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
The observation that the post-1918 Bolshevik Party had no clue what
kind of society it should be building--and that that was a big source
of trouble--is not red-baiting. It's a commonplace.
I've never met anyone so dumb as to claim the fact that the Second
International did *no* thinking
So in the 1920s, it was the job of the Chinese Communists to back the KMT
and Chiang
Kai-Shek, who were strong nationalists?
Actually, yes. The difference between Trotsky and Stalin was that Stalin
opposed an independent CP with its own newspaper. But everybody, including
Lenin and Trotsky,
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
Oh I dunno, during the more extreme flame wars in here, there are days when
I think I should join the (jackie) masonic order (who unlike the
Stonecutters on "The Simpsons" may really be making Steve Guttenberg a star)
Ann
Seriously, I learn a lot in here and am continuously reminded of what I
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
I wrote: "let's you and him fight!" -- is this an effort to divide and conquer
(what's
left of) the left?
quoth Brad, in his wisdom:
No. It's an attempt to *think* about the future.
If you want to make not thinking about the future a virtue, go ahead...
Michael, is the above calculated to
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).
Probably not intentionally calculated to do so. Michael Yates suggested that it was a
reflexive action.
Let me raise a question -- not specifically about whether or not the rise of Stalin
was the
result of an intellectual failure -- regarding how many degrees of freedom a country
has after
a
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,
Brad wrote: The observation that the post-1918 Bolshevik Party had no clue what kind
of
society it should be building--and that that was a big source of trouble--is not
red-baiting. It's a commonplace.
I wonder: since when is refering to something as a "commonplace" an argument? (Usually,
Just to summarise some of the points already made:
1)GDP growth itself even if it were a proper measure does not entail
that the worst off or even the majority gain. In many countries during the
last decade the gap between rich and poor has widened. Even if there were a
trickle-down effect,
http://www.latimes.com/wires/winternat/20010414/tCB00V2995.html
Americas' Summit Could Be Crucial
Associated Press Writer
MEXICO CITY--Not too long ago, Latin America was awash in military juntas,
closed economies and shantytown slums. People lived in fear of government death
squads
This article shows that in the case of Mexico free trade has resulted in
lower growth, greater inequality, higher inflation, and a large increase in
poverty.
Cheers, Ken Hanly
Who Benefits from the Free Trade Agreements?
By John W. Warnock
All our political leaders, our
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
Greetings, dear penners, and here is a question: does anyone have any
references on the economic impacts of amusement parks on local
communities? This request is in connection with an effort to challenge
an amusement park project. I am not personally involved...
Peter
ps: I just rejoined
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
Ken Hanly thought this might be of interest.
Who Benefits from the Free Trade Agreements?
By John W. Warnock
All our political leaders, our business organizations, and
most of our
university academics proclaim that the free trade agreements
benefit Canada,
the United States and
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?
NY Times, April 14, 2001
Mexico Grows Parched, With Pollution and Politics
By TIM WEINER
CHIMALHUACN, Mexico, April 13 In this grim slum 12 miles past
Mexico City's eastern edge, the lives of thousands of families depend on
Enrique Garca and his partners at the local pump house.
But,
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
Probably not intentionally calculated to do so. Michael Yates
suggested that it was a
reflexive action.
As I said, it is not a reflex action. It is a mere commonplace: If
you refuse to *think* about the future--claim that thinking about the
future is positively harmful--don't be surprised
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
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 21:30:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Spoon Collective [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: spoon-admin list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: One-day conference on The Great Transformation (fwd)
-- Forwarded message --
Maybe the Andrew Ross or Henry Giroux books on Disney have some refs.
Michael Pugliese
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Dorman" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 3:37 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:10215] economics of amusement parks!
Greetings, dear
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19557-2001Apr14.html
Beware the Telecom Quake
By David Ignatius
Sunday, April 15, 2001; Page B07
The colorful flameout of the dot-com companies is obscuring a deeper and more
dangerous problem for the global economy: the financial squeeze affecting
30 matches
Mail list logo
