open Democracy News Analysis - economics - Comments

Muir1848 on "Crisis in Ukraine’s economy"

Muir1848 — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:24:46 +0000

"Ukrainian engineering is of little use to anyone...."

Apart from the arms dealers currently supplying millions of dollars worth of arms - bought in and supplied by Ukraine - defying interntaional sanctions and selling them to Guinea - for a thread on the story

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/02/guinea-imports-arms-despite-embargo

part of their problem was they believed the lies and promises of the 'benefits of capitalism' peddled by the west - namely US and UK - and look where it has got them - a state that now lacks internal consistency - a stupid and naive attempt to involve US when it decided to attack the USSR - and a corrupt political oligarchy - getting fat on the proceeds of the forced privatisation of public services and utilities.

Babeouf Junior on "Crisis in Ukraine’s economy"

Babeouf Junior — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:40:32 +0000

To paraphrase Lenin "The law of Capitalism is the Law of uneven development". The two decades or so since the collapse of the USSR have given time for integration into the broad Capitalist economic system. The outcome for the Ukrainian people has been the result of initial resource endowments, political/state strategy and the vagaries of
world capitalism. Staying within the bounds of the idiots delight, Capitalism, only the political/State strategy's are
determinable within Ukraine. These will doubtless favor the current business elites. Resulting in a long period of impoverishment for the many.

Chola Mukanga on "Killing aid"

Chola Mukanga — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:18:10 +0000

With respect to the scope of aid under consideration, Dead Aid pretty much defines it as set out in the review. If Dr Moyo has departed from that position since the book was written then it is to be applauded. But to some extent that is irrelevant because we must take the book as given. Not every villager reading her book will have access to You Tube videos offering some of her reversals.

Although everyone would agree that some aid has flaws, and I make this clear in the review, there’s no evidence presented that aid causes poverty, as Dr Moyo argues. The assertion has no empirical basis.

I think there are many areas of aid which are ineffective and equally some which are useful. Infrastructure aid like the current NorthSouth Project http://www.zambian-economist.com/2009/04/north-south-project-14bn.html which is being funded by a group of donors in association withCOMESA countries to the tune of $1.4bn is welcomed by many. Another example might be aid to improveland titling as currently being implemented by DFID in Rwanda. The examples of positive are plenty.

I should also make it clear that my being a "fan" of micro finance, is probably best viewed within context. I simply note that aid to improve access to credit as taken forward by IFAD and targeted at Zambian farmers is good. In fact in the review, I specifically note that there’s no evidence that microfinance generates significant macro economic impacts, the test by which we should judge interventions, according to the Moyothesis.

In short, we are probably not too far apart. I think the key difference is what where you emphasise the problems involved, I see positive alternatives that if properly prioritised would make substantial difference to the lives of many of our poorest people.

KingofthePaupers on "Brodbeck on Bentham"

KingofthePaupers — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 02:34:58 +0000

Jct: Boy, doesn't Bentham look stupid now that the Laplace Transform for the usury-banking-system is now known (1/(s-i)) and the only instability in the whole system is the positive feedback caused by the "i" interest.
Google bankmath or visit
http://johnturmel.com/bankmath.htm for the full control system engineering analysis proving abolition of interest stabilizes the money system to operate like mere poker chips backed up by asset or time without involuntary inflation or unemployment.
Anyway, Thomas 95: Jesus said: If you have money, do not lend it out at interest." Jeremy Bentham said: If you have money, you may lend it out at interest."
You can bet who I'm going with.

JFox on "Killing aid"

JFox — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:01:40 +0000

It's unlikely that Moyo or anyone else would argue against humanitarian or emergency aid to assist victims of catastrophe. The assistance we are talking about here is Development Aid - the kind that is intended to promote a long-term improvement in the welfare and standard of living of the poor in recipient countries.
Having studied a significant number of individual government-to-government aid programs, I have yet to find one that was clearly successful. Those I have looked at over a long career have been, at best, poor value for money and largely ineffectual, and at worst - and most commonly - they were counter-productive.They tended to create or strengthen aid dependency, foment corruption (often of a kind so subtle as to be virtually invisible to casual observers), and all-too-often to come with strings attached that made them more beneficial to donor-country suppliers than to recipients.
In theory, measures can be taken to address such issues; in practice, however, the measures are either not implemented, or readily circumvented.

Government-to-government aid is, almost by definition, "top down". The intended beneficiaries - who are invariably acutely conscious of their condition and have a pretty good idea of how to improve matters - are seldom, if ever, seriously consulted. Nor are they given authority over the expenditures supposedly made on their behalf. Others do that - local bureaucrats or politicians, aid "professionals", foreign consultants etc. who, apparently, "know better". A vast international conglomerate of experts, corporations, officials and planners (all based either in the First World or in privileged Third World enclaves) have their hands in the till. For examples - and a startlingly vivid first-hand account of poverty and the ineffectiveness of conventional aid - I recommend P.Sainath's Everybody Loves a Good Drought.

Micro Finance - of which Mukanga among many others is a fan - has certainly proved to be an effective form of developmental assistance. But it is not - at least in the brilliant format devised by Muhammad Yunus - in any sense conventional aid and it is about as far from government-to-government aid as it is possible to be. Above all it does precisely what most official assistance fails to do, namely to leave development in the hands of those who both need it and know how to use it.

JFox on "Avoiding the worst: International economic cooperation and domestic politics"

JFox — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:33:21 +0000

Tony:

I read Frieden as calling for more of the same, in contrast to what he sees as a retreat into protectionism.
My contention is that Free Trade in the version foisted on the world for the last few decades is already fundamentally protectionist. It has been a policy of the strong - rarely if ever of the weak. And it has failed to achieve what it says on the label.

The formal international agreements that underpin free trade tend to leave the signatories unable to address changes in domestic economic conditions - regardless of the will of the people and their governments. Are these agreements nonetheless good for us? Take NAFTA as an example - one of whose signatories is a middle income developing country - Mexico. Since entering the NAFTA, Mexico has witnessed a significant growth in inequality, very large increases in staple food prices (corn, beans, chiles) which has severely affected the poor, and a large and still growing trade deficit in agricultural products (against consistent pre-NAFTA surpluses). Mexico post NAFTA became Latin-America's number one producer of multi-millionaires - and of people living in impoverished circumstances. My point is that Frieden's case rests on a misreading of the way so-called Free Trade has worked in practice. We are not suddenly entering a period of protectionism, we have been living in a protectionist paradigm for several decades, and the recent emergence of "protectionist" policies that he observes merely exposes to view some of the pipework of the underlying neo-liberal model. I believe the model is not viable in the long term and that we need to look for an alternative way of administering economic life.

Your second question is puzzling. You will not find in my previous contribution here, or in anything else I have written, any suggestion that I oppose egalitarian policies. On the contrary. I do, however, believe that citizens often know where their interests lie better than governments, whose members are all-too-often drawn from narrow intellectual and economic elites. Where I also part company with Frieden is not in his call for social and economic justice at a time of crisis (how could I?), but in his faith in international rules and regulations, in other words in tying down nations to sets of unalterable principles that may or may not be in their medium and long term interests and that are not, by definition, sensitive to changes of circumstance or the evolving wishes of electorates. The call for rules seems to reflect a monotheistic view of the world, the idea that there can be only one theology, one answer to the challenges of human economic interaction and that this should be imposed on everyone by dictat from a supranational body. It is deeply undemocratic; and history shows that it is not the way western countries became rich. Fostering autonomy and maximum room for manoeuvre within a framework of international law seems to me the more viable and honest procedure; and it is in any case the one that the most powerful countries (and corporations) will adopt regardless of what anyone else thinks.

Jeremy

bigC on "Cash flow in the Gaza Strip"

bigC — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 08:05:39 +0000

Congratulations on your conculsions Professor. Very comforting for you. I can't help noticing that you use the words "obsession" and "hatred" rather a lot. I'll keep my conclusions on that to myself.

Ethan II on "Cash flow in the Gaza Strip"

Ethan II — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 19:58:00 +0000

I never said the British Forces on Cyprus were there to support the Turkish entity in the north. The British have other national-strategic ( not "U.S. puppet") reasons for those bases. (Britain has its own foreign policy--something BC wishes nuttily to deny.) These large British bases--and they are very large indeed--were merely presented by me as evidence of deep British involvement on Cyprus: deeper than in Israel. That's all.

But British policy now does support the Turkish entity in the north; at least that's the way the Greek Cypriot govt and the Greek Cypriot people see it, one the result being demos against the British bases. Those are facts, BC.

But Big C had argued earlier that his obsession with Israel was merely because of British involvement with Israel. (Translation: though highly critical of certain Israeli policies, the British govt believes that Israel has a right to exist, which BC does not.) My point: British govt involvement on Cyprus is much more deep, the refugee problem is very large in scale, its cause is totally imperial aggression (Turkey) in favor of a colonial minority (Turkish) and this British involvement includes important military bases (not existant in Israel). But Big C wasn't concerned about any of *that*. How come, if his political passions have to do merely with British government policy?

Therefore, his argument that his obsession with Israel derives solely from the connection to British govt policy falls to the ground in the face of the fact that he has no obsession with Cyprus, where there is a large and unjustly treated refugee problem with no right of return, and where the British involvement is much more direct--and yet no concern about this from Big C, and no hatred of the Turks.

Conclusion I: despite his statement, BC's obsessive hatred of Israel does not derive from British govt support of Israel. If it did, he'd be angry about Cyprus (now that he knows about it.) Nor does it derive purely from the facts on the ground, for the refugee problem on Cyprus is similar, the colonial nature of the enforced flight of the refugees crystal clear (unlike what occurred in 1947-1948), and British involvement more direct--but there's not much concern from BC about any of this, and certainly no hatred of the Turks, as there is of the Israelis.

Conclusion II: BC's obsessive hatred of Israel derives from left-wing politics, and nothing else: it's political, not humanitarian.

bigC on "Cash flow in the Gaza Strip"

bigC — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 18:23:00 +0000

Did you learn your arithmetic from the same teacher who taught you geography professor? Britain's ordering out of Suez by Eisenhower took place in 1956 - though it did mark the turning point in the relationship. It was clear who was boss from that point onwards. Iraq and Afghanistan ( as well as Britain's Israel policy) easily trump the other issues. You may recall that the US also had a presence in Iran until a certain incident took place.

Gee, BC--wasn't it *you* who repeatedly and directly called me a liar again and again over the last few days here?

Professor, what you have done is to attempt to de-legitimise by reference to your presumptions about bien pensants, left wingers etc. I pointed out your deliberate attempt to mis-lead by suggesting that the British troops stationed in Cyprus are there to support the Turkish entity in the north. This is a reference to an objective lie not a presumption of a lie based on ill informed prejudice. The difference is massive.

Ethan II on "Cash flow in the Gaza Strip"

Ethan II — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 17:10:19 +0000

1. On most points BC now has no reply to my facts, and admits he's not an expert on Cyprus.

2. As for BC's claim that British policy has been tied umbilically to U.S. policy over the past half century--really? Is that what happened in Suez? Did U.S. forces fight in Malaya or Aden? Did British forces fight in Vietnam? Dominican Republic? Haiti? Grenada? Lebanon? The U.S. has no ties with Iran--does Britain, up to and including embassies?

Though Britain and the U.S. are allies, there's a huge literature on the differences betw British and U.S. foreign policies.

And as for our current topic, what is BC's specific *evidence* for his claim that Britain in her relations with Turkey is not following her own strategic interests, and is merely a cat's paw of the U.S.? You made the accusation, BC--*specific evidence* please!

3. Regarding BC's argument that Israel is being discussed on this thread and therefore nothing else is relevant, the Greek historian Polybius destroyed that argument 2,200 years ago: "We learn through comparison."

Comparison like the Turkish army's invasion of northern Cyprus in 1974, the expulsion of the 200,000 Greeks living there, the turning over of their land to minority Turkish colonists who now conrol it, and the fact that the Greeks have no "right of return". Yet this tragedy is of no interest to the left. Only Israel is.

From a historical point of view, such an approach is called "perspective", esp. since Cyprus is actually not far from northern Israel, and both were once ruled by Britain.

4. Finally, BC writes: "I note again the resort to an attack on the maturity, intellect or integrity of those that oppose you." Gee, BC--wasn't it *you* who repeatedly and directly called me a liar again and again over the last few days here?

bigC on "Cash flow in the Gaza Strip"

bigC — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 16:22:30 +0000

I am not "indifferent" to the fate of either Greek or Turkish Cypriots Professor. I am not an expert on events there but I know enough to see through your hideously partisan distortion of the events themselves and of any British policy towards them.

With regard to Britain and the US you only need to look at British foreign policy for the past 50 years to see that it is umbillically joined to the US.

I note again the resort to an attack on the maturity, intellect or integrity of those that oppose you. Here's a little wake up for you. Israel is not being discussed on this thread because it is a "left-wing issue". It is being discussed because it is what this thread is about. If you wish to initiate discussion on any of the other topics you feel are just as deserving of attention then you are free to submit your doubless learned work for consideration.

Ethan II on "Cash flow in the Gaza Strip"

Ethan II — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 14:51:30 +0000

1. The British govt desires reconciliation re Israel/Palestine. But for Big C that reconciliationhe defines as "victory" for one side b/c Israel would be allowed to exist, which he opposes. It's a strange defintion of reconciliation he seeks, with one side (Israel) destroyed as a nation. I prefer the British position in support of reconciliation--which has not excluded severe British criticism of Israeli actions.

2. I'm not sure what 'reconciliation" would mean on Cyprus. But the British seem pretty well to have accepted the division of the island--which is not a neutral position and which the Greek Cypriots have protested both officially and through demos in the streets. So BC if you're a general humanitarian whose only concern is British govt involvement in a tragedy, where's your hatred of Turkey?

3. BC, what's the *evidence* for your assertion that the British Govt merely slavishly followed the U.S. bidding on Turkey and supports Turkey's admission to the EU for that reason rather than its *own* strategic and economic interests with Turkey. (Which is exactly what the Cypriots are protesting.) *Specific evidence please.* Or did you get this the same place as you got your assertion that the British bases on Cyprus were NATO bases?

Is it your position on this blog that the British govt is a puppet of the United States?

4. The 2007 Anglo-Turkish treaty contained a pledge by Britain to try to end the "isolation" of Turkish northern Cyprus, BC.

BC, if as you now claim the Cypriot govt is lying about the British govt attitude for its own purposes of winning elections, that is because most Cypriots agree with *me*, about what is going on and therefore are hostile to Britain. Don't you see that?

It should be clear to you that I have *lots* of evidence for what I have asserted. If it's not, well, there's nothing I can do as you kick and fume against reality.

Meanwhile, in northern Cyprus many Greek churches have been damaged, or turned into schools or farms, 25 have been destroyed, and some have been turned into mosques. I don't believe for one second that this is going to be rectified.

5. Your argument was that your hatred of Israel had to do with British govt involvement in Israel, which turns out now to mean support for Israel's existence. But your indifference to the plight of the Greek Cypriots at the hands of Turkish invasion cannot now be asserted to be because the British govt isn't involved in this situation. If anything, the British government is *more* deeply involved on Cyprus than it is with Israel. Ask the Cypriot students demonstrating their hostility to Britain in front of the bases of British Forces Cyprus. So that is not the reason for your indifference to this issue.

6. Be honest: your indifference to Cyprus compared to your hatred of Israel, is not because of anything other than the following. The fact is that Cyprus--despite the 200,000 refugees tossed out by the Turkish army in 1974 with their land given to 20% of the population (namely, Turks), and that the Greeks can't return even under the UN Plan of 2004, and that all this happened decades more recently than 1948--the fact is that *this* is not a left-wing cause. Period. And that indicates, BC, that your motivation re Israel is not a motivation from humanitarianism, nor from a general concern for injustice, nor because of British government non-involvement on Cyprus or with Turkey. It's simply political.

So...behind the mask of outraged humanitarianism about Israel stand no general principles but simple left-wing politics and nothing else. Otherwise, I'd expect you to be organizing demos in Trafalgar Square against Turkey, and British govt support for Turkey including admission to the EU, and urging the boycott of Turkish academics because of the invasion of Cyprus, the creating of 200,000 refugees, and the turning over of their property to Turks. And yet I feel I will be waiting a long time for this. BC, no matter how you twist and squirm, you've just been unmasked.

7. BC, it would've have been better for you simply to admit you knew and know nothing about the Cypriot situation. Of course, the reason for that ignorance of a situation which is worse than what happened with the creation of Israel (invasion by a Turkish army which led to huge parcels of Greek land going to Turkish colonists) is that ...despite the injustice and the 200,000 refugees, and no right of return...Cyprus is not a left-wing issue.

And why is that? No Arab money behind the issue? No fashionable "third-worldism" of the left to excuse every ridiculous self-destructive policy and every brutality of suicide bombing and proclaimed genocidal ideology by the Palestinians? Only Israel is subjected to the double standard.

bigC on "Cash flow in the Gaza Strip"

bigC — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 13:52:13 +0000

You're sawing off the branch you're sitting on Professor. The US wants Turkey in the EU so the UK, doing it's bidding, is attempting to facilitate this. Hence the 2007 agreement. The Greek Cypriot government, mindful of it's own electoral interests is making empty noises about Britain's supposed implicit recognition of the Turkish government in the north when no such thing is occuring.

Britain along with every other European country desires reconciliation in Cyprus, not the victory of one over another. It cannot say this is about Israel where it has refused to condemn repeated breaches of international law such as the invasion of Lebanon and the razing of Gaza and continues to treat it as a valued ally and trading partner.

Meanwhile Greek and Turkish Cypriots are in the process of reclaiming their property in the respective parts of Cyprus. The comparison with the forcing out of the Palestinians by foreign colonists is utterly fatuous.

Ethan II on "Cash flow in the Gaza Strip"

Ethan II — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 21:21:23 +0000

Pretty amazing. I just presented plenty of *evidence* that Britain has sided with Turkey over northern Cyprus, including the British-Turkish 2007 agreement--and that's the official and angry position of the Greek Cypriot government, that Britain has sided with Turkey on this issue, and Greek Cypriot anger at the British govt position is manifested in Greek Cypriot student demonstrators against the bases. What more do you want?

But Big C isn't interested in facts, I guess. So he just says I'm lying. He offers no evidence of that, and he can't, because, as I've just shown, I have much *evidence* on my side. So I ask the reader: who has been caught purveying inaccurate information here?

Big C says he's not interested in the Greek Cypriots because there's no British govt involvement. But there is British govt involvement. Big C isn't interested in the Greek Cypriots because the 200,000 Greek Cypriot refugees driven from their homes by Turkish imperialism, and not allowed to go back ("right of return") are not a left-wing issue. It's that simple. So much for humanitarianism.

bigC on "Cash flow in the Gaza Strip"

bigC — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 20:45:00 +0000

My point was that Big C's claim that his hatred of Israel was merely
because of British involvement with Israel was belied by his lack of
interest or emotional regarding the refugee situation in Cyprus, where
there is plenty of involvement and where there are actually British
troops stationed.

You compound your lies by repeating them Professor. Britain's bases in Cyprus have the same status as the US base in Guantanamo. They may not be NATO bases but Britain uses them to fulfill their oblgations under that treaty and other alliances, not to influence events in Cyprus as you so dishonestly attempt to imply. So it is purely a technical error which does not affect my point: Britain does not take sides in the dispute between Greek and Turkish Cypriots. It does however, to our shame, side with Israel against the Palestinians. So no. This does not belie my position. Far from it. It demonstrates that you cannot defend your position without resorting to the most shameless and transparent of lies.