tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33693245.post6092336097866824548..comments2024-03-04T23:40:58.133+05:30Comments on The Big Picture: Economists who left a lasting impact- and who didn'tThe Big Picturehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06018983225756352176noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33693245.post-53948412843201850232007-09-10T18:14:00.000+05:302007-09-10T18:14:00.000+05:30Very interesting responses!Blackadder, I have alwa...Very interesting responses!<BR/><BR/>Blackadder, I have always been wary of the fairy-tale story of India's economic revival, namely, that we were comatose for over three decades and then woke up in 1991- and all was well thereafter. So I have no difficulty at all going along with your view that the earlier policies created the basis for a diversified industrial structure and also for a high level of manpower skills that translated into the IT boom.<BR/><BR/>Abi, Paul Samuleson is seen as an exponent of the Keynes school-as somebody who provided the mathematical basis for Keynes, not as the founder of a separate school of thought. Stiglitz is hard to fit into any mould. I think Kay is right in arguing that he has not developed a strong enough body around his critique of market imperfections, chiefly imperfect information, that would constitute a school of thought.<BR/><BR/>Gaddeswarup, the passage on Galbraith substantiates the point I am highlighting- you need leadership and man management skills, not just intellectual acument, to found a school of thought.<BR/><BR/>-TTRT T Ram Mohanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06925858642839337950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33693245.post-6372445679336190002007-09-09T06:22:00.000+05:302007-09-09T06:22:00.000+05:30Kay seems to give a clue to what is needed and wha...Kay seems to give a clue to what is needed and what is lacking in this passage:<BR/>"Perhaps most importantly, Galbraith’s The New Industrial State (1967) saw the developed economy not as a set of interlocking competitive markets, but in terms of the power relationships in, around and between businesses. This perspective is a necessary contrast to a standard economic theory which barely recognises that the large corporation is the dominant institution in modern society. To understand the role of K Street and Wall Street in Bush’s America, we might more profitably turn to Galbraith than to Samuelson. But, as there is no Schumpeterian school, there is no Galbraithian school. Like Schumpeter, Galbraith never had time or inclination for the university and conference politics which that required."gaddeswaruphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16509075029154476375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33693245.post-87029529245274532682007-09-08T13:16:00.000+05:302007-09-08T13:16:00.000+05:30How about Paul Samuelson? Wasn't he (or, isn't he)...How about Paul Samuelson? Wasn't he (or, isn't he) the chief of the MIT school? Stiglitz, Krugman, et al are products of this school, aren't they?<BR/><BR/>If, as John Kay claims, Stiglitz, Krugman and others are really not upto the task of leading this school, I would like to know if the Chicago school has found a leader after Friedman.Abihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06790560045313883673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33693245.post-85734725030298861702007-09-08T11:49:00.000+05:302007-09-08T11:49:00.000+05:30Interesting article, while I am in no way qualifie...Interesting article, while I am in no way qualified to comment on the academic merits of the work of any of the people mentioned in this article, I would say that Keynes and Friedman have received exceptional success more because their ideas found favour with the political establishments of their time. Keynes laid down the foundation of the welfare state which is the lifeline of most of Europe today, for all the free markets claim, the nationalised Health Service is something that has flowed directly from Keynes ideas. Similarly, Friedman found his champions across the Atlantic in the US Treasury department and the Fed. The fact that these economies have not imploded like the Soviets has made their ideas more credible than say Marx, who was failed by the Soviet model. This has interesting implications for a similar study that can be undertaken in India - was the model proposed by Mahalonobis successful because it created an indigenous asset base and skill sets that India is leveraging today? In all the criticism leveled at him and Nehru, I think people miss the point that state support is the reason why we were able to make the investments required in the economy to emerge as a nation which does more than trade natural resources. I have been to Sri Lanka and seen the business environment there, they are still stuck in the trading stage of commerce, where their ecnomy is totally dependent on hte price of tea. At least in India, we have steel plants that can convert our natural iron ore into steel and earn far more than we could as just exporters.<BR/>Just some thoughtsblackadderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11384396976772450641noreply@blogger.com