Tuesday, March 09, 2010
1,000 blog posts
I find it hard to believe but I have written 1,000 posts since I first started blogging on 16 July 2006. Evidently my favourite subjects are, economics followed by environment, development, consumption and America.
I am hoping that within a few weeks I will transfer to a totally different website. If anyone has any suggestions for features you would like to see now is the time to let me know.
I am hoping that within a few weeks I will transfer to a totally different website. If anyone has any suggestions for features you would like to see now is the time to let me know.
Monday, March 08, 2010
Me on Dubai assassination
Nothing to do with growth scepticism but readers may be interested in my spiked article on why assassination plays a central role in Israeli society. A long time ago, before I started writing about economics, I used to write about the Middle East.
Labels: spiked
Sunday, March 07, 2010
For the record
The incorrect claim in last Friday's BBC World programme that I am a former Financial Times (FT) correspondent made me think that, for the record, I should correct some other misconceptions about my biography. Below I list the main ones I have come across and outline how I think they arose.
* The claim that I am a former FT correspondent to my knowledge first appeared on the entry for Cowardly Capitalism, my book on global finance, on Amazon.co.uk. In fact I did work for the FT group, as the editor of a specialist newspaper called Investment Adviser, but not as a correspondent for the FT. I have, however, contributed freelance articles to the FT.
* I am not now nor have I ever been a “professional investment adviser” as also claimed on the Amazon.co.uk site (although I think this originated with Wiley, the publisher of Cowardly Capitalism). I did, as mentioned above, once edit a newspaper called Investment Adviser.
* I am not an economist although I have written extensively about economics. I call myself an economics writer rather than an economist.
* I have never written for the Morning Star – a newspaper once linked to Britain’s official Communist party. In fact I worked as a writer for Morningstar; a Chicago-based global company which provides information on investment funds and stocks.
* The claim that I am a former FT correspondent to my knowledge first appeared on the entry for Cowardly Capitalism, my book on global finance, on Amazon.co.uk. In fact I did work for the FT group, as the editor of a specialist newspaper called Investment Adviser, but not as a correspondent for the FT. I have, however, contributed freelance articles to the FT.
* I am not now nor have I ever been a “professional investment adviser” as also claimed on the Amazon.co.uk site (although I think this originated with Wiley, the publisher of Cowardly Capitalism). I did, as mentioned above, once edit a newspaper called Investment Adviser.
* I am not an economist although I have written extensively about economics. I call myself an economics writer rather than an economist.
* I have never written for the Morning Star – a newspaper once linked to Britain’s official Communist party. In fact I worked as a writer for Morningstar; a Chicago-based global company which provides information on investment funds and stocks.
Top UN panel savages me on green economy
Most people find watching themselves on video odd but this item from BBC World television (only broadcast outside Britain) is truly weird. It holds me up as a critic of the “green economy” (which is fine) only to have me knocked down by a top panel at a United Nations conference in Indonesia including a Nobel peace prize winner, the head of the United Nations Environment Programme, the Indonesian trade minister and the Norwegian environment minister. Sadly I was filmed in London rather than Bali and I had no chance to reply to the critics.
Labels: development, economics, environment
Saturday, March 06, 2010
Excellent new American blog
A great new blog for anyone interested in American politics, economics or culture. The American Situation is run by Sean Collins, a fellow spiked contributor and a native New Yorker.
Thursday, March 04, 2010
On missing baby girls
In 1990 Amartya Sen, who has since won the Nobel prize in economics, wrote an article in the New York Review of Books arguing there were 100m “missing” baby girls in the third world. From an examination of statistics that many baby girls in poorer countries died as a result of poorer medical care or even deliberate infanticide. It is strange that two decades later the same story should make the cover of the Economist with both the lead editorial and a substantial feature.
It is of course right that girls should have the same access to public health resources as boys and that men and women should have equal rights. However, something odd is going on with the recent heavy emphasis by establishment figures on gender equality in poorer countries.
As I argued in my recent spiked review defending abundance something odd seems to be going on. The aspiration to achieve material equality between the rich countries and the poor has become subdued. Instead there is a widespread discussion of gender inequality - and this in turn is often understood in terms of the authorities intervening in family life to stop men abusing women.
As a result tackling inequality is redefined as a problem of male abuse rather than one of a lack of economic development. From this perspective the relatively recent mainstream preoccupation with gender inequality is more problematic than it first appears.
It is of course right that girls should have the same access to public health resources as boys and that men and women should have equal rights. However, something odd is going on with the recent heavy emphasis by establishment figures on gender equality in poorer countries.
As I argued in my recent spiked review defending abundance something odd seems to be going on. The aspiration to achieve material equality between the rich countries and the poor has become subdued. Instead there is a widespread discussion of gender inequality - and this in turn is often understood in terms of the authorities intervening in family life to stop men abusing women.
As a result tackling inequality is redefined as a problem of male abuse rather than one of a lack of economic development. From this perspective the relatively recent mainstream preoccupation with gender inequality is more problematic than it first appears.
Labels: development, inequality, review, spiked, women
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
Critique of new economics part 2
The second part of Matthew Lockwood’s scathing critique of the New Economic Foundation’s Growth Isn’t Possible (see 27 February post).
Labels: economics, environment
Monday, March 01, 2010
Britain facing crisis of sluggish growth
This is my comment from this week’s Fund Strategy. The issue also includes a cover story by me on the British debate about economic policy in the run-up to the next election
The slight upward revision in the figures for Britain’s GDP growth in the final quarter of 2009 is little cause for cheer. While economic growth is always welcome, a closer look at the figures reveals no signs of a strong recovery.
Of course the usual caveat applies: short-term figures should not be taken too seriously. But the breakdown of the figures gives some indication at least of where the economy appears to be heading for now.
Although the overall growth figure was revised upwards from 0.1% to 0.3%, there are several reasons to question claims that this indicates a robust recovery. The impending rise in VAT probably encouraged consumers to make discretionary purchases earlier than they otherwise would have done. Perhaps they bought a new television in December rather than waiting until 2010. But this is no sign of a real recovery.
In addition, while the contribution from exports rose, that from imports increased even further. This is the wrong direction for those hoping that net exports will power Britain’s recovery.
More fundamentally, gross fixed-capital formation fell by 3.1% and is now 14.2% lower than in the final quarter of 2008. Yet such investment is a fundamental driver of economic growth in the future.
Britain’s problem of low growth is discussed in more detail in my cover story this week. Over the past decade, Britain grew at its slowest rate since the second world war. This was in turn part of a longer-term trend, with relatively low growth rates from the 1970s onwards.
Yet despite the scale of the problem, it receives relatively little attention. Politicians evidently prefer to obsess over the fiscal deficit and lambast bankers for their high bonuses. These are likely to dominate the economic debate in the run-up to the election, rather than the problem of low growth.
Overcoming this blinkered attitude demands a fundamental cultural shift. Promoting strong and consistent long-term growth should be the key priority of any political programme. The ideas used to question the feasibility of growth, including the flawed notions of environmental and moral limits, also need to be challenged.
The slight upward revision in the figures for Britain’s GDP growth in the final quarter of 2009 is little cause for cheer. While economic growth is always welcome, a closer look at the figures reveals no signs of a strong recovery.
Of course the usual caveat applies: short-term figures should not be taken too seriously. But the breakdown of the figures gives some indication at least of where the economy appears to be heading for now.
Although the overall growth figure was revised upwards from 0.1% to 0.3%, there are several reasons to question claims that this indicates a robust recovery. The impending rise in VAT probably encouraged consumers to make discretionary purchases earlier than they otherwise would have done. Perhaps they bought a new television in December rather than waiting until 2010. But this is no sign of a real recovery.
In addition, while the contribution from exports rose, that from imports increased even further. This is the wrong direction for those hoping that net exports will power Britain’s recovery.
More fundamentally, gross fixed-capital formation fell by 3.1% and is now 14.2% lower than in the final quarter of 2008. Yet such investment is a fundamental driver of economic growth in the future.
Britain’s problem of low growth is discussed in more detail in my cover story this week. Over the past decade, Britain grew at its slowest rate since the second world war. This was in turn part of a longer-term trend, with relatively low growth rates from the 1970s onwards.
Yet despite the scale of the problem, it receives relatively little attention. Politicians evidently prefer to obsess over the fiscal deficit and lambast bankers for their high bonuses. These are likely to dominate the economic debate in the run-up to the election, rather than the problem of low growth.
Overcoming this blinkered attitude demands a fundamental cultural shift. Promoting strong and consistent long-term growth should be the key priority of any political programme. The ideas used to question the feasibility of growth, including the flawed notions of environmental and moral limits, also need to be challenged.
Labels: economics, finance, Fund Strategy, growth
New testimonial for book
David Smith, the economics editor of the Sunday Times (London), has agreed to give a testimonial to my new book:
"The global financial crisis has produced a fresh outpouring of growth scepticism; the idea that we would all be better off in a world without economic growth. Daniel Ben-Ami has provided a timely and thought-provoking reminder of why we need growth and the benefits that it brings."
"The global financial crisis has produced a fresh outpouring of growth scepticism; the idea that we would all be better off in a world without economic growth. Daniel Ben-Ami has provided a timely and thought-provoking reminder of why we need growth and the benefits that it brings."
Labels: book
