what France needs ...

Hi everybody,
Before I begin I want to thank Haobo for the work he did about these big characters, the fathers of economics.
Speaking of my self, I'm not only interested in the history of Economics but also it's impact in our lives and why it's so important. I want to talk about a very nice survey I read in the revue (The economist). This survey was called What France needs :)
It was really interesting and really relevant. It was devided in different parts and I'll try to summarize some of them in this article.
The survey begins with a general introduction about the ecomonic situation in France nowadays, it's compared to the situation in Britain in the late 70's. In fact, there's a lot of similarities, the strikes (winter of discontent in the winter 78-79 in Britain compared to the banlieues and the CPE problems) the votes going to the extreme and the people tendency to be worried about the redistribution of wealth not it's creation ... The introduction continues with the three main reasons to the restelessness of the French. First, the economy lost grounds. Over the past 25 years the french has dropped from the 7th place to the 17th place in terms of GDP per head, even in terms of healthcare it dropped from the 8th place in 1990 to the 16th. Second, the economy is heavily planned in France, it's a big tradition in France to plan everything thanks to the elites from l'Ecole polytechnique. It was istablished by Jean Baptiste Colbert Louis XIV's finance minister. It had it's good points but showed it's limits, too many bureaucrats supported by too many taxes impose too many rules ... In such system people expect solutions to come from the top, whereas in the US fo example a lot of big campanies were made by students, some of them didn't even finish university, such a thing would never happen in France. The third point is related to politics, the politicians have failed to explain to the citizens why the country can't go on as before. A very clear example to that is the CPE, a contract who was made for the youth and politicians didn't explain why it was good for them, they just wanted to impose it. The introduction finishes with a note of optimism for the future, it says that the situation si much better than the Britain's and so it should be mastered.
I just figured that the introduction is taking a lot place, so I'm going to summerize shortly the different parts of the survey. The first article "Insiders and outsiders" is describing the situation in France and all the duality that it has. First the big difference between the CAC40 campanies which are really competitive and the rest which are not that good. Then the duality between the Grandes Ecoles and the regular universities why the competition is good only for the elite, this really ellitistic system reached it's limit too, if the Grandes Ecoles are doing so well why the universities don't copy them. The article shows then a comparaison between two universities in Toulouse, one competitive with good results, well known in the world and who took a lot from the Grandes ecoles system and one other which is practicly inexistent. Then the survey quotes the chairman of BNP paribas a very well known bank in France, “For the past 25 years, every time a new problem has emerged, our country has responded by increasing spending.”
And then it gives the figures, public dept has grown to 1.1 trillion or 66% of the GDP five times it's level in 1980. The national audit office now says that the total national insurance deficit is heading for over 37 billions by 2009, the national depts will reach 100% of the GDP in 2014 and 200% by 2032. After these alarming numbers, the articles criticies the french integration system of it's minorities (the minority report), the suburbs where all the lower class socity is concentrated was the scene of a lot of fights last year, with what was called "the riots". The minorities are not represented in politics or in the television and that's one of the reasons of the discontent.
Finally the survey finishes saying that France can change things in the next year elections, both favorites Ségolène Royal and Nicolas Sarkozy want to change things, the problem is if they have the leadership and a Thatcher iron hand. Speaking of irony Margaret Thatcher was very impressed by the Général De Gaulle and now France has to find a Margaret Thatcher.

Joan Robinson

If there should be a pity in the Nobel Prize in the domain of economics, it was the lack of a woman. However, in the heart of most economist, Joan Robinson (1903-1983) was, perhaps the most deserving candidate to fill this blank. Her story is attracting not only because her achievement as a women economist but also because her relationship with China.

Joan was born in England and received all her education there. As most successful economists as mentioned in my blog, she was also a Cambridger. After marriage with another economist Austin Robinson, she went to India for 3 years. Returned to Cambridge, she started her academic career as a lecturer and then a professor even though she was in her sixty.

Madam Robinson's contribution is great as well as versatile. Scarcely can we find among those economists, such a omnipotent one. In 1933, she published her article of "Imperfect competition" the same year as Chamberlin's "Monopolistic competition". These two were worshipped even today as a fundamental branch of market structure's study. She was also a defender of Keynes' theory.

Besides, Joan was mostly remarked for her serious study, from the point of view as an economist, of Karl Marx, the father of Communist. Joan was deeply convinced by Marx' description of such infrastructure of society that capital is steadily distributed and seized. It was probably due to her bizarre thinking that distinguished her from other western economists and thus prohibited her from you-know-what prize.

Joan was a China fan, too. She had visited China several times and quite beyond rationality, she supported the Cultural Revolution initialized by Chairman Mao. Madame Robinson believed that the social system in the era of Cultural Revolution in China was a stable and reasonable prototype that worth learning by the other countries. Unfortunately, the Cultural Revolution was ended in a aggravated poverty.

Nevertheless, Joan Robinson left us many legacies including her magnum opus "The Accumulation of Capital" which, after 50 years, remains one of the most recommended textbook concerning finance, money and credit.

Let's finish by quoting a paragraph of her words on the purpose of economics study: “the purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists."