Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

The faltering recovery and the credibility this has cost the the White House will probably lose the Democrats one or both houses of Congress, making the insufficiency of the stimulus easily the most consequential error for an administration that has done a lot right. To appreciate how it happened, it's necessary to understand the twin imperatives that dominate White House thinking. They usually function in harmony, but on this issue clashed to devastating effect.

The debate on "global imbalances" has gone back to the future. The proposal from Tim Geithner, the US Treasury secretary, to target the current account takes us back to the preoccupations of John Maynard Keynes at the Bretton Woods conference of July 1944. Keynes, representing Britain, was obsessed with the dangers of asymmetric adjustment between surplus and deficit countries. The US, then the world's dominant surplus country, rebuffed calls for a mechanism that would impose pressure on both sides. Now the US is in the other camp.

China is busy turning the global challenge of climate change into a national opportunity, but it needs another decade to advance its technology to the point where superior manufacturing and lower costs will secure its dominance of the clean-tech sector. By giving China more time to develop its capacity while neglecting our own, America is not just losing the clean-tech race, it's forfeiting it.

As China gains dominance on the world stage, more and more multinational corporations will need to rethink their assumptions about competing under its state-capitalism model-one in which the government is the principal economic driver. So says Ian Bremmer, president of the political-risk consulting firm Eurasia Group and author of the upcoming book The End of the Free Market: Who Wins the War Between States and Corporations? In this video interview, Bremmer discusses the fundamental distinctions between state capitalism and free-market economies, as well as the strategic implications this has for Western companies and governments alike.

With top corporations expecting another year of record profits, economists offer a pessimistic vision of America

Development economics expert Ha-Joon Chang visits the RSA to dispel the myths and prejudices that have come to dominate our understanding of how the world works.

Why this absence of political ambition? What explains the rioters' genuflection at the altar of "crude materialist, market-driven hedonism"? To zone in on the answer, we need to step back and remind ourselves how strikingly unequal distributions of income and wealth impact how we interact with "things." In relatively equal nations, societies where minor differences in income and wealth separate social classes, people typically do not obsess over "things," the baubles of modern life. The reason? If nearly everyone can afford much the same things, things overall tend to lose their significance. People in more equal societies will be more likely to judge you by who you are than what you own. The reverse, obviously, also holds true. "As inequality worsens," as Boston College economist Juliet Schor has explained, "the status game tends to intensify." The wider that gaps in income and wealth go, the greater the differences in the things that different classes can afford. In markedly unequal societies, things take on ever greater significance. They signal who has succeeded and who has not. In London, the developed world's most unequal city, these signals may dominate daily life as ferociously as anywhere else on Earth. Their incessant repetition drowns out the socially cohesive signals that people see and hear and feel in more equal societies, the sense that "we're all in this together." "Let this week be a wake up call," London's Compass think tank observed right after the heaviest rioting. "There is more to clean up than broken shop windows."

The Dow Jones average suffered its latest calamitous decline on Thursday, plunging 419 points and erasing much of the progress that had been made after the last series of wild swings two weeks ago. There were many factors at work in Thursday's carnage, which came after markets in Asia and Europe experienced similar turmoil, but the overriding one seems to be this: Just about everyone now believes the U.S. economy is getting worse -- and no one thinks our leaders in Washington are about to do anything meaningful about it. So we thought it might be a good time to take a step back and consider the fundamental absurdity of the paralysis in Washington, where spending cuts and deficit reduction -- and not job creation -- have come to define and dominate the discussion. And who better to illustrate this than ... Robert Reich, playing the roles of both Professor Donald Right and Dr. Hugo Wrong in a one-man show that everyone on Capitol Hill really ought to check out:

Former managing director of the IMF, Michel Camdessus admitted Thursday in Buenos Aires that during his time working for the organization, they 'made many mistakes with Argentina,' particularly highlighting the 90s. With regard to the topic, the former IMF managing director estimated that "80% of the global economic growth," over the course of the next forty years, "will come from the development of emerging countries, like Argentina," also considering that during this time the dollar will cease to dominate the monetary system and global finance. Camdessus acknowledged that "current neo-liberalism is extremely short regarding institutions and regulations".