Sen Slammed by Jagdish Bhagwati

the Nobel laureate has actually hurt the poor in India by not really supporting the reforms in 1991 and pushing for Food Security Bill which would create inflation.

Hellsangel wrote:

the Nobel laureate has actually hurt the poor in India by not really supporting the reforms in 1991 and pushing for Food Security Bill which would create inflation.

Is it true that he opposed the reforms in 1991?

Hellsangel wrote:

the Nobel laureate has actually hurt the poor in India by not really supporting the reforms in 1991 and pushing for Food Security Bill which would create inflation.

Is it true that he opposed the reforms in 1991?

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

the Nobel laureate has actually hurt the poor in India by not really supporting the reforms in 1991 and pushing for Food Security Bill which would create inflation.

Is it true that he opposed the reforms in 1991?

Of course.... he was a commie and is a closet commie even now.. He was Indira/Stalinist type socialist and opposed liberalization.

Idéfix wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

the Nobel laureate has actually hurt the poor in India by not really supporting the reforms in 1991 and pushing for Food Security Bill which would create inflation.

Is it true that he opposed the reforms in 1991?

Of course.... he was a commie and is a closet commie even now.. He was Indira/Stalinist type socialist and opposed liberalization.

Do you have any proof of this in Sen's own words? 

The policies Sen recommends are very similar to the economic policies that you support in this country: opposed to the ultra-rich further enriching themselves at the expense of the rest of society. Remember your rants against Wall Street looters? Now, the question is, are you a closet commie?

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

the Nobel laureate has actually hurt the poor in India by not really supporting the reforms in 1991 and pushing for Food Security Bill which would create inflation.

Is it true that he opposed the reforms in 1991?

Of course.... he was a commie and is a closet commie even now.. He was Indira/Stalinist type socialist and opposed liberalization.

Do you have any proof of this in Sen's own words? 

The policies Sen recommends are very similar to the economic policies that you support in this country: opposed to the ultra-rich further enriching themselves at the expense of the rest of society. Remember your rants against Wall Street looters? Now, the question is, are you a closet commie?

To answer that question you should see who all I criticize.... Am I the only one who criticized the Wall St Looters? If you take a free/anon survey in this country on JUST this question, I bet 95% of them will rant against the WSLs. I have 2 hard core republican NRA members and 2 hardcore DEmocratic liberals in my office. On talking to them, all four vehemently criticize the WSLs.  By Rashmunullah Concept, this is a very large sample and hence my study is highly scientific.

Idéfix wrote:Here is some proof that Sen was not opposed to liberalisation. These are Sen's own words, from a lecture delivered way back in 1994. 

Comparison of India with the experiences of other countries is often
made to motivate changes in economic policy, for example to defend a
programme of economic reforms - involving liberalization of trade,
deregulation of governmental restrictions, encouragement of private
initiative, and so on. In this context, attention is paid to the remarkable
achievements of South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, and
other countries - including China in recent years - which have made
splendid use of market based economic opportunities. Such comparisons
are indeed illuminating and there is much to learn from these countries.


The counterproductive nature of some of the governmental
restrictions, controls and regulations has been clear for a long time. They
have not only interfered with the efficiency of economic operations
(especially for modern industries), but also often failed lamentably to
promote any kind of real equity in distributional matters. The privileges
were often exploited for the sectional benefit of those with economic,
political, or bureaucratic power, or those with the opportunity to
influence people with such power. A radical change was certainly
needed for these basic reasons, in addition to the short-run crises that
actually prompted the change that did occur....


I am pointing to the necessity and general desirability of
economic reforms that remove counterproductive regulations and
restrictions and allow greater use of the opportunities of international
exchange. There is a strong case for such a change, and that case is not
overwhelmed, in general, by any real reasons for fearing exploitative
trading relations.

See pages 6 and 7 [url=http://economics-files.pomona.edu/Andrabi/Sen_Beyond Liberalization.pdf]here[/url].

Saamiyaar, it is time for you to admit that you were wrong about Sen being anti-reform.

Idéfix wrote:Here is some proof that Sen was not opposed to liberalisation. These are Sen's own words, from a lecture delivered way back in 1994. 

Comparison of India with the experiences of other countries is often
made to motivate changes in economic policy, for example to defend a
programme of economic reforms - involving liberalization of trade,
deregulation of governmental restrictions, encouragement of private
initiative, and so on. In this context, attention is paid to the remarkable
achievements of South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, and
other countries - including China in recent years - which have made
splendid use of market based economic opportunities. Such comparisons
are indeed illuminating and there is much to learn from these countries.

See pages 6 and 7 [url=http://economics-files.pomona.edu/Andrabi/Sen_Beyond Liberalization.pdf]here[/url].

Saamiyaar, it is time for you to admit that you were wrong about Sen being anti-reform.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Jagdish Bhagwati criticizes Sen's economic methods and philosophy

After criticism of his Bengali wife dumping for white women, and Nalanda University corruption, his economic methods and philosophy and Bharat ratna under criticism.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:As posted in another thread, sen is known to say different things at different places, throw random numbers around and sensationalize his speeches to satisfy his audience.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:If he was sincere about social development along with economic development, he has not suggested any radical strategies. Whatever he claimed as radical strategies border License raj policies and socialistic policies.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote: Sen's economic model is some 30 years old. It was good that some people felt that it deserved a Nobel prize. However, he should, like other Nobel winners, stop pretending to contribute new ideas and allow others to take the lead. I remember John Eccles "expressing his views" on anything and everything to the extent that youngsters started to feel sorry for the old fool.

Idéfix wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote: Sen's economic model is some 30 years old. It was good that some people felt that it deserved a Nobel prize. However, he should, like other Nobel winners, stop pretending to contribute new ideas and allow others to take the lead. I remember John Eccles "expressing his views" on anything and everything to the extent that youngsters started to feel sorry for the old fool.

Guruvu-gaaru, you betray your lack of understanding of economics with this comment. Adam Smith's economic model is more than 200 years old; that does not mean that it is not substantially correct even today. Sen is not claiming that he is "contributing new ideas" when he expresses a personal opinion whether he wants Modi to be Prime Minister; so I don't even know where that line came from!

Idéfix wrote:
Like you throw random accusations around and sensationalize your posts? (See above for an actual random accusation you made, which has been shown to be clearly false with unambiguous evidence.)

Yeah...like me... that is the problem... I thought Nobel winners are supposed to be better than me?...

Again, you are wrong. He has recommended strategies involving greater public investments in education and healthcare. He has been advocating those two areas for public investment for all the time I have known about him. 

I suggest that you actually spend some time reading his own views before mouthing off random accusations that you acquire second-hand.