Mr. Chakrabortty writes in The Guardian

And I comment there:

Amazingly, that’s really not quite what the IMF paper does say. For example, this from Aditya:

“The results, the IMF researchers concede, have been terrible. Neoliberalism hasn’t delivered economic growth – it has only made a few people a lot better off.”

The actual paper itself:

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/06/ostry.htm

“There is much to cheer in the neoliberal agenda. The expansion of global trade has rescued millions from abject poverty. Foreign direct investment has often been a way to transfer technology and know-how to developing economies. Privatization of state-owned enterprises has in many instances led to more efficient provision of services and lowered the fiscal burden on governments.­”

We know that Aditya read that paragraph because he refers to the last part of it.

So, neoliberalism good except for:

“However, there are aspects of the neoliberal agenda that have not delivered as expected. Our assessment of the agenda is confined to the effects of two policies: removing restrictions on the movement of capital across a country’s borders (so-called capital account liberalization); and fiscal consolidation, sometimes called “austerity,” which is shorthand for policies to reduce fiscal deficits and debt levels. An assessment of these specific policies (rather than the broad neoliberal agenda) reaches three disquieting conclusions:”

More specifically they talk about portfolio finance and hot money flows. These don’t seem to do much good and are destabilising when they leave again. Note that this is not, not at all and in no manner, about foreign direct investment: actually building factories and the like.

On austerity:

“It is surely the case that many countries (such as those in southern Europe) have little choice but to engage in fiscal consolidation, because markets will not allow them to continue borrowing. But the need for consolidation in some countries does not mean all countries—at least in this case, caution about “one size fits all” seems completely warranted.”

That’s not a blanket condemnation of it now, is it?

It’s almost as if Aditya saw what he wanted to in that paper rather than actually reported what it said.

Ho hum.

21 thoughts on “Mr. Chakrabortty writes in The Guardian”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    So how long do you think that comment will remain? Is it gone already?

    In the meantime, I want to know if Chakrabortty is “politically Black”. This is the important question of the day:

    http://heatst.com/uk/nus-at-war-over-politically-black-antisemitic-president-a-rachel-dolezal/

    What does it mean to be “ethnically Black” I wonder? Is race such a terrible concept that the Left can’t use it even when they are clearly using it?

    In the time it has taken me to write this, the comment has survived. I am surprised. I do like the commentator who says that the law only applies to some. Who would have thought we would see criticism of Hillary Clinton in the Guardian?

  2. I have to chuckle at some of the reponses, someone has manged to throw down Richard Seymour to refute your comments.

  3. ‘And it is the very technocrats in charge of the system who are slowly, reluctantly admitting that it is bust.’

    Free enterprise doesn’t have technocrats in charge. There is no ‘system.’

  4. one of the extraordinary thing about the other comments under that article is the rebranding of free movement. For years the leftards have told us that free movement is a human right and it’s only opposed by bigots, neocolonialists, right wingers and basically Hitler. Now that it’s becoming apparent that uncontrolled immigration can have material downsides and, more importantly, is incredibly unpopular with the kind of blue collar workers that Labour theoretically represents, immigration and free movement are suddenly and increasingly being painted as the ideas of right-wing idealogues.

    It’s almost as if the left are making it up as they go along, isn’t it?

  5. Chakrabortty==Murphy, in that he seems to make a good living spouting the same economic nonsense over and over again to credulous losers.

    I admire them both greatly.

  6. “Two British examples, suggests Will Davies – author of the Limits of Neoliberalism – would be the NHS and universities ‘where classrooms are being transformed into supermarkets'”

    because that would be bad, how? I remember the world before the likes of Tesco and Sainsburys were huge and the alternatives fucking sucked. VG shops with 2 varieties of bread, 3 varieties of wine that were closed at 5, half days on wednesday, and had abysmal customer service.

  7. Wait, you had a store that sold both bread and wine? In these parts that just doesn’t happen.

  8. @ Liberal Yank
    It was called an “off-licence”.
    There were other shops that sold several varieties of bread. If we wanted a decent range of wines we had to visit a wine merchant (except for the aristocracy who ‘phoned up the wine merchant and placed an order to be delivered to their butler).

  9. Bloke in Costa Rica

    I remember traipsing round the town with my mother for hours in the 70’s to do a complete weekly shop (and my father had the car so it really was a trudge). When Tesco opened their hypermarket on the outskirts of town there was great rejoicing as now you could do the same thing in 30 minutes and chuck it in the boot, plus it was 2/3 the price.

    In other news, Chakrabortty is a twat.

  10. I am in PA. Most alcohol has to be purchased through state stores. Beer can be purchased at beer distributors, bars(limit 2 six packs), or a handful of grocers that paid enough baksheesh. If you manage to get a job at a state store you are set for life though.

  11. BiCR,

    There are still vestiges of that older system here. I personally prefer to go to the baker, butcher, green grocer, … when I have the time. The food quality is far higher, especially in season. The price is generally lower as the separate businesses are also distributors.

  12. Au contraire, BiCR, you just have to find the right ones.

    Walmart is awful, as well as utterly depressing. One I went to had 9 separate items in the fruit and veg “area”, which nearly had me scrambling for the first flight home.

    However, find out where the Hispanic women shop and all is well.

  13. Jack C,

    It’s no more corrupt than the VA town I grew up in. The difference is the method.

  14. BiCR,

    “American supermarkets are shite compared to Europe.”

    Yeah, I noticed that. I guess it’s that the food they eat is so dull.

  15. Someone I worked with who was a real foodie said they left Alberta because theiridea of apple varieties were Green and Red and after a year in Calgary they almost burst into tears when walking into a Granville island market on a visit back to BC

  16. Neighbouring NJ also has ‘dry’ communities, but it varies from town to town. So you go out for a meal to a restaurant that can’t sell wine, and instead of paying 300% mark-up on a bottle, you order your food and pop next door to the designated Liquor Store, which (if it’s an up-market town, as many NJ burgs are) has a fine selection of wines at ‘shop’ prices. You can then take your chosen bottle back to the restaurant who open it and serve it with your meal, many don’t even charge corkage. A different system, but it can work very well.

  17. From what I’ve seen across the Midwest and VA the prices in PA aren’t noticeably different* in public or private stores. While we don’t have liquor on ever corner the selection is normally better in the state stores. Despite the corruption in the system it manages to outperform private business in some areas.

  18. Lost my note.

    * Based off of the prices in stores I visited. This is not a detailed study.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *