Financial Times
History is replete with famous intellectual battles. In the natural sciences, these have usually led to decisive victories, with good science ousting bad. There are few Ptolemaic astronomers left, or believers in the phlogiston theory of combustion. In the social sciences, the situation is different. There have been famous battles galore, but no decisive victories. Indeed, it is characteristic of the social sciences that their battles are interminable, temporary defeats being followed by the regrouping of the defeated forces for a renewed assault.
That economics is not a natural science is clear from the inconclusive engagements that have punctuated its own history. A hundred years ago the classical theory reigned supreme. This
Continue reading...
The official view is that Russia is an outstandingly successful economy temporarily derailed by a financial shock of foreign origin. Its annual economic growth in real terms averaged 7 per cent in the years during which Vladimir Putin was president (2000-08), annual real wages rose by almost 15 per cent, the federal budget was continually in surplus. Mr Putin, now prime minister, was quick to blame America for the downturn. Before the crisis hit home Dmitry Medvedev, Russia's president, boasted in June that Russia was not part of the problem but part of the solution. Its cash-rich companies would invest abroad, Moscow would become a world financial centre, the rouble would become a reserve currency and so on.
All this turned out to be
Continue reading...
The first question to ask about a political system is: what are the checks on the uncontrolled exercise of executive power? Britain does not have a written constitution with a formal division of powers, but the traditional answer would have been parliament, which, by successfully asserting the right to authorise spending, was able to check the absolutist claims of the monarchy.
But this check was fatally weakened by the onset of mass democracy. The executive was now located inside parliament, and MPs were put there by the party machines. Their main function was to support the actual or aspiring government. Parliamentary sovereignty became executive sovereignty. Provided a government retained the support of "its" majority MPs, it could
Continue reading...
Against the Flow
By Samuel Brittan
Atlantic Books, £19.99
Samuel Brittan has an unmistakable "voice". In political philosophy, he is an extreme individualist: it is individuals, not groups, who "feel, exult, despair and rejoice". A private person, intensely protective of his habits, he despises and fears crowds and manifestations of tribal passion. In economic philosophy, he calls himself a "redistributive market liberal". The emphasis is on the "market liberal" but some redistribution of capital and income is justified to compensate for the inherent defect in private property rights. In international relations, he is a Cobdenite non-interferer, believing that we do not have enough knowledge to reshape the world.
This compilation
Continue reading...
The politics of euro economics
Robert Skidelsky
Financial Times
| Tuesday, January 23, 2001
Throughout history there have been governments without central banks. But until the European Central Bank was set up, there have never been central banks without governments. Central banks are modern inventions: governments are very ancient.
The logical connection between money and power is potentially contradictory. For trade to take place the value of money needs to be guaranteed and this usually requires centralised issue. On the other hand, monopoly of issue gives government the power to manipulate the currency for purposes of policy - traditionally to cover extraordinary war expenditures.
In principle, there is no reason why the first task - of guaranteeing the value of money - should not be farmed out to a central bank: this is
Continue reading...
Page 2 of 3 pages < 1 2 3 >