Growth (fwd)
>> >Be very careful. The population of the rich grows in two ways: (i) the rich have lots of children, and (ii) the poor become rich... >do you know that african american women are sterilized at a significantly higher rate than white women? (according to our sociologist friend,Andy Austin, 3-4 times) doesn't it also bother you that the US elite(particulary the new right) celebrate the decline in black fertility rates? What bothers you actually? >Mine >That worry about "overpopulation" soon turns into an action planaimed at making sure that the poor people of the world--and theirdescendants--stay poor... Brad Delong Brad, why don't you have a look at how IMF deals with population control, poverty reduction and debt relief in the third world? It looks like an excellent agenda of making the poor rich. I am sure some other defenders of Bartlett will find the piece quite appealing too... Mine >From: Robert Weissman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [stop-imf] IMF explains its role in poverty reduction > >This is one of the clearer explanations, from the IMF's point of view, of >the new and improved, kinder, gentler IMF. > > >Robert Weissman >Essential Information | Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >From http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2000/061500.htm > >Strengthening the Focus on Poverty Reduction > >Remarks by Mr. Eduardo Aninat >Deputy Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund > >At the Development Policy Forum >Berlin, June 15, 2000 > >Ladies and gentlemen, I am honored to open this international policy >dialogue on poverty reduction and debt relief. We all know the problem, >one of the greatest faced by mankind today: 1.2billion people worldwide >living on less than $1 per day, a number that has held roughly unchanged >over the past decade and threatens to rise in the years ahead. What we >need is a solution, and here, perhaps we can draw inspiration from the >famous inventor, Benjamin Franklin. For it was on this day, in 1752, that >he is said to have tossed a kite into the sky with a key tied to its >string and proved that lightning contained electricity. It was a small >step, achieved with simple means, but it was catalytic enough so as to >transform our very existence. >So what step can we, the international community, take to transform the >existence of the world's poor? I would like to suggest that perhaps we, >together, have started that step by last September adopting a new approach >to poverty reductionone that builds on decisive good practices in >countries and in donor agencies. The emphasis now will be more on the poor >countries themselves taking the lead in setting their own priorities and >defining their own programs through participatory processes, with the full >involvement of the international community. >What is really different in this approach? Why should it deliver better >results than old, past efforts? And how will debt relief tie in? I will >try to answer these questions in my remarks today, but first a little >background on why we are even headed down this road. >Origin of stronger poverty focus >Quite frankly, the old approaches were not yielding the hoped-for results >in most parts of the world, including Africa and much of Asia. In1995, the >international community formally pledged to reduce by half the proportion >of people living in extreme poverty by2015, achieve universal primary >education in all countries, reduce infant mortality rates, and improve a >number of other social and environmental indicators. But a few years >later, despite important progress on many fronts, it was clear that the >chances of meeting these pledges were becoming slimmer. The regional >variations have been great, with East Asia and the Pacific ahead of >schedule, particularly on poverty reduction, but the other regions behind >schedule. >Another influence was the greater recognition of the mutually reinforcing >nature of growth and poverty reduction. We had long known that sound >macroeconomic policies favor growth. We had also long known that sound >macroeconomic policies and growth-enhancing structural reforms favor the >poor, since growth is the single most important source of poverty >reduction and an important source of financing for targeted social >outlays. For instance, in Chile during the1990s, four-fifths of the >achieved 50percent increase in real per capita social expenditure emanated >from accelerated growth. >But there now is greater acceptance that causation also runs in the other >direction. Poverty reduction and social equity feed back positively into >growth. Without poverty reduction, it is difficult to sustain sound macro >policies and structural reforms long enough to eradicate inflation and >increase the growth ratethere is unlikely to be the political support to >persevere. Indeed, for countries with a high proportion of the population >in poverty, it is difficult to increase growth without tackling poverty >directly. Als
Re: [fla-left] Fw: Dying for Growth (fwd)
I am sorry, please don't forward anything unless it is really something very, very, very important. My e-mail cannot download more than 5-10 mails at a time. If I get too many messages I can't be properly connected and this means putting me out of work for days. Please, please, don't forward me any more files! All the best, Boris Kagarlitsky -Original Message- From: Michael Hoover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 21 ÉÀÎÑ 2000 Ç. 15:18 Subject: [PEN-L:20456] [fla-left] Fw: Dying for Growth (fwd) >forwarded by Michael Hoover > >> >Common Courage Political Literacy Course - >> http://www.commoncouragepress.com >> >+-+ >> > C O M M O N C O U R A G E P R E S S' >> >Political Literacy Email Course >> >A backbone of facts to stand up to spineless power. >> >+-+ >> >Thursday June 8, 2000 >> > >> >=== Dying for Growth === >> > >> > The ideology most responsible for promoting a vision of economic growth >> >as good in and of itself has also shaped development discourse and policy >> >choices among key international institutions since the late 1970s. >> >Historically, this ideology has been known under various names: >> >"neoliberalism," "the Washington consensus," "Reaganism," "the New Right >> >Agenda," and "corporate-led economic globalization," to name a few. This >> >view asserts that economic growth is by definition good for everyone and >> >that economic performance is optimized when governments refrain from >> >interfering in markets. Thus, for the good of all citizens, governments >> >should grant the greatest possible autonomy to individual market >> >actors--companies in particular. Unsurprisingly, the main advocates of >> >neoliberal policies--governments of wealthy countries, banks, >> >corporations, and investors--are those who have profited most handsomely >> >from their application. >> > >> >The proponents of neoliberal principles argue that economic growth >> >promoted in this way will eventually "trickle down" to improve the lives >> >of the poor. Increasingly, however, such predictions have proved hollow. >> >In many cases, economic policies guided by neoliberal agendas have >> >worsened the economic situation of the middle classes and the poor. Today, >> >per capita income in more than 100 countries is lower than it was 15 years >> >ago. At the close of two decades of neoliberal dominance in international >> >finance and development, more than 1.6 billion people are worse off >> >economically in the late 1990s than they were in the early 1980s. While >> >most of the worlds's poor are dying--in the sense of yearning--to reap >> >some of the benefits of this growth, others are literally dying from the >> >austerity measures imposed to promote it. >> > >> >--From "Dying for Growth: Global Inequality and the Health of the Poor," >> >edited Jim Young Kim, Joyce V. Millen, Alec Irwin, and John Gershman >> >http://www.commoncouragepress.com/kim_growth.html >> >=== >> === >> >Free Book Online: "Colombia," by Javier Giraldo >> > >> >This book, published by Common Courage Press in 1996, is no longer in >> >print. However, in view of continuing violence in Colombia and recent >> >proposals by the US Government to increase military aid, we are making it >> >freely available online. >> > >> >http://www.commoncouragepress.com/colombia/ >> >=== >> === >> >This is the free Political Literacy Course from Common Courage Press: A >> >backbone of facts to stand up to spineless power. >> > >> >To subscribe (or unsubscribe) for free: http://www.commoncouragepress.com >> > >> >Feedback/Title suggestions: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >> >Missed any? Course archive: http://www.commoncouragepress.com/course.html >> > >> >YES! This course is partly advertising for books. But it's also intended >> >as political fertilizer: feel free to spread it around! >> >__ >> >To unsubscribe, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> _ >> To subscribe to The Florida Left List, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> Read messages you may have missed at >> >> http://www.egroups.com/group/floridaleft/
Re: Re: [fla-left] Fw: Dying for Growth (fwd)
At 09:44 AM 6/21/00 -0700, you wrote: >Jim Devine wrote: > > > there's a big difference between "economic growth" _per se_ and the > > neo-liberal view that _marketized_ (profit-led, corporate-run) growth is > > good in and of itself. Economic growth _might be_ democratically planned > > to be consistent with the preservation of the natural balance. Of > > course it isn't at this point, but that doesn't mean that there is no > > alternative. > >Granted that economic growth doesn't have to be profit-led, corporate-run >growth. However, the effort to formulate a "democratically planned >alternative" doesn't lead to such a big difference if growth of output >remains the ruling criteria. If growth is democratically planned, then it's hard to imagine that growth of "output" would be the only criterion. There would be much more attention to issues of quality -- and issues such as the definition of what in heck is meant by "output." "Output" is measured differently in different societies; I can imagine that in a democratically-planned society, a vector would be used rather than a scalar in defining "output." It's only under capitalism or societies imitating capitalism (as the old USSR sometimes did) that "output" is defined as a single number (GDP) added up using market-defined weights (prices) while ignoring non-market goods and bads. In any event, people would choose their own criteria rather than automatically using criteria left over from the past. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine ["clawww" or "liberalarts" can replace "bellarmine"]
Re: [fla-left] Fw: Dying for Growth (fwd)
Jim Devine wrote: > there's a big difference between "economic growth" _per se_ and the > neo-liberal view that _marketized_ (profit-led, corporate-run) growth is > good in and of itself. Economic growth _might be_ democratically planned > to be consistent with the preservation of the natural balance. Of > course it isn't at this point, but that doesn't mean that there is no > alternative. Granted that economic growth doesn't have to be profit-led, corporate-run growth. However, the effort to formulate a "democratically planned alternative" doesn't lead to such a big difference if growth of output remains the ruling criteria. "From all the works I have read on the subject, the richest nations in the world are those where the greatest revenue is or can be raised; as if the power of compelling or inducing men to labour twice as much at the mills of Gaza for the enjoyment of the Philistines, were proof of any thing but a tyranny or an ignorance twice as powerful." -- Anonymous, 1821 Tom Walker
Re: Re: [fla-left] Fw: Dying for Growth (fwd)
Jim Devine wrote: > there's a big difference between "economic growth" _per se_ and the > neo-liberal view that _marketized_ (profit-led, corporate-run) growth is > good in and of itself. Economic growth _might be_ democratically planned to > be consistent with the preservation of the natural balance. Of course it > isn't at this point, but that doesn't mean that there is no alternative. One form of planned growth could be to consume the (potential) growth in the form of more leisure. The ultimate viciousness of "profit-led" growth would seem to lie in the fact that it is profit-*driven*-- grow or else. It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to forecast what, under conditions in which growth was a matter of arbitrary choice (i.e., meaningless or whimsical choice -- choice where it makes no difference what you choose, the only kind of choice which is in material fact free choice) whether people would choose to grow. Carrol
Re: [fla-left] Fw: Dying for Growth (fwd)
> > The ideology most responsible for promoting a vision of economic growth > > >as good in and of itself has also shaped development discourse and policy > > >choices among key international institutions since the late 1970s. > > >Historically, this ideology has been known under various names: > > >"neoliberalism," "the Washington consensus," "Reaganism," "the New Right > > >Agenda," and "corporate-led economic globalization," to name a few. This > > >view asserts that economic growth is by definition good for everyone and > > >that economic performance is optimized when governments refrain from > > >interfering in markets. Thus, for the good of all citizens, governments > > >should grant the greatest possible autonomy to individual market > > >actors--companies in particular. there's a big difference between "economic growth" _per se_ and the neo-liberal view that _marketized_ (profit-led, corporate-run) growth is good in and of itself. Economic growth _might be_ democratically planned to be consistent with the preservation of the natural balance. Of course it isn't at this point, but that doesn't mean that there is no alternative. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine/AS
[fla-left] Fw: Dying for Growth (fwd)
forwarded by Michael Hoover > >Common Courage Political Literacy Course - > http://www.commoncouragepress.com > >+-+ > > C O M M O N C O U R A G E P R E S S' > >Political Literacy Email Course > >A backbone of facts to stand up to spineless power. > >+-+ > >Thursday June 8, 2000 > > > >=== Dying for Growth === > > > > The ideology most responsible for promoting a vision of economic growth > >as good in and of itself has also shaped development discourse and policy > >choices among key international institutions since the late 1970s. > >Historically, this ideology has been known under various names: > >"neoliberalism," "the Washington consensus," "Reaganism," "the New Right > >Agenda," and "corporate-led economic globalization," to name a few. This > >view asserts that economic growth is by definition good for everyone and > >that economic performance is optimized when governments refrain from > >interfering in markets. Thus, for the good of all citizens, governments > >should grant the greatest possible autonomy to individual market > >actors--companies in particular. Unsurprisingly, the main advocates of > >neoliberal policies--governments of wealthy countries, banks, > >corporations, and investors--are those who have profited most handsomely > >from their application. > > > >The proponents of neoliberal principles argue that economic growth > >promoted in this way will eventually "trickle down" to improve the lives > >of the poor. Increasingly, however, such predictions have proved hollow. > >In many cases, economic policies guided by neoliberal agendas have > >worsened the economic situation of the middle classes and the poor. Today, > >per capita income in more than 100 countries is lower than it was 15 years > >ago. At the close of two decades of neoliberal dominance in international > >finance and development, more than 1.6 billion people are worse off > >economically in the late 1990s than they were in the early 1980s. While > >most of the worlds's poor are dying--in the sense of yearning--to reap > >some of the benefits of this growth, others are literally dying from the > >austerity measures imposed to promote it. > > > >--From "Dying for Growth: Global Inequality and the Health of the Poor," > >edited Jim Young Kim, Joyce V. Millen, Alec Irwin, and John Gershman > >http://www.commoncouragepress.com/kim_growth.html > >=== > === > >Free Book Online: "Colombia," by Javier Giraldo > > > >This book, published by Common Courage Press in 1996, is no longer in > >print. However, in view of continuing violence in Colombia and recent > >proposals by the US Government to increase military aid, we are making it > >freely available online. > > > >http://www.commoncouragepress.com/colombia/ > >=== > === > >This is the free Political Literacy Course from Common Courage Press: A > >backbone of facts to stand up to spineless power. > > > >To subscribe (or unsubscribe) for free: http://www.commoncouragepress.com > > > >Feedback/Title suggestions: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >Missed any? Course archive: http://www.commoncouragepress.com/course.html > > > >YES! This course is partly advertising for books. But it's also intended > >as political fertilizer: feel free to spread it around! > >__ > >To unsubscribe, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ > To subscribe to The Florida Left List, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Read messages you may have missed at > > http://www.egroups.com/group/floridaleft/
[PEN-L:8736] mkt socialism and sustainability of economic growth (fwd)
Dear pen-lers, I'm taking the liberty of forwarding this from the CDV (Center for Democratic Values) list. Ron Baiman Roosevelt U., Chicago -- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 03:56:02 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: cdvnet: sustainability of economic growth Based on portions of recent posts from Eric Ebel and Ron Baiman, I'm concerned that many DSA people seem to be unaware of the many well-informed and well-respected people who dispute the idea that economic growth can continue indefinitely (an idea now widely accepted by people on both the left and the right). The following message, forwarded from the Alliance for Democracy list, briefly summarizes and documents what the writer calls "a scientific consensus that the economy can not continue at the scale that it has" and that "we may have as few as 35 years left before the 'functional integrity' of our ecosystem is destroyed." -Ralph Suter Subj: ALL: Issue/Sustainability/TheThreat Date: 97-01-31 11:09:49 EST From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Hanson) There is now a scientific consensus that the economy can not continue at the scale that it has. Moreover, we may have as few as 35 years left before the "functional integrity" of our ecosystem is destroyed. Any plans for future money-making games will have to correlate with modern science. Otherwise, this list itself is just a game. Jay references from reality: In 1992, the two most prestigious scientific institutions in the world, the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society, issued POPULATION GROWTH, RESOURCE CONSUMPTION, AND A SUSTAINABLE WORLD which ended with: "The future of our planet is in the balance. Sustainable development can be achieved, but only if irreversible degradation of the environment can be halted in time. The next 30 years may be crucial." Archived http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/page7.htm Also in 1992, a WARNING TO HUMANITY was issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists that began: "Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about." This warning was signed by over 1,500 members of national, regional, and international science academies. Sixty-nine nations from all parts of Earth are represented, including each of the twelve most populous nations and the nineteen largest economic powers. It was also signed by 99 Nobel Prize winners. Archived http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/page8.htm And finally, in 1993 THE GROWING WORLD POPULATION, a joint statement by 58 of the world's scientific academies said: "In our judgement, humanity's ability to deal successfully with its social, economic, and environmental problems will require the achievement of zero population growth within the lifetime of our children." Archived http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/page75.htm
