Perhaps unsurprisingly given the association that has been made between me and Corbynomics I welcome this letter in today's Observer:
The accusation is widely made that Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters have moved to the extreme left on economic policy. But this is not supported by the candidate's statements or policies.
His opposition to austerity is actually mainstream economics, even backed by the conservative IMF. He aims to boost growth and prosperity. He voted against the shameful £12bn in cuts in the welfare bill.
Despite the barrage of media coverage to the contrary, it is the current government's policy and its objectives which are extreme. The attempt to produce a balanced public sector budget primarily through cuts to spending failed in the previous parliament. Increasing child poverty and cutting support for the most vulnerable is unjustifiable. Cutting government investment in the name of prudence is wrong because it prevents growth, innovation and productivity increases, which are all much needed by our economy, and so over time increases the debt due to lower tax receipts.
We the undersigned are not all supporters of Jeremy Corbyn. But we hope to clarify just where the “extremism” lies in the current economic debate.
Yours,
David Blanchflower
Bruce V Rauner professor of economics, Dartmouth and Stirling, ex-member of the MPC
Mariana Mazzucato
Professor, Sussex
Grazia Ietto-Gillies
Emeritus professor, London South Bank University
Malcolm Walker
Emeritus professor, Leeds
Robert Wade
Professor, LSE
Michael Burke
Economist
Steve Keen
Professor, Kingston University London
Victoria Chick
Emeritus professor, UCL
Anna Coote
NEF personal capacity
Ozlem Onaran
Professor, Greenwich
Andrew Cumbers
Professor, Glasgow
Tina Roberts
Economist
Dr Suzanne J Konzelmann
Birkbeck
Tanweer Ali
Lecturer, New York
John Weeks
Professor, SOAS
Marco Veronese Passarella
Lecturer, University of Leeds
Dr Judith Heyer
Emeritus Fellow, Somerville College, Oxford
Dr Jerome De-Henau
Senior lecturer, Open University
Stefano Lucarelli
Professor, University of Bergamo
Paul Hudson
Formerly Universität Wissemburg-Halle
Mario Seccareccia
Professor, Ottawa
Dr Pritam Singh
Professor, Oxford Brookes
Arturo Hermann
Senior research fellow at Istat, Rome
Dr John Roberts
Brunel
Advertisement
Cyrus Bina
Professor, Minnesota
Alan Freeman
Retired former economist
George Irvin
Professor, SOAS
Susan Pashkoff
Economist
Radhika Desai
Professor, University of Manitoba
Diego Sánchez-Ancochea
Associate professor, University of Oxford
Guglielmo Forges Davanzati
Associate professor, University of Salento
Jeanette Findlay
Senior lecturer, Glasgow
Raphael Kaplinsky
Emeritus professor, Open University
John Ross
Socialist Economic Bulletin
Steven Hail
Adjunct lecturer, University of Adelaide
Louis-Philippe Rochon
Associate professor, Laurentian
Hilary Wainwright
Editor, Red Pepper
Arturo Hermann
Senior researcher, ISAE, Rome
Joshua Ryan-Collins
NEF personal capacity
James Medway
Lecturer, City University
Alberto Paloni
Professor, Glasgow
Dr Mary Roberton
Leeds
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
My old tutor is on that list
“His opposition to austerity is actually mainstream economics”
Richard. Are you comfortable with that bit ?
Why not?
Because as far as I know from a layman’s point of view, mainstream economics or neoclassical economics is deeply deprived of any half decent connection with reality. It has been well highlighted in Tony Lawson’s(University of Cambridge, still going through the it) Book “Economics and Reality”(https://books.google.co.in/books/about/Economics_and_Reality.html?id=2qDAQ2xVM20C&redir_esc=y)
By the way, with reference to one of your recent previous posts about consolidation of the Treasury and Bank Of England, I cant help but wonder a fictional scenario where the world is divided into territories that are financed by the state and territories that are financed by private banks(through their ability to create money from debt). What’s your take on it?
Re your suggestion
Since money is fungible though you may find it hard to spot the difference
The very worst thing that we could do would be to allow the neoliberal powers-that-be to get to define what is ‘mainstream’ and what is ‘marginal.’ *Claim* the mainstream; *claim* the middle ground. That’s the only way.
Corbynomics has a good shout for being a centrist agenda for millions of people. Certainly, it isn’t the economics being taught in many undergraduate classes but that won’t change by self-marginalisation.
Sometime I hope to change that teaching issue
I would have thought your approach is anything but mainstream economics. Much closer to heterodox economics surely which I’m pretty sure is defined as the complete opposite.
The term is used in its plain English sense
And Whikst of course in economuc terms you are right when does heterodox become mainstream?
Evolutionary econmics would, of course, accept the possibility
In fact I am astonished that Steve Keen would have signed it as it stands.
Possibly more to come on this.
I am sure he was not coerced
And whilst for pretty obvious reasons I was not in any way involved with this letter I am well aware such things go through iterations before being signed
Your concern is?
I’ve no agenda here except exposing the lies of neoclasical economics.
Keen is part of that fight. Hence the bemusement.
That’s it.
I am not sure there is a contradiction, apart from the language, which I have already explained
I think orthodox and heterodox macro economists agree that austerity is bad economics – but they have areas of disagreement on what the alternatives should be.
It may well be bad economics. But George is not into economics: George is into politics.
Austerity is good conservative politics.