As soon as the economic slowdown started, some economists said it is both cyclical and structural - and some said it is completely structural. On what basis did they say this? We can say that a slowdown is structural if:
A. The growth rate goes below the growth rate during past cyclical slowdowns (which is 4.5% for India)
B. The slowdown lasts longer than the duration of past cyclical slowdowns (which is a year for India)
C. Both A and B happen
Yet AS SOON AS the growth rate hit 4.5% for ONE QUARTER, some 'eminent' economists immediately declared that the slowdown is structural. Only in an economically illiterate country like India can economists get away with such statements/verdicts - which are at best unscientific and at worst dishonest.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment