tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post9139741525484582144..comments2024-03-06T06:34:42.881-05:00Comments on EconoSpeak: A Big Surprise: Bhagwati Defends Free Market EconomicsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-31540748949013529312009-10-19T15:45:52.761-04:002009-10-19T15:45:52.761-04:00Either way, Bhagwati is probably looking through t...Either way, Bhagwati is probably looking through the wrong end.Shag from Brooklinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07312591102812315460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-81641804719783136882009-10-19T11:21:26.886-04:002009-10-19T11:21:26.886-04:00Shag,
Actually as a mostly trade economist, Bhagw...Shag,<br /><br />Actually as a mostly trade economist, Bhagwati is more a microeconomist than a macro one.rosserjb@jmu.eduhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09300046915843554101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-10174698326058776302009-10-19T06:33:00.109-04:002009-10-19T06:33:00.109-04:00It's revealing to look at macro economists und...It's revealing to look at macro economists under the microscope.Shag from Brooklinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07312591102812315460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-44925817376819754872009-10-19T01:56:03.275-04:002009-10-19T01:56:03.275-04:00Bhagwati displays the central defining feature of ...Bhagwati displays the central defining feature of the vulgar libertarian: he conflates the corporate world order we live under with "free trade" and "free markets," when in fact it depends on an overwhelming concentration of state power. Neoliberalism and the "Washington Consensus" depart from genuine free market principles in many ways--not least among them their heavy emphasis on "intellectual property," which plays the same protectionist role in the corporate world economy that tariffs used to play for the old national industrial economies.<br /><br />Neoliberals misappropriate the language and symbolism of "free markets" the same way Stalin misappropriated the language and symbolism of socialism.Kevin Carsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07525803609000364993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-4802748412420972072009-10-19T01:24:01.074-04:002009-10-19T01:24:01.074-04:00Even Paul Krugman in his Oct 19's NYT column a...Even Paul Krugman in his Oct 19's NYT column agrees that banks would continue to gamble in the expense of taxpayers if bail-outs were to continue in the future without solid reforms.<br /><br />I would say that instead of reforms they should be a non-interventionist Fed and government.Chee Heong Quahhttp://www.mises.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-33924302240601174142009-10-18T23:50:31.313-04:002009-10-18T23:50:31.313-04:00More to the point, if the USA is the world policem...<i>More to the point, if the USA is the world policeman then why are we not collecting a fee from all the "owning" participants to fund this protective service?</i><br /><br />because the USA is not the world's policeman, it is at best the world's vigilante. the cops at least are theoretically answerable - who is the US Govt., answerable to? it's people? they have been deprived the vocabulary to even ask questions!almostinfamoushttp://almostinfamous.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-81371156705697567792009-10-18T23:45:38.530-04:002009-10-18T23:45:38.530-04:00"More to the point, if the USA is the world p..."More to the point, if the USA is the world policeman then why are we not collecting a fee from all the "owning" participants to fund this protective service?"<br /><br />Perhaps this is beside the point, but when was the last time the US had a positive trade balance?<br /><br />It would seem we have effectively been importing goods free of charge - (?)minus debt service(?) - for about 40 years. And running up a tab which will not likely ever be paid.<br /><br />Can you think of another country which has that kind of deal with its trading pawns... er, uh, partners?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-73409696819712349632009-10-18T23:17:28.659-04:002009-10-18T23:17:28.659-04:00Free trade isn't free.
Who do you think pays ...Free trade isn't free.<br /><br />Who do you think pays for the protection of the property rights that are the basis of all this "free" trading and "free" flow of capital and <br />enforcement of intellectual rights?<br /><br />More to the point, if the USA is the world policeman then why are we not collecting a fee from all the "owning" participants to fund this protective service?<br /><br />If we can think of a way to implement and collect a global assets tax then "free trade" might work for the common people. Until then the USA should be collecting import tariffs to pay for the police service.TheTruckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10346127768102862741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-74942052084722289292009-10-18T21:10:04.076-04:002009-10-18T21:10:04.076-04:00"... primary reliance on free, unconstrained ..."... primary reliance on free, unconstrained markets in national and international affairs ..."<br /><br />It would seem that this should be the baseline assumption of all economic policy proposals. <br /><br />The other alternative, which has not worked despite the effort of many years, is to return again to the idea of regulating either production, trade, or income - or some combination of the three.<br /><br />Since non-mainstream economic policy proposals haven't been all that successful in protecting the little guys and gals from predatory interests, a different tack might be suggested.<br /><br />Of course, if you assume that capitalism will last forever; that it can be managed well enough to avoid the odd depression; and that inequality, poverty, and exploitation can be kept within some definable bounds, you will probably also assume a different approach is not called for.<br /><br />Good luck with that...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-45531386705816422532009-10-18T20:08:30.399-04:002009-10-18T20:08:30.399-04:00Bhagwati restates his support for regulation of in...Bhagwati restates his support for regulation of international capital flows, for the purpose of maintaining deregulated international flows of goods and services. He accepts the claim that there is a tradeoff between the two. But: as far as I can tell, this willingness to restrict capital flows is the only departure he makes from neoliberal orthodoxy, and his interpretation of the failure of governments to regulate this properly is that it reflects the failure of government generally (ubiquitous rent-seeking). His views haven't change in at leat 15 years, when I started noticing his policy writings.Peter Dormanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00093399591393648071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-86503403360869512912009-10-18T18:29:48.523-04:002009-10-18T18:29:48.523-04:00Bhagwati has traditionally combined a curious set ...Bhagwati has traditionally combined a curious set of views, strongly pro-free trade with support for controls on at least short-term international capital flows. Is this still the mixture, or is he now for free international capital movements?<br /><br />I think that when Singh was finance minister in 1991, there was enthusiasm for much of the Washington Consensus package in India, although only parts of it were enacted. I would say in 1992 there was maybe a six month period of such enthusiasm, when Yegor Gaidar was premier, but not after that. China has never been all that enthusiastic.rosserjb@jmu.eduhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09300046915843554101noreply@blogger.com