classes and sub-classes.
Brad says
Brad DeLong wrote:
Rates of growth of GDP per capita, India:
1950-19801.1% per year
1980-19903.3% per year
1990-20004.2% per year
At the pace of the last decade, India's real productivity is
doubling every seventeen years (compared to a doubling time of 65
years before
Most recent studies on Indian poverty show that the level of poverty has
fallen, has been falling since the 1980s. But sheer numbers are large and
the official poverty line in India in reality is bare subsistence. The
Indian "middle" class is a misnomer. It is really the upper class,
given the
Brad says
Brad DeLong wrote:
Rates of growth of GDP per capita, India:
1950-1980 1.1% per year
1980-1990 3.3% per year
1990-2000 4.2% per year
At the pace of the last decade, India's real productivity is
doubling every seventeen years (compared to a doubling time of 65
years before
Although this thread began with some early taunts and flames, I think it is
helping to shape out a picture of what growth means. I have not seen any
professional academic journal article -- probably due to my own ignorance --
that describes how growth affects difference classes and sub-classes.
A key component of Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan was land reform. Also,
education of the lower classes, something that the World Bank has been
discouraging by demanding payment.
Also, you tend to take unrepresentative samples.
Finally, of the countries that you names, Japan, China, S. Korea, and
You will also find horror stories with the CPM, and this is coming from a
CPM sympathetizer (that's me). From a distance everything looks
sanitized. The ground reality is far more complex.
xxx
Anthony P. D'Costa,
On this I will have to agree with Brad. I think the (advanced
capitalist country) left tends to dismiss growth. It is possible that
growth is likely to lead to inequality initially (Kuznets curve) but it
does not have to remain that way. If as we find in the Korean case,
labor-intensive
But I don't recall that growth had to be free market oriented. It was
simply growth, and as far as I know, India's growth rates over the various
decades provided covered different regimes. Strictly speaking India does
not play by market rules, although today it does more so than before.
Rates of growth of GDP per capita, India:
1950-1980 1.1% per year
1980-1990 3.3% per year
1990-2000 4.2% per year
At the pace of the last decade, India's real productivity is doubling
every seventeen years (compared to a doubling time of 65 years before
1980).
I can't help but think
Brad DeLong wrote:
Rates of growth of GDP per capita, India:
1950-1980 1.1% per year
1980-1990 3.3% per year
1990-2000 4.2% per year
At the pace of the last decade, India's real productivity is
doubling every seventeen years (compared to a doubling time of 65
years before
Brad DeLong wrote:
Rates of growth of GDP per capita, India:
1950-19801.1% per year
1980-19903.3% per year
1990-20004.2% per year
At the pace of the last decade, India's real productivity is doubling
every seventeen years (compared to a doubling time of 65 years before
Brad DeLong wrote:
Rates of growth of GDP per capita, India:
1950-19801.1% per year
1980-19903.3% per year
1990-20004.2% per year
At the pace of the last decade, India's real productivity is doubling every seventeen
years (compared to a doubling time of 65 years before 1980).
And how reliable are the statistics? Doesn't the increased monetization of an economy
almost
invariably create an upward bias in the increased the measured rate of growth.
Also, thank you Ravi for joining in.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brad DeLong wrote:
Rates of growth of GDP per capita,
:26 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:10209] Re: What is going on?
And how reliable are the statistics? Doesn't the increased monetization
of an economy almost
invariably create an upward bias in the increased the measured rate of
growth.
Also, thank you Ravi for joining in.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Brad DeLong wrote:
Rates of growth of GDP per capita, India:
1950-19801.1% per year
1980-19903.3% per year
1990-20004.2% per year
to sum up in a different way than Ken does, a utilitarian type might see "economic
growth"
as a good thing if
the per capital benefit as measured by
Brad DeLong quotes some dubious growth statistics about India and everyone goes
bonkers. Why does anyone pay attention to him? This list is just an amusement
for him. He likes to bait people and redbait the leftists from his perch at
Berkeley (from which he waits for a Democrat to get elected
While I agree that Brad's original note was certain to provoke, this
discussion is getting increasingly personal.
On Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 08:07:13PM -0400, Michael Yates wrote:
Brad DeLong quotes some dubious growth statistics about India and everyone goes
bonkers. Why does anyone pay
Mike Yates writes: Brad DeLong quotes some dubious growth statistics about India and
everyone goes bonkers. Why does anyone pay attention to him?
I think it's good to debate the mainstream economists, if nothing but to keep our wits
sharp. It's better than intra-left flames. However, it usually
Again, we will do better to discuss Brad's ideas rather than Brad as a
person.
On Sun, Apr 15, 2001 at 01:14:09AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Yates writes: Brad DeLong quotes some dubious growth statistics about India and
everyone goes bonkers. Why does anyone pay attention to him?
Brad DeLong quotes some dubious growth statistics about India and
everyone goes
bonkers. Why does anyone pay attention to him? This list is just
an amusement
for him. He likes to bait people and redbait the leftists from his perch at
Berkeley (from which he waits for a Democrat to get
Mike Yates writes: Brad DeLong quotes some dubious growth
statistics about India and
everyone goes bonkers. Why does anyone pay attention to him?
I think it's good to debate the mainstream economists, if nothing
but to keep our wits
sharp. It's better than intra-left flames. However, it
Brad DeLong wrote:
Rates of growth of GDP per capita, India:
1950-1980 1.1% per year
1980-1990 3.3% per year
1990-2000 4.2% per year
At the pace of the last decade, India's real productivity is
doubling every seventeen years (compared to a doubling time of 65
years before 1980).
Brad DeLong wrote:
So the answer to your question is that the bottom 20-40% aren't better
off not (much, if any). On the other hand, India's middle class--the
50th to the 90th percentile--are still very poor by U.S. standards, and
their incomes have grown remarkably.
again, i am not
We have people on the list from Turkey, Argentina, Korea, and many other
places where very important changes are taking place. Unfortunately, we
hear almost nothing from the people on the ground in days places.
Instead, we hear a great deal about the United States and Canada, but
not the rest
Michael Perelman wrote:
We have people on the list from Turkey, Argentina, Korea, and many other
places where very important changes are taking place. Unfortunately, we
hear almost nothing from the people on the ground in days places.
i am from india and i have contributed some thoughts,
Michael Perelman wrote:
We have people on the list from Turkey, Argentina, Korea, and many other
places where very important changes are taking place. Unfortunately, we
hear almost nothing from the people on the ground in days places.
i am from india and i have contributed some thoughts,
61 matches
Mail list logo
