Tuesday, October 29, 2013

The Green Economy and China's Economic Development - No to failed Green Market Economy

Dr Ying Kong is the founding Dean at the Tsinghua (Qianhai) International Business School is a Tsinghua Professor promoting the bankrupt idea of Carbon Trading in China and Green Market Economy - Tsinghua University is the ideological centre of free market fundamentalism in China has we have recently noted.   

See videos below for shortcomings of carbon trading another idea from Goldman Sachs so popular at Tsinghua University and from Patrick Bond on failure of Green Market Economy.

For further reading visit here:




Friday, October 25, 2013

Manufacturing Imperialism :The Political Economy of Special Economic Zones by Rona Wilson

Political Economy Research has recently been sent this work of Rona Wilson and we are pleased to publish it has it address's some fundamental questions about displacement and development in India.

The article is longer than what we normally publish but the effort in seriously studying this document will be repaid with deepened knowledge of Indian reality.

The country that is more developed industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own future

--Marx, Capital, Vol I

An epitome of beauty, serenity and colonial charm…

--An advertisement for The Carlton, a luxury hotel created by the Rahejas in Kodaikanal, Tamil Nadu


Land, development and displacement has once again become the central point of debate in India. Curiously the debate is on industrial development ostensibly, under capitalism. Suddenly it has dawned upon the learned Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his policy experts that land and agriculture cannot be the main basis for the economy of a country like India that is marching ahead in the 21st century. The often erudite, soft spoken PM has even gone to the extent of calling all those, who oppose the present road map of prosperity and growth laid out by his government, anti-development and hence anti-national. The Prime Minister has equated the present policy prescription for growth tempered by the diktats of the World Bank and IMF with the ‘national interest’. Dr. Manmohan Singh is not alone in his concern about the future of the so-called ‘second generation reforms’, otherwise known as Liberalisation, Privatisation and Globalisation (LPG).

He is joined by the likes of Dr. Amartya Sen who is always ready to ‘grade’ the ‘performance’ of the Indian economy. In one of his interviews to The Telegraph while trying hard to pull the CPM-led West Bengal government out of the ignominy of Nandigram and Singur the Nobel Laureate has made it loud and clear that whatever is happening in the form of Special Economic Zones throughout the sub-continent is development through industrialisation that India badly needs. And make no mistake. This development package will inevitably have to exploit land that was / is fertile or otherwise. Gone are the days when agriculture alone could provide to the developmental needs of the Indian economy which as per Sen the economist is poised for a growth of more than 9 percent, mainly propelled through foreign direct investments. At best, it is nothing but Sen and the art of consensus building. Incidentally, when the people of Singur was protesting against land being taken from them against their will, Telegraph had carried photographs of CPM cadre moving in hordes on motorcycles in Singur with red flag and the life size portrait of Ratan Tata trying to ‘educate’ the people about the virtues of the TATAs as the harbinger of industrialization in post-47 India. Perhaps both, the Nobel laureate and the lumpen brigade of the CPM, were conveying the same, albeit, in different ways.

 It’s official now. Agriculture cannot be the main provider of employment for the vast sections of the masses abounding rural India. In fact, the first official warning came in the form of an innocuous survey of the NSSO—about which the government had made a song and dance, not to mention the media that had gone overboard—proclaiming that about 40 percent or more of the peasantry in India would want to rid their lives of agriculture.

Yet in the maze of this publicity blitzkrieg by the proponents of LPG, what is carefully ignored is the question of development itself. The question as usual is deliberately posed in a manner where the pertinent aspects on the ramifications of a development model—that is totally reliant on foreign capital / dependent on imperialism—for the vast sections of the masses of this country hardly gets any mention.

What is argued is that displacement is inevitable in development. The rest of the arguments are just a logical corollary of this initial refrain. Since the peasantry cannot provide labour opportunities through agriculture anymore for the bulk of the masses as required by the circumstances coupled with the diminishing returns for the farmers with a high input cost and low market price / support price for the output, there is no more incentive for them to continue in the same productive activity.

Amidst all this effort of consensus building are the shocking and gripping accounts of violence and repression from the killing fields of Kashipur, Kalinganagar, Nandigram, Raigada, Jagatsinghpur and Singur. When this is being written the CPI (M) has resorted to the worst carnage in Nandigram which even the die hard supporters of CPI (M) itself have shockingly compared it to the worst genocide that followed the post-Godhra riots in the state of Gujarat in 2002. The scope of this article does not permit to deal with the entire happenings in Nandigram. It may be dealt in a separate piece.  

Is displacement due to development or the development of displacement an inevitable thing like ones own shadow, a necessary evil that has to be lived with when one thinks about development? Or is there a possibility of a development which is free of any form of displacement; any form of violence on the people? Is this phenomenon of displacement due to development a new feature in the trajectory that India followed post-47? These are vital questions we cannot shy away from if we are serious in fighting the four dreaded Ds—Displacement, Destruction, Destitution and Death, especially in a social reality like South Asia and that too at a time when private capital—foreign and domestic—is considered as the main vehicle of implementation of the policies of LPG.

Saturday, October 19, 2013

NY Federal Reserve Examiner Fired After Submitting Critical Report of Goldman Sachs

Dismissal of Xia Yeliang - the first step in a long journey back to Socialism

China has plenty of academic economists who, like Professor  Yeliang, of Beijing University Economics Department believe in unfettered free markets and see's them as allied to "liberal democracy" and a western version of representative democracy for China.

You will not be surprised that Political Economy Research does not think much of these people or their ideas in fact we have been exposing them here:

Last year, Professor Xia issued a call on the Internet for Chinese intellectuals to gather in public spaces to discuss and promote capitalist political reform.
Before that, he mocked a government minister for having a degree from a technical school and not having his Hayekian searing intellect.

Political Economy Research  may be the only people in the West to welcome his dismissal has bourgeois economists rally to his defence but we see this has a victory albeit a small victory in the ideological struggle over China's future - the struggle for Socialism.


Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Economist: There is no debt crisis

The Tea Party and the Suppression of the Left

Richard Wolff explains the history behind the Tea Party "The Republican-Tea Party alliance operates a weapon of mass deflection, protecting capitalism from criticism. Sadly, the Democrats neither expose nor attack the Republican project"

Visit : http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/19086-what-gop-tea-party-risks-with-block-of-new-new-deal?

Deal! Senate agrees on debt ceiling to end shutdown

The US Debt Limit Explained - Countdown has started to October 17th 2013

Debt Ceiling Deadline Looming - Ranting and Raging in the USA

The de Americanisation of the World Financial System is already underway and is getting a boost from the ranting and raging in the USA.

We have the Alex Jones Info Wars ranting and raging that projects itself beyond left and right which calls Obama a Communist - which quickly exposes his right wing roots with its base of eclectic conservatism.

Then we have the ranting and raging of  Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks of the liberal left (The Welfare/Warfare of Roosevelt).

To this we add the Dylan Ratigan, Ranting and Raging,  a man that wants to appear to be an Alex Jones without the weird stuff another closet rightist who tries to appear leftist who opposes "corporate communism". The video above is from 2011 and his a classic rant, but his points are even more relevant with debt ceiling deadline tomorrow 17th October 2013

They are all competing to give expression to the deep disgust with the democracy for the few of Wall Street which is in your face and is becoming impossible to deny - however we are not of the view that this disgust and outrage will take a progressive direction in America has we can see in the contradictions of the current crisis ugliness emerging from liberal as well as conservative America.

Friday, October 11, 2013

Should China Liberalize Its Economy? Frank Venerosa says No !


The speech of Frank A.J Veneroso is remarkable for a bourgeois and we at Political Economy Research agree with much of what he says and China should listen to his advice except we would go further and close down the free market evangelist Tsinghua University Economics Department and the derivatives and futures markets in China. Also the capitalist asset transfer system in China called the Stock Market should be closed.

We would reinstate the Chinese Central Planning Commission which was disbanded by Wu Jia when he set up Institute for the Reconstruction of the Chinese Economy.

Speaking of  Hyman Minsky and  excluding  Karl Marx from this debate which is about the centrality of capital accumulation and its discontents and the internal contradictions of capital shows the class character of these  hired prize fighters of the Chinese bourgeoisie and their lack of scientific political economy now that Chinese Universities have succumbed to the political virus of neo liberalism.

China has the opportunity to return to Socialism in the 21st century or descend into the barbarism of full free market capitalism rather than the state capitalist hybrid present system - listen to Frank Veneroso not the paid prostitutes of the free market in China like Tsinghua University professors who are not fit even to run pig farms after working for Goldman Sachs.

“crossing the river by touching the stones” was a lie when first propagated by Deng Xiaoping has he had a plan based on failed attempts of labour market reform during Mao Era.

China needs a plan now not blind market forces to steer it economy to safety - only socialism can save China.

Nickglais Editor of Political Economy Research

PS If you want to know how Goldman Sachs survived and flourished during the economic crisis it has little to do with their systems like Jian Wulin their Tsinghua apologist speaks but much more to do with Guanxi (connections) watch a recent video by Greg Palast here:


See Also :

Just saw the INET/Tsinghua Report on the Conference above and they reported  that Venerosa said to cautious about further liberalisation - they obviously did not listen to his speech and have even reported it inaccurately has he said NO to further liberalisation.

This fundamental debate constitutes the classic challenge facing Beijing today and it is well reflected in this panel discussion between Andrew Sheng and Frank Veneroso from a recent conference in Shenzhen, China, titled, "The Good Life: The Challenge of Progress in China Today."

Which path will lead China to success in the 21st century? Watch the video to see what Sheng and Veneroso have to say!

Mr. Frank A. J. Veneroso is presently the lead partner of Veneroso Associates. Formerly he was a partner of Omega Advisors, where he was responsible for investment policy formulation. Prior to this, acting through his own firm, Mr. Veneroso has been an economic consultant and investment strategy advisor to governments, international agencies, financial institutions, and corporations around the world. He acted as an economic policy advisor to international agencies and governments in the areas of money and banking, financial instability and crisis, privatization, and the development and globalization of emerging securities markets. His clients have included the World Bank, the International Finance Corporation, and the Organization of American States. He has been an advisor to the governments of Bahrain, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Korea, Mexico, Portugal, Thailand, Venezuela, and the United Arab Emirates. Mr. Veneroso graduated cum laude from Harvard University and has authored several articles on subjects in international finance

See Also: http://kasamaproject.org/international/791-23nickglais-china-today-capitalist-or-socialist