MN Summer Book Club Choice- Stiglitz and Klein

Something nice and cool to help our deliberations along...

cactus flower wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

I have to say my purchase of "The Great Deception" made the Eurosceptic mind a little less obscure. It's a great read, though it's something you'd really need to approach with contraception since it's quite dogmatic in its views about Europe and Britain's place in it.

Does it explain why so much of Britain thinks it doesn't think it needs Europe? Are they doing a balancing act between Europe and the USA? Even a home market of 60 million or so is not that much in today's global terms.

Well, the argument ran that they had sufficient access to Commonwealth markets, EFTA was working fine and they had a large and extensive trading relationship with the USA, so sacrificing that for access to Continental markets was seen as a bad deal. I think they feel that Britain could've done better to keep out of it and engage in trade almost exclusively with the three regions above.

There is certainly an eternal triangle between France, Germany and the U.K., with all kinds of underlying competition and antagonism.

What is the "Great Deception", or haven't you got to that bit yet?

cactus flower wrote:

There is certainly an eternal triangle between France, Germany and the U.K., with all kinds of underlying competition and antagonism.

What is the "Great Deception", or haven't you got to that bit yet?

The Great Deception is a multifaceted thing, they're basically saying that all the things which have happened, or are supposed to have happened between Britain and the EU are lies and deceit. Apparently, there's the view that De Gaulle vetoed British entry to the EEC during the 60s because he feared that Britain was too close to the US to be a proper member of the EEC. Booker and North persuasively argue that it was De Gaulle who was at fault here and Britain was deceived about why it was not let into the Common Market. They say that De Gaulle was trying to set the CAP in stone to favour French farming smallholdings and to contrive a situation where Britain would pay for most of this support before the British had a chance to enter the Community and change the situation to a fairer position.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

There is certainly an eternal triangle between France, Germany and the U.K., with all kinds of underlying competition and antagonism.

What is the "Great Deception", or haven't you got to that bit yet?

The Great Deception is a multifaceted thing, they're basically saying that all the things which have happened, or are supposed to have happened between Britain and the EU are lies and deceit. Apparently, there's the view that De Gaulle vetoed British entry to the EEC during the 60s because he feared that Britain was too close to the US to be a proper member of the EEC. Booker and North persuasively argue that it was De Gaulle who was at fault here and Britain was deceived about why it was not let into the Common Market. They say that De Gaulle was trying to set the CAP in stone to favour French farming smallholdings and to contrive a situation where Britain would pay for most of this support before the British had a chance to enter the Community and change the situation to a fairer position.

That is ironic given the US support for a federal capitalist Europe as a buffer against the Reds. The CAP certainly did support the peasant farmer initially but from what arnaudherve says I gather that is all gone. The EU set up is said to benefit larger farmers and has done for some time.

cactus flower wrote:

That is ironic given the US support for a federal capitalist Europe as a buffer against the Reds. The CAP certainly did support the peasant farmer initially but from what arnaudherve says I gather that is all gone. The EU set up is said to benefit larger farmers and has done for some time.

Well, it was argued that if government/CAP supports were turned off for the millions of peasant farmers in France, they would join the French Communist Party and overthrow the political status quo. De Gaulle feared a collapse of the polity he had helped create in post-war France, so he used the CAP as a means of fortifying and establishing it in France.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

That is ironic given the US support for a federal capitalist Europe as a buffer against the Reds. The CAP certainly did support the peasant farmer initially but from what arnaudherve says I gather that is all gone. The EU set up is said to benefit larger farmers and has done for some time.

Well, it was argued that if government/CAP supports were turned off for the millions of peasant farmers in France, they would join the French Communist Party and overthrow the political status quo. De Gaulle feared a collapse of the polity he had helped create in post-war France, so he used the CAP as a means of fortifying and establishing it in France.

Indeed, the Communist Party was a mass party in France. However its direction was mainly to preserve the interests of the USSR and it was not known to make any sudden revolutionary moves outside the established borders.

Stiglitz is much opposed to agricultural subsidies. He points out that more than two thirds of farm income in Switzerland comes from subsidies more than half in Japan and one third in the EU. Sugar used to be subsidised 80 per cent in the EU. He says that this makes it impossible for the African farmer to compete in world markets.

I need to read more but I'm not altogether persuaded by his arguments. Dumping of subsidised foods that wipes out farming in developing countries I think is criminal. But it seems to me that there are environmental, quality and food security reasons why a country like Ireland should be as food self sufficient as possible. As our wage levels are much higher than in the developing countries that means we would have to subsidise agriculture for it to continue.

The US seems to want everyone else to drop subsidies but their horrible industrialised farming is highly subsidised.

cactus flower wrote:

Indeed, the Communist Party was a mass party in France. However its direction was mainly to preserve the interests of the USSR and it was not known to make any sudden revolutionary moves outside the established borders.

Stiglitz is much opposed to agricultural subsidies. He points out that more than two thirds of farm income in Switzerland comes from subsidies more than half in Japan and one third in the EU. Sugar used to be subsidised 80 per cent in the EU. He says that this makes it impossible for the African farmer to compete in world markets.

I find that that one third is well worth it. African farmers don't produce a sufficiently high quality product and they could boost their trading prospects by breaking down barriers between themselves and trading with each other. Once they build up cash from that, they can improve traceability and food standards and then we can admit them to our markets.

Quote :

I need to read more but I'm not altogether persuaded by his arguments. Dumping of subsidised foods that wipes out farming in developing countries I think is criminal. But it seems to me that there are environmental, quality and food security reasons why a country like Ireland should be as food self sufficient as possible. As our wage levels are much higher than in the developing countries that means we would have to subsidise agriculture for it to continue.

Exactly, Ireland produces beef, wheat, cheese, milk and so on of a far better standard than those of developing countries. That justifies the subsidies and the support.

Quote :

The US seems to want everyone else to drop subsidies but their horrible industrialised farming is highly subsidised.

That's hypocritical.

The Book Club hammocks are up for grabs.

My copies of Stiglitz and Klein have gone on holidays.

Since we last met Slim Buddha has got me interested in the TRIPS, GATs and the WTO - and of course the Doha Round talks have collapsed. India and China flexing their muscles.

As a Stiglitz and Klein substitute I have got David Boyle's "Little Money Book". Boyle is part of the New Economics Foundation who look for radical and green economic solutions. This is what he has to say about TRIPS...
"...The growth of 'intellectual property' has echoed with the giant sucking sound of multinationals hoovering up income from the use of their 'intellectual property' all over the world"

The World Trade Organisation's TRIPS agreement...rules can threaten the livelihoods of poor farmers by hading over control to corporations of local plan genetic resources. By patenting certain traits in genes, seeds and plants, companies can acquire monopoly rights to produce and market important seeds and the inputs needed to grow them.

...The most notorious example was the Neem Tree. In 1994 the American company W.R.Grace won the patent for a fungicide derived from the seeds of the Neem Tree which is traditionally used in Asia, Africa, Central and South America as in insect repellent for crops. The patent was overturned after a year, as was a patent taken out on Basmati rice, which had been developed for generations by Punjabi farm families" - after a massive campaign. Over patents, such as the genetic code of 'breast cancer' genes, have remained private property.

Boyle moves on to the World Trade Organisation, which meets in secret at Lake Geneva. He makes the point that smaller countries can't afford to keep delegations there and as at a serious disadvantage in discussions. Examples he gives of WTo impacts include

Tribal people can no longer draw water from the ancient tank at Maharashtra in India, because it has been sold exclusively to Coca Cola, The WTO is pressurising privatisation of water resources everywhere. Pepsi Cola has been trying to prevent people storing rainwater on their roofs elsewhere in India. Water collecting was made illegal in parts of Bolivia after the water system was sold to a subsidiary of Bechtel.

The WTO ruled taht nations may not differentiate tuna caught without killing dolphins or beef that isn't given growth hormones, even though it has a price advantage over naturally produced beef.

--Monsanto has prosecuted small farmers for saving seed for the following year and are developing seed that cant be grown without Monsanto pesticides.

--Nicaraguan workers have been indicted on charges carrying 10 years in jail for asking for a $0.08 increase per pair of jeans made for Walmart.

--Boyle contrasts the economic strength of countries and corporations - some examples

General Motors $162 bn Norway $150 bn Shell €126bn Malaysia €98 bn.

Anything that makes the European standards superior is a threat to global trade.

Anything that allows third world rurals to survive through local ways is a threat to global trade.

arnaudherve wrote:

Anything that makes the European standards superior is a threat to global trade.

Anything that allows third world rurals to survive through local ways is a threat to global trade.

It seems that globalised trade requires us all to follow the doctrines of Milton Friedman.

Klein used South Africa as an example of how the WTO and GATs. The ANC negotiated with the National Party over terms of the new government - the National Party obviously had a party of Chicago School economists as back up.
The ANC negotiating team ended up agreeing to an independent (unaccountable) central bank and membership of the WTO - this entailed loss of hundreds of factories as all subsidies were stopped, tight budgetary constraint and cuts to pay the national debt generated by the apartheid regime, privatised and charged-for water supplies, wage restraint.
"South Africa was free but simultaneously captured, each one of these arcane acronyms represented a different thread in wthe web that pinned down the limbs of the new government."

We're also captured in the WTO web that enforces privatisation of Health, education and other services.

cactus flower wrote:

arnaudherve wrote:

Anything that makes the European standards superior is a threat to global trade.

Anything that allows third world rurals to survive through local ways is a threat to global trade.

It seems that globalised trade requires us all to follow the doctrines of Milton Friedman.

I think we are coming out of the dark age of Monetarism and the Friedmanist nonsense. This obviously doesn't work. There are other economists who disagree fundamentally with neoliberal economics and they are the ones forming opinion now. Rogoff, DeLong and Rodrik in particular are making themselves be heard.

Slim Buddha wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

arnaudherve wrote:

Anything that makes the European standards superior is a threat to global trade.

Anything that allows third world rurals to survive through local ways is a threat to global trade.

It seems that globalised trade requires us all to follow the doctrines of Milton Friedman.

I think we are coming out of the dark age of Monetarism and the Friedmanist nonsense. This obviously doesn't work. There are other economists who disagree fundamentally with neoliberal economics and they are the ones forming opinion now. Rogoff, DeLong and Rodrik in particular are making themselves be heard.

Indeed, all the once upon a time followers of Friedman are now screaming for regulation. But they want regulation to bale them out and protect them from their own lunacy. I think the No vote in Ireland may have been in part a reaction against the neoliberal / neoconservative project. On the ground, Latin America who have experienced the worst of it are rejecting it.

To what extent do you think the WTO is a US interest project, and to what extent does it benefit owners of capital outside the US ?

cactus flower wrote:

Slim Buddha wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

arnaudherve wrote:

Anything that makes the European standards superior is a threat to global trade.

Anything that allows third world rurals to survive through local ways is a threat to global trade.

It seems that globalised trade requires us all to follow the doctrines of Milton Friedman.

I think we are coming out of the dark age of Monetarism and the Friedmanist nonsense. This obviously doesn't work. There are other economists who disagree fundamentally with neoliberal economics and they are the ones forming opinion now. Rogoff, DeLong and Rodrik in particular are making themselves be heard.

Indeed, all the once upon a time followers of Friedman are now screaming for regulation. But they want regulation to bale them out and protect them from their own lunacy. I think the No vote in Ireland may have been in part a reaction against the neoliberal / neoconservative project. On the ground, Latin America who have experienced the worst of it are rejecting it.

To what extent do you think the WTO is a US interest project, and to what extent does it benefit owners of capital outside the US ?

I think neoliberalism is very much a US project and is a much more political project than the apologists for it admit. The core values of neoliberalism sets the owners of capital against the providers of labour and neoliberalism is designed to ensure capital wins everytime. That is why in every country, regardless of the type of government (from Pinochet in Chile to Douglas in New Zealand) the middle class has shrunk under neoliberalism. Not alone that,the economic results of neoliberalism have been poor. New Zealand's economic under 15 years of neoliberalist economics was embarrassingly bad. However, a change in the electoral system in 1996 is designed to ensure that in the unicameral parliamentary system in New Zealand, such a dogma can never again be implemented by the likes of Douglas and his fanatical Finance Minister Ruth Richardson.

Of course, this option was not open to the Chilean people and the legacy of Pinochet economically is, among other things, a totally private health service (the public service is starved of funding and to a large extent relies on charity). We all use the US as an example of what can happen when a health service is totally given over to commercial, for-profit interests. Chile is a better example, I think, because the privatisation of the health service was so dependent on the correct health insurance mechanism being in place. For all Harney's efforts in commercialising our health service, it seems to me that she hasn't got the insurance right (for her purposes) yet, and if you don't fatten the milch cow of the health service first, then the result for the profiteers will not be optimised.

You are of course correct when you say the neoliberals are screaming for regulation. But this is to save their own asses, nothing more. The point must be hammered home to them that theirs is an utterly failed dogma. It creates greater levels of poverty, it shrinks the backbone of any economy, the middle class; it hoovers profits upwards to the owners of capital and debts are shifted to the public account. Basically it is rubbish and now that everybody knows it, not just the community of international economists, it is time to move on, deconstruct the international architecture of globalisation and build it again, free of the neoliberalist virus.

I believe there will be no agreement on Doha. Ever. The entire discussion is operating within an economic theory that is no longer valid and the developing countries have copped on to this. The WTO has no future in its present construction and the main agreements (GATT, GATS, TRIPS, TRIMS and a few others) need to be re-negotiated. It would be better if they did that than try to persevere with the current system because if they do, the WTO is signing its own death warrant. After all, in 1992 there were only 16 Regional Trade Agreements. Now there are nearly 350. The WTO is becoming irrelevant in any case.

As to whether it benefits owners of capital outside the US, I believe it does. Globalisation has been a great boon to Nestlè, for example. Only 5% of its revenues are made in its home country, Switzerland, the rest is made abroad. Outsourcing, off-shoring etc. has brought Nestlè enormous economies in streamlining costs, having a direct impact on profits which are all re-patriated to Vevey. There are many companies like Nestlè whose profits have greatly increased due to the neoliberalist nature of globalisation. These companies have an interest in preserving the status quo. So burying Friedman will be no easy task.

Thanks for the reply Slimbuddha - great post, although I am not thoroughly convinced that Keynesiansim any more than neoliberalism can provide a sustainable sound economy worldwide.

Economics may be the driver, but the prize is political and social dominance, in the neoliberal world. The US at home is so far from being a free trade economy with massive subsidies and 'market distortions' of various kinds that the IMF World Trade Organistion mantra is clearly a tin opener to prize open and devour the resources of external economies, and is never intended for wholesale implementation at home.

cactus flower wrote:

Thanks for the reply Slimbuddha - great post, although I am not thoroughly convinced that Keynesiansim any more than neoliberalism can provide a sustainable sound economy worldwide.

Economics may be the driver, but the prize is political and social dominance, in the neoliberal world. The US at home is so far from being a free trade economy with massive subsidies and 'market distortions' of various kinds that the IMF World Trade Organistion mantra is clearly a tin opener to prize open and devour the resources of external economies, and is never intended for wholesale implementation at home.

I agree. I also agree that "Keynes pure" is not the answer but I find the Swiss system is the nearest to what I consider an optimum. This is possible only because the Swiss political structure is the way it is and the Swiss version of democracy is unique. It also helps to have an educated, literate and, most importantly, socially cohesive population. The Swiss set enormous worth on social cohesion, a value and state constantly under attack from neoliberalism. So this is not a neoliberalist country at all. Yet for all that, there are elements of neoliberalism to be found here. I mentioned Nestlé. The same goes for the other big Swiss companies: Novartis, ABB, UBS, Credit Suisse, Hoffmann La Roche, Givaudan, Syngenta and others.

So it appears that a mixture of economic philosophies is at work here. Whatever it is. it works. In the last chapter of Bad Samartins, Chang says, (and forgive me for putting this in capitals) SWITZERLAND IS THE MOST INDUSTRIALISED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!

He quotes a 2005 UN report and it makes interesting reading. It is a small country with no obvious natural resources. How the hell did it get here?

Slim Buddha wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Slim Buddha wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

arnaudherve wrote:

Anything that makes the European standards superior is a threat to global trade.

Anything that allows third world rurals to survive through local ways is a threat to global trade.

It seems that globalised trade requires us all to follow the doctrines of Milton Friedman.

I think we are coming out of the dark age of Monetarism and the Friedmanist nonsense. This obviously doesn't work. There are other economists who disagree fundamentally with neoliberal economics and they are the ones forming opinion now. Rogoff, DeLong and Rodrik in particular are making themselves be heard.

Indeed, all the once upon a time followers of Friedman are now screaming for regulation. But they want regulation to bale them out and protect them from their own lunacy. I think the No vote in Ireland may have been in part a reaction against the neoliberal / neoconservative project. On the ground, Latin America who have experienced the worst of it are rejecting it.

To what extent do you think the WTO is a US interest project, and to what extent does it benefit owners of capital outside the US ?

I think neoliberalism is very much a US project and is a much more political project than the apologists for it admit. The core values of neoliberalism sets the owners of capital against the providers of labour and neoliberalism is designed to ensure capital wins everytime. That is why in every country, regardless of the type of government (from Pinochet in Chile to Douglas in New Zealand) the middle class has shrunk under neoliberalism. Not alone that,the economic results of neoliberalism have been poor. New Zealand's economic under 15 years of neoliberalist economics was embarrassingly bad. However, a change in the electoral system in 1996 is designed to ensure that in the unicameral parliamentary system in New Zealand, such a dogma can never again be implemented by the likes of Douglas and his fanatical Finance Minister Ruth Richardson.

Of course, this option was not open to the Chilean people and the legacy of Pinochet economically is, among other things, a totally private health service (the public service is starved of funding and to a large extent relies on charity). We all use the US as an example of what can happen when a health service is totally given over to commercial, for-profit interests. Chile is a better example, I think, because the privatisation of the health service was so dependent on the correct health insurance mechanism being in place. For all Harney's efforts in commercialising our health service, it seems to me that she hasn't got the insurance right (for her purposes) yet, and if you don't fatten the milch cow of the health service first, then the result for the profiteers will not be optimised.

You are of course correct when you say the neoliberals are screaming for regulation. But this is to save their own asses, nothing more. The point must be hammered home to them that theirs is an utterly failed dogma. It creates greater levels of poverty, it shrinks the backbone of any economy, the middle class; it hoovers profits upwards to the owners of capital and debts are shifted to the public account. Basically it is rubbish and now that everybody knows it, not just the community of international economists, it is time to move on, deconstruct the international architecture of globalisation and build it again, free of the neoliberalist virus.

I believe there will be no agreement on Doha. Ever. The entire discussion is operating within an economic theory that is no longer valid and the developing countries have copped on to this. The WTO has no future in its present construction and the main agreements (GATT, GATS, TRIPS, TRIMS and a few others) need to be re-negotiated. It would be better if they did that than try to persevere with the current system because if they do, the WTO is signing its own death warrant. After all, in 1992 there were only 16 Regional Trade Agreements. Now there are nearly 350. The WTO is becoming irrelevant in any case.

As to whether it benefits owners of capital outside the US, I believe it does. Globalisation has been a great boon to Nestlè, for example. Only 5% of its revenues are made in its home country, Switzerland, the rest is made abroad. Outsourcing, off-shoring etc. has brought Nestlè enormous economies in streamlining costs, having a direct impact on profits which are all re-patriated to Vevey. There are many companies like Nestlè whose profits have greatly increased due to the neoliberalist nature of globalisation. These companies have an interest in preserving the status quo. So burying Friedman will be no easy task.

Very interesting and informative post Slim Buddha, thanks.

cactus flower wrote:

The Book Club hammocks are up for grabs.

My copies of Stiglitz and Klein have gone on holidays.

Since we last met Slim Buddha has got me interested in the TRIPS, GATs and the WTO - and of course the Doha Round talks have collapsed. India and China flexing their muscles.

As a Stiglitz and Klein substitute I have got David Boyle's "Little Money Book". Boyle is part of the New Economics Foundation who look for radical and green economic solutions. This is what he has to say about TRIPS...
"...The growth of 'intellectual property' has echoed with the giant sucking sound of multinationals hoovering up income from the use of their 'intellectual property' all over the world"

The World Trade Organisation's TRIPS agreement...rules can threaten the livelihoods of poor farmers by hading over control to corporations of local plan genetic resources. By patenting certain traits in genes, seeds and plants, companies can acquire monopoly rights to produce and market important seeds and the inputs needed to grow them.

...The most notorious example was the Neem Tree. In 1994 the American company W.R.Grace won the patent for a fungicide derived from the seeds of the Neem Tree which is traditionally used in Asia, Africa, Central and South America as in insect repellent for crops. The patent was overturned after a year, as was a patent taken out on Basmati rice, which had been developed for generations by Punjabi farm families" - after a massive campaign. Over patents, such as the genetic code of 'breast cancer' genes, have remained private property.

Boyle moves on to the World Trade Organisation, which meets in secret at Lake Geneva. He makes the point that smaller countries can't afford to keep delegations there and as at a serious disadvantage in discussions. Examples he gives of WTo impacts include

Tribal people can no longer draw water from the ancient tank at Maharashtra in India, because it has been sold exclusively to Coca Cola, The WTO is pressurising privatisation of water resources everywhere. Pepsi Cola has been trying to prevent people storing rainwater on their roofs elsewhere in India. Water collecting was made illegal in parts of Bolivia after the water system was sold to a subsidiary of Bechtel.

The WTO ruled taht nations may not differentiate tuna caught without killing dolphins or beef that isn't given growth hormones, even though it has a price advantage over naturally produced beef.

--Monsanto has prosecuted small farmers for saving seed for the following year and are developing seed that cant be grown without Monsanto pesticides.

--Nicaraguan workers have been indicted on charges carrying 10 years in jail for asking for a $0.08 increase per pair of jeans made for Walmart.

--Boyle contrasts the economic strength of countries and corporations - some examples

General Motors $162 bn Norway $150 bn Shell €126bn Malaysia €98 bn.

i will definitely read this, thanks for the tip. what cocoa cola is doing in mexico is disgusting. babies are fed coca cola from bottles because they don't have water. water is used for production of coke products for the american market. then their teeth all rot in their heads. its awful. huge amounts of water are also used by breweries which then pollute rivers with their waste...
water resources are being taken from the inncent poor around the globe to satisfy the insatiable hunger of capitalism

Slim Buddha wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Thanks for the reply Slimbuddha - great post, although I am not thoroughly convinced that Keynesiansim any more than neoliberalism can provide a sustainable sound economy worldwide.

Economics may be the driver, but the prize is political and social dominance, in the neoliberal world. The US at home is so far from being a free trade economy with massive subsidies and 'market distortions' of various kinds that the IMF World Trade Organistion mantra is clearly a tin opener to prize open and devour the resources of external economies, and is never intended for wholesale implementation at home.

I agree. I also agree that "Keynes pure" is not the answer but I find the Swiss system is the nearest to what I consider an optimum. This is possible only because the Swiss political structure is the way it is and the Swiss version of democracy is unique. It also helps to have an educated, literate and, most importantly, socially cohesive population. The Swiss set enormous worth on social cohesion, a value and state constantly under attack from neoliberalism. So this is not a neoliberalist country at all. Yet for all that, there are elements of neoliberalism to be found here. I mentioned Nestlé. The same goes for the other big Swiss companies: Novartis, ABB, UBS, Credit Suisse, Hoffmann La Roche, Givaudan, Syngenta and others.

So it appears that a mixture of economic philosophies is at work here. Whatever it is. it works. In the last chapter of Bad Samartins, Chang says, (and forgive me for putting this in capitals) SWITZERLAND IS THE MOST INDUSTRIALISED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!

He quotes a 2005 UN report and it makes interesting reading. It is a small country with no obvious natural resources. How the hell did it get here?

switzerland may not be neo liberal, but it certainly profits from the aplication of neo liberal policioes and is amoral in its attitude to money...witness the billions raped from africa that is now in swiss bank acounts, not to mention the nazi money that was hiddent here in the 30's and 40's

irishbeergirl wrote:

Slim Buddha wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Thanks for the reply Slimbuddha - great post, although I am not thoroughly convinced that Keynesiansim any more than neoliberalism can provide a sustainable sound economy worldwide.

Economics may be the driver, but the prize is political and social dominance, in the neoliberal world. The US at home is so far from being a free trade economy with massive subsidies and 'market distortions' of various kinds that the IMF World Trade Organistion mantra is clearly a tin opener to prize open and devour the resources of external economies, and is never intended for wholesale implementation at home.

I agree. I also agree that "Keynes pure" is not the answer but I find the Swiss system is the nearest to what I consider an optimum. This is possible only because the Swiss political structure is the way it is and the Swiss version of democracy is unique. It also helps to have an educated, literate and, most importantly, socially cohesive population. The Swiss set enormous worth on social cohesion, a value and state constantly under attack from neoliberalism. So this is not a neoliberalist country at all. Yet for all that, there are elements of neoliberalism to be found here. I mentioned Nestlé. The same goes for the other big Swiss companies: Novartis, ABB, UBS, Credit Suisse, Hoffmann La Roche, Givaudan, Syngenta and others.

So it appears that a mixture of economic philosophies is at work here. Whatever it is. it works. In the last chapter of Bad Samartins, Chang says, (and forgive me for putting this in capitals) SWITZERLAND IS THE MOST INDUSTRIALISED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!

He quotes a 2005 UN report and it makes interesting reading. It is a small country with no obvious natural resources. How the hell did it get here?

switzerland may not be neo liberal, but it certainly profits from the aplication of neo liberal policioes and is amoral in its attitude to money...witness the billions raped from africa that is now in swiss bank acounts, not to mention the nazi money that was hiddent here in the 30's and 40's

By Africans!

One would imagine that Switzerland earned its corn by banking secrecy alone. In fact, banking secrecy will probably not survive another 5 years in Switzerland. The criminal case running at present in the US against UBS and the action taken earlier this year by the German government in Liechtenstein means that banking secrecy is under heavy fire and it may limp on for a while yet but it will go eventually. Switzerland doesn't actually need it and while it is nice to have, it is a long way away from being essential to the Swiss economy. It is not an image-enhancer and will always be used as a stick to beat them with by crusties and happy-clappy types whose knowledge of the country starts and ends with the negative consequences of banking secrecy. The sooner it goes, the better.

Slim Buddha wrote:

One would imagine that Switzerland earned its corn by banking secrecy alone. In fact, banking secrecy will probably not survive another 5 years in Switzerland. The criminal case running at present in the US against UBS and the action taken earlier this year by the German government in Liechtenstein means that banking secrecy is under heavy fire and it may limp on for a while yet but it will go eventually. Switzerland doesn't actually need it and while it is nice to have, it is a long way away from being essential to the Swiss economy. It is not an image-enhancer and will always be used as a stick to beat them with by crusties and happy-clappy types whose knowledge of the country starts and ends with the negative consequences of banking secrecy. The sooner it goes, the better.

When you haven't been to war for as long as they have, hippies must seem quite threatening. I suspect that there is pressure from more conventional quaters, the Americans not least. They're getting very fussy about terrorism and secret banking unless I'm mistaken.

905 wrote:

Slim Buddha wrote:

One would imagine that Switzerland earned its corn by banking secrecy alone. In fact, banking secrecy will probably not survive another 5 years in Switzerland. The criminal case running at present in the US against UBS and the action taken earlier this year by the German government in Liechtenstein means that banking secrecy is under heavy fire and it may limp on for a while yet but it will go eventually. Switzerland doesn't actually need it and while it is nice to have, it is a long way away from being essential to the Swiss economy. It is not an image-enhancer and will always be used as a stick to beat them with by crusties and happy-clappy types whose knowledge of the country starts and ends with the negative consequences of banking secrecy. The sooner it goes, the better.

When you haven't been to war for as long as they have, hippies must seem quite threatening. I suspect that there is pressure from more conventional quaters, the Americans not least. They're getting very fussy about terrorism and secret banking unless I'm mistaken.

If they are that fussy about terrorism, they could contribute to its reduction by getting out of Iraq.

Slim Buddha wrote:

905 wrote:

Slim Buddha wrote:

One would imagine that Switzerland earned its corn by banking secrecy alone. In fact, banking secrecy will probably not survive another 5 years in Switzerland. The criminal case running at present in the US against UBS and the action taken earlier this year by the German government in Liechtenstein means that banking secrecy is under heavy fire and it may limp on for a while yet but it will go eventually. Switzerland doesn't actually need it and while it is nice to have, it is a long way away from being essential to the Swiss economy. It is not an image-enhancer and will always be used as a stick to beat them with by crusties and happy-clappy types whose knowledge of the country starts and ends with the negative consequences of banking secrecy. The sooner it goes, the better.

When you haven't been to war for as long as they have, hippies must seem quite threatening. I suspect that there is pressure from more conventional quaters, the Americans not least. They're getting very fussy about terrorism and secret banking unless I'm mistaken.

If they are that fussy about terrorism, they could contribute to its reduction by getting out of Iraq.

Ah you know what I mean, concerns over financing terrorism. (Just don't mention Saudi Arabia)

Anyone want to a bit of discussing? I'm up to chapter 7 of Stiglitz.

How's about an enticement: