Everybody agrees that capitalism is undergoing a serious crisis, but different people read this crisis differently. The commonest view, held even by progressive economists like Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, is that the crisis is entirely a consequence of the collapse of the housing ''bubble''; since in this situation of crisis, private expenditure, whether on consumption or on investment, is unlikely to increase in the foreseeable future, a revival is possible only through an increase in State expenditure, which means that both in the United States and in Europe, far from adopting austerity measures, the State should instead be increasing its expenditure. [This article was first published here]
Students at the prestigious Harvard University walked out of a class that they felt was biased towards the neoliberal economic system, and did not teach them wholesome economics. Then, they proceeded to join the Occupy Movement, expressing their support for a "movement that is changing American discourse on economic justice". Placing this event in the context of the ongoing four-month old global 'Occupy Movement', which started on the iconic Wall Street on September 17, Dr. Sudipta Bhattacharya asks, "Is the edifice of neo-liberalism finally crumbling?"
In 2011 the Nobel Prize in Economics has been given to two macroeconomists Thomas Sargent and Christopher Sims. At the juncture of deep economic crisis worldwide; particularly in North America and Europe what is the contemporary relevance of Sargent and Sims’ ‘seminal work’ in 1970s? Does the Nobel Committee try to prove any point regarding the burning issues centering global economic crisis? To get an answer we have to analyze the Nobel in Economics from its historical perspective.
Yesterday, the Times of India published a story on its front page titled Food Security Act may Raise Prices Globally. This story argues that with the enactment of the Food Security Act, in the event of a drought, India will have to import food from the global market, which will lead to an increase in global food prices. This line of argument is absolutely wrong and only shows the total lack of basic economics knowledge that these reporters have.
Prof. Utsa Patnaik, eminent Marxist economist, retired from CESP/JNU recently. She has inspired generations of students and researchers through her teaching and research spanning four decades. On the occasion of her farewell, students of CESP published an interview of Prof. Patnaik, which is reproduced here.
“In more than 30 years of teaching introductory macroeconomics, says Alan Blinder of Princeton University, he has never seen interest as high as it was last year... the crisis has also highlighted flaws in the existing macroeconomics curriculum... Courses in many leading universities are already being amended... Discussion of the “liquidity trap,” in which standard easing of monetary policy may cease to have any effect, had fallen out of vogue in undergraduate courses but seems to be back with a vengeance. Asset-price bubbles are also gaining more prominence.”
excerpts from the article titled “Revise and Resubmit”
A blog post on an erroneous interpretation of inflation in India in the Economic Times newspaper.
The Nobel Memorial Prize for Economics in 2009 has been awarded to Elinor Ostrom and Oliver Williamson. Their work separately on economic governance and rationale for property right structures is a more sophisticated rationale for capitalism and by extension its reigning-ideology-now-in-crisis - neoliberalism. The works of Coase, North and Williamson are the three pillars on which the ‘sophistication’ of ‘new institutional economics’ that informed the ‘good governance’ agenda of post-Washington neoliberal consensus was built upon. So it is not surprising that the Nobel memorial prize goes to the more 'sophisticated' theorists at a time when the 'crude' version faces a severe crisis of legitimacy.
While attention is focussed on the imperialist rigging of the Nobel 'Peace' Prize, Professor Jayati Ghosh argues in the Guardian that the Nobel prize for Economics may need its own bail out. Facing a similar crisis of legitimacy, the prize needs to prove it is much more than an award for stockmarket speculators.
The full article can be read here
In view of the global economic crisis and economic slowdown, the UPA Government could have announced at least its intention of providing relief to the people through massive increase in public investment in agriculture, rural development, social sectors and infrastructure besides steps to protect workers and farmers from lay offs and price crashes. Instead, what gets reflected in the Budget Speech is complacency and insensitivity towards the growing suffering of the masses.---CPI(M) Politburo Statement on the Interim Budget