Noam Chomsky on India and Consumerism - The New World Order Part 14 (1998)

November 30, 1998 http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww....

Watch the full lecture: http://thefilmarchived.blogspot.com/2010/08/noam-chomsky-on-new-world-order-1...

The economic liberalisation in India refers to ongoing reforms in India that started in 1991. After Independence in 1947, India adhered to socialist policies. In the 1980s, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi initiated some reforms. In 1991, after the International Monetary Fund (IMF) had bailed out the bankrupt state, the government of P. V. Narasimha Rao and his finance minister Manmohan Singh started breakthrough reforms. The new policies included opening for international trade and investment, deregulation, initiation of privatization, tax reforms, and inflation-controlling measures. The overall direction of liberalisation has since remained the same, irrespective of the ruling party, although no party has yet tried to take on powerful lobbies such as the trade unions and farmers, or contentious issues such as reforming labor laws and reducing agricultural subsidies.

As of 2009, about 300 million people — equivalent to the entire population of the United States — have escaped extreme poverty. The fruits of liberalisation reached their peak in 2007, with India recording its highest GDP growth rate of 9%. With this, India became the second fastest growing major economy in the world, next only to China. An Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report states that the average growth rate 7.5% will double the average income in a decade, and more reforms would speed up the pace.

Indian government coalitions have been advised to continue liberalisation. India grows at slower pace than China, which had liberalised economy in 1978. McKinsey states that removing main obstacles "would free Indias economy to grow as fast as Chinas, at 10 percent a year."

Consumerism is a social and economic order that is based on the systematic creation and fostering of a desire to purchase goods or services in ever greater amounts. The term is often associated with criticisms of consumption starting with Thorstein Veblen or, more recently by a movement called Enoughism. Veblen's subject of examination, the newly emergent middle class arising at the turn of the twentieth century, comes to full fruition by the end of the twentieth century through the process of globalization.

In economics, consumerism refers to economic policies placing emphasis on consumption. In an abstract sense, it is the belief that the free choice of consumers should dictate the economic structure of a society (cf. Producerism, especially in the British sense of the term).

Martin H. Peretz, also known as Marty Peretz (born December 6, 1938), is an American publisher. Formerly an assistant professor at Harvard University, he purchased The New Republic in 1974 and took editorial control soon afterwards. He retained majority ownership until 2002, when he sold a two-thirds stake in the magazine to two financiers. Peretz sold the remainder of his ownership rights in 2007 to CanWest Global Communications, though he retained his position as editor-in-chief. In March 2009, Peretz repurchased the magazine with a group of investors led by ex-Lazard executive Laurence Grafstein. He is a member of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy's Board of Advisors.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• noam
• chomsky
• Q&A
• new
• india
• globalization
• democracy
• liberalization
• advertising
• economic
• public
• relations
• firms
• consumer
• television
• radio
• newspapers
• private
• power
• corporations
• accountability
• bolshevism
• indian
• food
• delhi
• school
• KFC
• media
• rich
• people
• rupert
• murdoch
• patents
• free
• trade
• interview
• Marty
• Peretz
• talk
• analysis
• speech
• comedy
• politics
• communism
• commentary
• presenter

[tehatemachine]

@serialkiller1990 It doesn't work like that though. correct me if i'm wrong about your theory. But you are basically saying that if one side benefits then the other must loose? That is simply not the case in economics, Everyone wins and high exchange rates is what creates a strong currency.

[adelle0001]

ang problema dito ay yung freedom of speech!

[serialkiller1990]

@darkmiles22

Poverty is what causes most deaths. Even if it is in fact true that the income of ordinary people in India was stagnant then it will grow the fastest with the largest growth rate. The ordinary people in the now wealthy west could not get so wealthy if they traded of fast growth for income stagnation then they would be just as poor as people in india now. China and India is on the road to becoming Japan of a few decades ago.

[darkmiles22]

@xtrmsprts Health, wealth, and education - total and stratification - are the 6 major indicators. GDP is only one of those 6, and not necessarily the dominant one. There is little benefit to doubling GDP if the bottom 90% see no growth over 40 years - as is the case for the U.S. Beware that happening in India. Health increased enormously from 1950 to 1980 in India, at a much greater rate than it has since. Is that trade off worth an increased rate of growth?

[xtrmsprts]

@ashutoshmikku Well,I don't know about me because I'm from the US. but I'm an observer of world events and a fan of chomsky and I find it intriguing that you say it hasn't helped people.Oh and the indian urban middle class is larger than most of the east coast.Its tiny only in comparison because the illiterate lower classes keep spawning like rabbits.real GDP growth isn't the end all,theres Human Development Index etc,sure but it is a very helpful economic indicator of a nation's health.

[ashutoshmikku]

@xtrmsprts

I am not obliged to subscribe to mainstream definition if I don't find it correct. I would agree though that it was socialism for Indian capitalists, and now it extends to foreign capitalists too.

And what is the change now? It has benefited economically a tiny group of urban middle class like you and of course me. India's growth is a big sham. It is stupid to regard GDP as a sole indicator of progress.

[xtrmsprts]

@ashutoshmikku Then you should consider subscribing to the mainstream definition of socialism. Yes, it wasn't outright socialism, just like there is no pure capitalism in any country. Even Nandan Nilekani concedes that socialist policies kept india back for decades after independence and to a conspicuous extent even now

[ashutoshmikku]

@xtrmsprts

Well, it might be your understanding of socialism. India had mixed economy after independence. Private Indian companies were always allowed to operate along with highly bureaucratized government run industries. I call it state capitalism not socialism. The model benefited and powered both the state cronies and Indian capitalist class.

[xtrmsprts]

@ashutoshmikku you kidding me?from nehru grabbing power till the 1990s economic liberalization reforms, india was neckdeep in socialism. they had the government dominating most of the economy,disallowing much foreign private investment,companies like tata steel were rarities...all this led to country being close to bankruptcy.the high current growth rate is because they've loosened up on the socialism a bit,but china did that decades ago,hence it has decades-worth lead on india.

[ashutoshmikku]

@xtrmsprts

freedom of speech is a problem? And where is socialism in India?