US World Bank nominee under fire over book
Source: Financial times
Jim Yong Kim, the US nominee to head the World Bank, is coming under fire over a book he co-authored that criticises “neoliberalism” and “corporate-led economic growth”, arguing that in many cases they had made the middle classes and the poor in developing countries worse off.
Some economists are arguing that Dying for Growth, jointly edited by Dr Kim and published in 2000, puts too great a focus on health policy over broader economic growth.
“Dr Kim would be the first World Bank president ever who seems to be anti-growth,” said William Easterly, professor of economics at New York University. “Even the severest of World Bank critics like me think that economic growth is what we want.”
Dr Kim, who is president of Dartmouth College and a former head of the HIV/Aids programme at the World Health Organisation, was a surprise pick for the top job at the World Bank, which traditionally goes to a US citizen.
Read more: http://liveweb.archive.org/http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f8aa5390-7755-11e1-93cb-00144feab49a.html#axzz1qGIsBX2h
= new reply since forum marked as read
if it does work thats actually more fair, after all the 1% are the job creators!!!
How dare he question the Great Truth !!
ETA: Must. buy. book.
have it in very reasonable used prices, I just saw, at a glance. One "like new" condition at half.com for $6.67. Quite a few more in "good".
Why don't we throw everything there is into a big pile on the ground and fight for it. That's the fairest most efficient way, isn't it? 
on youtube 
"Time of My Life" - Dartmouth Idol Finals, 2011
...also made me laugh.
vtechyper 3 days ago
LOVE this guy as the new head of the world bank!~!!
I love that video- thanks so much for posting it!!!
BHN
Anti-neoliberal Bolivia followed suit, recently--it has one of the highest, post-Bushwhack-Depression growth rates in Latin America.
All the countries in LatAm with leftist governments have done well following the Bushwhack assault on the world economy. Many suffered a downturn in 2009 (notably, Venezuela, because of oil prices) and had a bit of a struggle climbing back into growth mode but have rebounded, precisely because of economic stimulus programs, existing and new social programs (education, health care, pensions for neglected groups), support for good wages, benefits and worker protections, loans/grant to small business, government investment in infrastructure, and other government SPENDING, which creates a base of new consumers and encourages other consumers to spend money, which creates product demand, business and growth--Keynesian ("New Deal" economics at work--as well as combining all this with strict regulation of banking, taxation (for fair taxation) and big business (to prevent price gouging, etc.) and avoidance of ruinous, U.S.-dominated loan institutions like the World Bank/IMF.
One other factor in play in LatAm's triumph over the Bushwhack/Wall Street horrors has been COOPERATION among LatAm countries, most especially among the countries with leftist governments, which has taken the form of "south-south" trade (rather than U.S. corporate looting), and the "raise all boats" philosophy of leaders like Hugo Chavez (Venezuela) and Lula da Silva (Brazil), which has helped smaller or poorer countries (for instance, with free or cheap oil from Venezuela in times of need or Brazil-Argentina-Venezuela aid for projects such as connecting Bolivia to the new super-highway from Brazil).
Anti-neoliberal Brazil (with a higher mix of capitalism in these mixed capitalist/socialist economies in LatAm) is regularly lauded in Wall Street-friendly publications like the Economist for its spectacular growth and poverty reduction. Poverty reduction has, in fact, been most dramatic in Venezuela--which was recently designated "THE most equal economy in Latin America" on income distribution, by the UN Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean. But that is the corporate media's sly effort at "divide and conquer"--lauding Brazil because it's more corporate-friendly and non-stop slandering of the Chavez government in Venezuela and a total failure to mention ANY of its notable accomplishments. The leftist governments and leaders of Brazil and Venezuela are strong allies and have ignored this sort of tactic by the corporate press and the U.S. and its "neo-liberal" allies.
What is even more important, the VOTERS in Latin America have ignored the corporate press, there, here and worldwide, and keep electing leftist governments--in Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Uruguay, Paraguay, Nicaragua and El Salvador (and likely will do so in Chile in the next election)--and these electorates and the leaders they elect are, in turn, influencing countries with rightwing leaders (for instance, the new rightwing president of Colombia has promised universal access to medical care to Colombians this year--access to medical care for the poor majority is a pillar of leftist policy).
What the Corporate Press leaves out (or downplays) about Brazil's success (it never mentions Venezuela's success) is that the lynchpin of economic growth in Brazil has been a vast program of subsidized incomes for the poor! Classic Keynesianism. The leader who established this and other anti-poverty, GROWTH policies--Lula da Silva (former president; background as a steelworker) made no bones about his detestation of Wall Street and its "neo-liberal" advice. Those who have rejected the latter are prospering. Those who are still hog-tied to Wall Street and its bad advice--for instance, with U.S. "free trade for the rich" agreements--are NOT prospering and suffer endemic, intractable poverty.
The FT's equation of "neo-liberalism" with economic growth is plainly WRONG. What they mean by "growth" is the rich getting richer--not general prosperity--and, particularly, transglobal corporations and banksters getting richer by looting the poor.
you are exactly right. Keynesianism is the only viable economic theory extant even today. 
