Battling Mainstream Economics

Posted on Tuesday, July 12 at 19:30 by Ed Deak
He agrees to being described as having a leftist perspective, but emphasizes that he is not allied with any political party, including socialists, at home or abroad. "One doesn't know who the socialists are any more because the socialists are all in favour of the neo-liberal agenda," he says. "If you look at socialists in Europe, what are they doing? They're adopting austerity measures. I wouldn't want to put a political label on myself because the neo-liberal consensus is supported by right-wing and left-wing parties alike, including the New Democratic Party." Raised in Geneva, Switzerland, Mr. Chossudovsky followed in his father's footsteps by becoming an economist. But his father, a Russian emigre, made a career as a United Nations diplomat, while Mr. Chossudovsky put his economics training to use as a teacher and analyst. He came to the University of Ottawa in 1968, attracted by the promise of a bilingual lifestyle. It was as a young visiting professor at the Catholic University in Santiago, Chile, that Mr. Chossudovsky's interest in "economic repression" was first pricked. Augusto Pinochet's military junta, which overthrew Salvador Allende in 1973, quadrupled the price of bread and introduced other measures that would now be referred to as "a structural adjustment program." Mr. Chossudovsky set out, with a doctor, to study the malnourishment resulting from the bread price hike. He wound up with a paper that held the Pinochet regime responsible not only for conventional forms of political repression but for "economic repression" that impoverished three-quarters of Chile's population. Since then he has documented the purposeful impoverishment of people in dozens of countries. His latest book, the Globalization of Poverty, contains case studies of the collapse of economies and social structures in Somalia, Rwanda, Vietnam, India, Brazil, Peru, Russia and the former Yugoslavia. In some of these countries, IMF/World Bank intervention preceded violent conflict. He refers often to "the hidden agenda" of the big banking and financial organizations. They orchestrate collapses, he says, by demanding payment of debt service charges and then lending money to cover the charges but only on condition the recipient country impose such measures as austerity, privatization and currency devaluation. The impact is usually destructive: mass shutdowns, huge unemployment, a wipeout of savings and pensions and purchasing power, a loss of social services. Such economic shock therapy, he says, has pushed Russia, for one, "back to the medieval era," impoverishing millions of people, deepening the country's foreign debt, driving more than half the country's industrial plants into bankruptcy and allowing organized crime to flourish in the banking, real estate and other sectors of the economy. Mr. Chossudovsky generally condemns "the criminalization" of the global economy in which increasingly large amounts of drug money and other illegally obtained funds are deposited in the world's 55 offshore havens, escaping taxation. The funds are laundered through an international banking system in which capital movement is easier than ever owing to the revolution in digital communications. "This critical drain of billions of dollars in capital flight dramatically reduces state tax revenues, paralyses social programs, drives up budget deficits and spurs the accumulation of large public debts," he writes. An end to offshore tax havens is one of the few solutions Chossudovsky advocates. He also says the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and commercial banks should not be allowed to "pillage" the central banks of troubled countries. He is much stronger on description than prescription. But his descriptions alone constitute a defiance of mainstream economic scholarship in which "critical analysis is strongly discouraged." It has not, however, stopped him from teaching for 30 years at U of O and as a visiting professor in several other countries, as well as publishing several books, the latest appearing in nine languages. And while the mainstream media in Canada do not publish his commentary, he is published frequently in Le Monde Diplomatique and smaller magazines that don't have investors or business advertisers. Prof. Michel Chossudovsky has documented impoverishment of people in dozens of countries. © Copyright OTTAWA CITIZEN 2003 For fair use only ___________________________________________________________________ "One doesn't know who the socialists are any more because the socialists are all in favour of the neo-liberal agenda." Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, Ottawa, Canada 2003 ___________________________________________________________________

Note: http://globalresearch.c... http://www.globalresear...

Contributed By



Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. Wed Jul 13, 2005 3:30 am
    Nice to read on Vive about our local brains and specially about what makes this economist different...

    ---
    "We are all in this together somehow, some more than others somehow"

  2. Wed Jul 13, 2005 4:16 am
    agreed. Interesting guy, and its a good thing he is brining up the phoney left issue. As you can see in our politics, both sides of the spectrum ultimately seem to serve the neo-liberal economic agenda. The question is what can we do to break these parties strangle hold on power?

  3. Wed Jul 13, 2005 5:01 am
    Force them to get rid of their brainwashed economists. They're the ones who mislead Parties and unions alike. If they received their education within the past 30 years, 90% of them are lost cause to humanity. Ed Deak, Big Lake BC.

  4. Wed Jul 13, 2005 1:27 pm
    "what can we do to break these parties strangle hold on power?" <p> That was <a>my answer</a> then. Has not changed.<p>---<br>"We are all in this together somehow, some more than others somehow"

  5. Wed Jul 13, 2005 1:31 pm
    Ooopsie, here is the answer <a href="http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/2005011823474145">hyperlink</a><p>---<br>"We are all in this together somehow, some more than others somehow"

  6. Wed Jul 13, 2005 7:07 pm
    Okay Ed, you don't like neoclassical economics. What form of economics or politics *do you like*? What does your dream Canada look like?

  7. Wed Jul 13, 2005 8:53 pm
    Persistent li’l troll, Ain’tcha?

  8. Thu Jul 14, 2005 2:00 am
    Somebody, above asked what kind of economics I would like to see in Canada ? For one thing, I would like to see a completely logical economic theory all over the world to stop hunger, destitution, wars, colonization and exploitation.

    Yes, it can be done and will be one day, but not based on any kind of a philosophical theory, because theories can be twisted around to mean the opposite of the original intentions their authors. I've been calling myself a social democrat since my Cambridge days, over 50 years ago, but now I'm convinced that all idelogies are passe. Social democracy may still have the potential to be converted into an economic system based on strict physical laws, not hot air blatherings and speeches.

    I discovered in 1985 that the textbook version of the presently used, or rather forced on, definition of economic efficiency was fraudulent and worked for 6 years on the correct definition, with the help of a number of scientist friends, which I copyrighted in 1991 to establish the date. Not for any monetary reasons.

    It is the only scientifically correct definition, that I have used and exposed to thousands of economists on various, including several World Bank forums for the past 9 years on the Net. It has also been used and defended in PhD dissertations and remains unbroken and unbreakable. Unlike the presently accepted and used nonsense. The problem is that if we accept and introduce an economic system based on scientific facts, instead of harebrained iedologies, the stock and money markets will collapse. So, what is the solution to prevent a major breakdown and the resulting violence ? Things can not go on forever under the present criminal syatem, but how do we change over without major disasters?

    One of these days, when things are a bit slow, I may just write something on this in detail. By the way, I sign my name and location to my postings, because there are other Ed Deaks around, including one unfortunate economics professor in the USA, who must be cursing the day when he was blessed with it. I always take full responsibility for my actions and writings, so this way there's no mistake. Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC./

  9. by RPW
    Thu Jul 14, 2005 2:36 pm
    The Star Trek series has opinied that the battle for food, shelter, clothing consumes enough of any given human's lifetime, so as to rob any given individual's pursuit of "higher" things. Neoclassical economics is merely a fancy name given to the battle for F-S-C, and is right out of the Stone Age. In fact, it is worse, as at least in the Stone Age, tribalism ensured the survival of tribal members for the most part, in a form of "cooperative commonwealth". In fact, history has revealed time and again that cooperation and not competition, has been the order of the day.

    ---
    RickW

  10. by RPW
    Thu Jul 14, 2005 2:52 pm
    "Neoclassical economics" drives present-day world strife and relies on economic disparities for it's "success", because it cannot define ownership without endorsing seizure of wealth.

    ---
    RickW

  11. Thu Jul 14, 2005 11:10 pm
    Well, in our current non Star Trek reality, food and other goods cannot simply be "replicated" from other forms of matter. People still have to produce useful things from raw materials, and that means we have to work. And maybe when computing technology is as advanced as that portrayed in Star Trek, the central planning schemes so beloved by the left will finally be workable. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

    The Star Trek series also described the logical extension of collectivist thinking - the Borg. Each Borg drone exists not for himself, but merely to serve "the collective". The individual is unimportant; the group is everything. That's the ultimate "cooperative" society - one in which individual will and ambition is crushed.

    Give me competition anyday. We've seen what happens in the absence of real competition (Air Canada anyone?).

  12. Fri Jul 15, 2005 3:38 pm
    It sounds like what you've done is attempt to use hard science to argue against the concept of wealth creation and in favour of the fixed-pie/zero-sum game and "property as theft" views of economics.

    Economics is not so much a hard science as applied group psychology. The basis of the market system is that a given product is only worth something if someone is willing to exchange something (such as money) for it.

  13. Fri Jul 15, 2005 4:41 pm
    Ed, you are always a breath of fresh air on Vive!
    BTW,what is the name of your book?Still Available?

  14. Fri Jul 15, 2005 6:19 pm
    continuing the metaphor and on the opposite end of the scale is,<br />
    <br />
    <a href="http://www.dmwright.com/html/ferengi.htm">http://www.dmwright.com/html/ferengi.htm</a><br />
    <br />



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news