Economies of Scale

Economies of Scale

VTVKinformationschedulenovember2009blog

The American Betrayal of the World's Rural Poor

SINCE the late 1980's, there are any number of examples one could choose to symbolize the dramatic failure of the U.S. and its allies to deliver on their utopian promises for market-driven higher living standards in the developing world. Among them are the worse crisis since the Great Depression, increasing economic inequality, destruction of the environment, and rapid declines in several key measures of welfare. However, the stunning lack of progress made in the lives of the rural poor should go down in history as one of the great betrayals of the neoliberal era.


For decades international financial institutions, aid organizations and the United Nations advocated an aid based approach to fighting world hunger. The way to respond, the hungry were told to believe, was through a series of technological 'green revolutions', increased market access and external support. At the same time international financial institutions were shoving their ideology of deregulation and liberalization down the throats of national governments. The result? The number of hungry people has topped one billion for the first time since records were established in 1970. Instead of placing blame on a failed strategy, the aid community is blaming the global recession and food crisis for their inability to eradicate hunger.


In the run-up to the 2009 UN Food Summit, the international aid community announced the boldest betrayal of hundreds of millions of starving people around the world. The UN Food Summit also backed away from any recommitment to halve world hunger by 2015---a key component of the UN Millenium Development Goals. Now the experts are claiming that even that goal may be impossible to reach until mid-2040. Humanitarian groups have rightly protested that the Rome summit was a failure, and that the three-day event was damaged by the absence of many of the world's leaders. The only silver-lining of the summit is perhaps the long overdue rejection of neoliberal paradigms in the final agreement. National responsibility for food security is one of the core principles in the summit declaration, which demands that plans for food security must be “nationally articulated, designed, owned and led.”


"The responsibility for ensuring food security, agricultural and rural development is the responsibility of each government and its people...It’s not the responsibility of the FAO and certainly not the responsibility of a summit. A summit does not have land. A summit does not have farmers. A summit does not have a budget to invest. A summit is a framework for discussion and debate to arrive at consensus solutions in the face of common challenges at the global level.”


In the aftermath of the fall of the Berlin Wall, American leaders boasted that the global integration of investment, trade, and communication would lead to a diffusion of economic prosperity and human development around the world. In 2009, with all of the enormous global prosperity, free trade, and cutting-edge technology the fact that there are more hungry people now than a decade ago, should make us re-think our basic laissez-faire assumptions about economic development. The prominent libertarian economist Friedrich von Hayek once warned that the social democratic welfare state of the post 1930's New Deal era would lead down the 'Road to Serfdom'. But in fact it is Hayek and the development policy-makers who shared his ideas who have condemned the rural poor to virtual slavery.

By E. Thomson

Conference mutual and pensions funds in Lithuania

Taurimas Conference

Spanish for Beginners Ejercicios 1

Ejercicios Beginners 2nd year, Ejercicio 1

Ejercicios 1. Estudiantes avanzados.

Spanish Advanced Ejercicio 1

First set of problems

Hand in the following exercises:

Students of SMK Micro:
Exercises: 1,2,3,4,5,6,10
Dead Line: 8 DEC 2009 (Tuesday)

Students of SMK Macro:
Exercises: 2,7,8,9,10,11
Dead Line: 10 DEC 2009 (Thursday)

Students of ISLB (ex-VTVK):
Exercises: 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,10.
Dead Line: 10 DEC 2009 (Thursday)

Economics 1rst Set of Problemsbueno

Taking out the trash

I reproduce a post written by G. Mankiw at his blog. It's quite clear that Mankiw and Krugman are not friends any more. The post was published on November 02 2009.

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/11/taking-out-trash.html

The Obama administration’s “jobs created or saved” is just a way of saying “other things equal” in non-economese. Of course it makes sense to ask how many more people are working than would have been the case without a given policy — and every administration makes assertions along those lines. During the 2001 recession and its aftermath, how many times did the Bush administration claim that the recession would have been worse without its tax cuts? And while many of us quarreled with that claim, I don’t think I ever argued that other-things-equal arguments are nonsense on their face.

I don't usually respond to illogical cheap shots from around the blogosphere (life is too short). But when the cheap shot comes from a Nobel prize winner in economics, I will make an exception.

Paul Krugman says I should be ashamed of myself for calling into question Obama administration estimates of how many jobs have been "created or saved." Here is what Paul says,
Yet Paul is rebutting claims I did not make, and he is giving Team Obama more credit on this question than it is due. Here is what I wrote on the topic last February:

The 4 million job number is a counterfactual policy simulation of what the stimulus will do based on a particular model of the economy. As such, I have no objection to someone citing it in a policy discussion. In fact, macroeconomists use models to generate figures like this all the time. I have even done it myself.

But as an answer to the question "how can the American people gauge whether or not your programs are working?... What metric should they use?", citing the 4 million job figure is a non sequitur, or more likely a diversion. A metric has to be measurable, and the actual number of jobs "created or saved" by the policy will never be measurable from any data source.

That is, I do not object to claims such as,

A: "Based on our models of the economy, we believe there would be X million fewer jobs today without the stimulus."But it is absurd to suggest that you can say,

B: "We have measured how many jobs the stimulus has saved or created, and the number is X."Economists are capable of making statements such as A, but it is beyond our ken to make statements such as B. Statement B is,of course, much stronger than statement A, as it purports to be based on data rather than on models. Unfortunately, we are hearing statements like B much too often from administration officials. A good example is here, where can you "learn" that 110,185.36 jobs have been created or saved in California alone."

Invitation to the Students' Conference

MankiwReal Business Cycles