Economics

In June 2016 the International Monetary Fund (IMF) published a paper from its economics research department entitled ‘Neoliberalism oversold’. The very fact it used the word neoliberal was remarkable enough, for this was a word hitherto only used by neoliberalism’s critics and banned completely by its advocates, of which the IMF had been the leading international proponent. More importantly, the report was a devastating indictment of the neoliberal policies that the IMF had been promoting and imposing on weaker economies for many years.

The Covid crisis has led to lockdown measures which have produced big declines in economic activity across the world. Britain has suffered the worst declines of any major economy. In the second quarter of this year, April to June, the British economy shrank by 20.4 percent, the worst slump by far since records began in 1955 and twice the decline in the US economy. There are two reasons why the British economy has suffered much more than others, both of them due to deliberate policies of Conservative governments.

Companies and states have taken on a massive amount of debt. What are the implications of this?

Even before the pandemic global levels debt levels were at post-war highs. This was not just public sector debt built up after bailing out the banks and other sectors during the great recession of 2008-09.

It included a huge build up of corporate debt as companies in the advanced economies borrowed at very low interest rates made possible by central banks.

The 200th anniversary of Karl Marx’s birth has produced plenty of articles and books discussing his legacy. Few of these have had any real clarity on Marx’s actual ideas. So it is refreshing to read Michael Roberts’ short, but detailed, discussion on the relevance of Marx’s economic ideas.

For three decades discussion of China’s economy has been overwhelmingly positive. Benefitting from what Leon Trotsky called the privileges of backwardness, China’s transformation has been remarkable since the reforms of Maoist state capitalism started under Deng Xiaoping in 1978. Contrary to neoliberal myth, average growth rates of nearly 10 percent a year have been achieved by a combination of state production and state orchestration of private capital.

2017 is the 150th anniversary of the publication of Volume 1 of Capital and David Harvey rightly wants to commemorate this with a reassertion of the importance of Marx’s writings on political economy and the insights they can provide in understanding the world in which we live. The title (taken from Marx) is apposite in foregrounding the economic madness of a world in which problems of hunger and shelter could be solved, but where property is about making money and the Earth’s environment is being destroyed.

Having read Camilla Royle’s interview with Joseph Choonara in last month’s Socialist Review, I looked forward to reading his new Reader’s Guide to Marx’s Capital. I was not disappointed when I did and only wish it had been available when I tackled volume one of Marx’s world-changing work — on which Joseph’s guide focuses — some time ago.

Robots are taking over. At least that is the impression given by the mainstream media. Headlines in recent weeks include: “Robots Could Replace 250,000 Public Sector Workers” (Independent), “Amazon To Open A Giant ROBOT-Run Supermarket Staffed By Just Three Humans” (Daily Mail) and “Give Robots ‘Personhood’ Status, EU Committee Argues” (Guardian).

The ire on the right and the applause on the left provoked by “Corbynomics” demonstrate that you can move a long way to the left by standing still. Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell have long opposed the pro-market consensus among successive governments since Jim Callaghan adopted monetarism in the late 1970s. Compared with that consensus, their ideas are both radical and welcome.

‘What’s happening?’ Corbyn asked a young man with a ‘CORBYN OUT’ placard. ‘He’s refusing to give free gap years and iPhones to the under-25s’. ‘CORBYN OUT!’ Corbyn shouted. ‘DOWN WITH CORBYN! END THE CORBYN JUNTA NOW!’”

The Daily Telegraph’s depiction of a delusional, childish movement forever unsatisfied with so-called economic realities tries to distract from the key reason for Jeremy Corbyn’s rise — that he represents a popular break with austerity.