Link

📅 Conference: The Legacy Of Wynne Godley

Levy Economics Institute has announced a virtual conference in commemoration of Wynne Godley on May 13th.

The site says that you can join by Google Meet.

Marc Lavoie’s talk is Wynne Godley And The Monetary Circuit. There’s a roundtable Godley’s Approach In The Current Crisis.

There are several new speakers who didn’t attend the conference in honour of Godley in 2011 such as Ken Coutts, Graham Gudgin, Bill Martin.

Poster from Levy Institute’s Facebook page.

Link

Ingrid Harvold Kvangraven’s Review Of Thomas Piketty’s Capital And Ideology

Nice review of Thomas Piketty’s book Capital and Ideology:

… his [Piketty’s] policy recommendations largely on wealth transfers. For example, rather than interrogating how we as society work, produce and consume, his solutions are biased towards redistribution without changing the core of the system.

This limits his capacity to explain global phenomena. This is clear in his view on the effects of trade liberalization: rather than exploring how the removal of barriers to imports in the 1980s led to a collapse of industry in the global south, Piketty focuses on the loss of income from tariffs. In the same vein, his proposals shy away from discussing the massive rebalancing of global finance and production that is necessary; instead, he focuses on aid transfers to governments, and taxation.

Picture from Thomas Piketty’s Twitter page

Link

Glenn Greenwald On Red Scare

Glenn Greenwald appears in one the recent episodes on the podcast Red Scare.

He talks of various things politics especially on why Bernie Sanders lost and also Jeremy Corbyn.

This at 1:10:00 caught my attention:

Everyone knew he was in favour of Brexit, like everyone knows he hates the EU but he felt like in order to just like worm his way through the Labour party kind of Blairites, he had to pretend against Brexit and be a remainer when everyone knew he wasn’t, so it was like this kind of like complete draining of his vibrancy and passion being forced into this box where he wasn’t comfortable.

Is Financial Times Socialist Now?

Posted on by
Leave a reply

Few days ago, “The Editorial Board” of Financial Times published an article calling for “radical reforms”.

The article says:

Radical reforms — reversing the prevailing policy direction of the last four decades — will need to be put on the table. Governments will have to accept a more active role in the economy. They must see public services as investments rather than liabilities, and look for ways to make labour markets less insecure. Redistribution will again be on the agenda; the privileges of the elderly and wealthy in question. Policies until recently considered eccentric, such as basic income and wealth taxes, will have to be in the mix.

…

The leaders who won the war did not wait for victory to plan for what would follow. Franklin D Roosevelt and Winston Churchill issued the Atlantic Charter, setting the course for the United Nations, in 1941. The UK published the Beveridge Report, its commitment to a universal welfare state, in 1942. In 1944, the Bretton Woods conference forged the postwar financial architecture. That same kind of foresight is needed today. Beyond the public health war, true leaders will mobilise now to win the peace.

So what explains this shift?

The important point is that FT which just speaks for the ruling class hasn’t become left-wing, it’s just adopting a left-wing policy. The number one point of liberalism—the ruling class ideology—is to prevent a left-wing rise. Anything for that, including the use of left-lite politics, temporarily.

Link

Economics In Ten Episode On Joan Robinson

The latest episode of the podcast Economics In Ten is on Joan Robinson.

Description:

George Bernard Shaw once noted: ‘The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.’  What George forgot though was unreasonable women and when it comes to Economics, Joan Robinson was the unreasonable, brilliant woman and wow…did she make progress! Sadly in the male dominated economics world, she’s rather over-looked and this needs to change. She changed the way we thought about markets, she challenged economic orthodoxy, was part of Keynes’ inner circle and offered up her own growth theories. In this new podcast, you will find out all this and more! Guiding you through as always are Pete and Gav, your friendly neighbourhood economists with technical support from Nic (check out his app – cheeky fingers). Music comes from Jukedeck and you can create your own at jukedeck.com. PS Apologies for a brief sound outage that occurs around the 20 minute mark. You might think the podcast is over at this point but fear not you have another hour of fun/learning about the great Joan to go….

Link

Gennaro Zezza And Alan Shipman — Wynne Godley

There’s a nice recent six-page biography of Wynne Godley in The New Palgrave Dictionary Of Economics by Gennaro Zezza and Alan Shipman. Shipman had recently written a full biography on Wynne Godley’s life.

Abstract:

The chapter provides a brief biography of Wynne Godley (1926–2010), a British economist who informed the discussion of economic policy in the United Kingdom and later the United States. Godley was the main contributor to the development of the stock-flow-consistent approach to macroeconomics, setting out models based on rigorous accounting which allowed him to anticipate (ahead of more orthodox forecasters) adverse developments in the UK economy in the 1970s and 1980s, as well as the global recessions of 2001 and 2007–2009.

Alexander Zevin On Citations Needed

Posted on by
Leave a reply

There’s a new episode, of the Citations Needed podcast titled Episode 98: The Refined Sociopathy of The Economist and featuring Alexander Zevin on his book Liberalism At Large—The World According To The Economist.

The episode is about The Economist and also about the word “liberalism”.

From the transcript:

Alexander Zevin: One of the things that book tries to do is to bring the history of imperialism into the history of liberalism, and usually they’re not spoken about together. In fact, in many histories of liberalism you’ll get the impression that liberals were anti-imperialists, they were against the empire, but The Economist, and what I argue is the dominant strand of liberalism, isn’t. It’s consistently pro-imperial from the 1850s at the time of the Crimean War, and the Opium War in China, and the Indian mutiny, and many other conflicts all the way through to the present.

picture by Alexander Zevin

Excellent discussion of the connection of liberalism and imperialism.

Paul Krugman, Empire Man

Posted on by
Leave a reply

Paul Krugman’s article, Trump The Intimidator Fails Again, published Jan 6th in The New York Times a few days ago, shows how he is a rank imperialist.

Consider the following quote:

America did many terrible things during its reign as global hegemon. But we clearly stood for global rule of law, for a system that imposed common rules on everyone, ourselves included. The United States may have been the dominant partner in alliances like NATO and bodies like the World Trade Organization, but we always tried to behave as no more than first among equals.

“But”? 🤯

He’s openly confessing that the United States imposes an economic order on all countries but tries to justify it as some good thing.

It’s important for Post-Keynesians to highlight how imperialism works. To not start economics with imperialism is a huge disservice to the subject. The “liberal international order” is hugely constraining to poorer countries and instead of achieving economic convergence, leads to polarisation.

Imperialism works by controlling the narrative and getting countries to adopt neoliberal policies. Some countries agree to it while others are arm-twisted to do so. If they still don’t obey, the US government tries to intervene in the countries’ democratic process, such as by funding their opposition, and/or rigging elections. Or they face sanctions and isolation. In the extreme case, the US uses military to achieve its objectives—providing new markets for the US producers.

The role of economists such as Paul Krugman is to promote economic propaganda, to deceive the world into thinking that neoliberal policies achieve the best outcomes.

Back to the quote, notice the extreme language manipulation. Paul Krugman calls himself a “liberal” and calls a coerced system “rule of law”. Double-speak! No first among equals, as the rules of global trade are unfair, benefiting advanced countries, who have themselves enriched themselves with different rules such as import tariffs, quotas and direct imperialism, for example, the British occupation of India. Moreover, even currently, the rules of international trade are highly protectionist in many ways.