The fact that this decline in per capita cereal output in the world economywas not accompanied by any rise in relative cereal prices (in fact between thesetwo years the terms of trade of cereals vis a vis manufacturing in the worldeconomy declined by nearly 40 percent), even when the per capita income in theworld economy was increasing quite noticeably, suggests that the squeeze on thepurchasing power of the masses in the third world was even greater. The otherside of the speculative boom occurring in a deregulated andfinancially-interlinked capitalist world therefore was a drastic squeeze on theliving standards of the masses, especially in the third world (whichincidentally is one reason why the "locomotive" analogy often givenfor the US economy's role in the world economy is so inapposite: this locomotivewhile pulling some coaches, pushes back some others).
But even though the masses suffered from the effects of the speculative boom,they would also suffer additionally from the effects of its collapse. We do nothave a symmetry here between the effects of booms and of depressions, and hereinlies the tragic irony of the situation.
It is clear from the above that the need of the hour is not just the injectionof liquidity into the world economy but also in addition the injection ofdemand. This can occur only through direct fiscal action by governments acrossthe world. For activating governments for this, two conditions have to besatisfied. The first is control over cross-border financial flows, for otherwisegovernments will continue to remain prisoners to the caprices of globally-mobilespeculative finance capital. And the second is the setting up of aninternational financial facility, operated on principles different from theexisting multilateral institutions, which not only makes concessional financeavailable to them, but also enables them to substitute long-term loans for theircurrent short-term borrowing, so that they are not caught "borrowing shortto invest long".
The sectors where government spending will go up will of course vary fromcountry to country, but the general objective of such spending must be thereversal of the squeeze on the living standards of the ordinary peopleeverywhere in the world that has been a feature of the world economy in the lastseveral years. In the United States, government spending may have to take theform of increasing the social wage and enlarging welfare state activitiesgenerally, increasing infrastructure expenditure and making more funds availableto states through federal transfers. But in India, China and other third worldcountries, in addition to welfare state measures, larger government expenditurehas to be oriented towards a substantial increase in agricultural, especiallyfoodgrains, output.
Taking the world economy as a whole, the new growth stimulus will have to comenot from some new speculative bubble but from enlarged government expenditurethat directly improves the livelihoods of the people, both in the advanced andin the developing economies, and that is geared towards improving the foodgrainoutput of the world through a revamping of peasant agriculture (and not throughcorporate farming, since that would reduce purchasing power in the hands of thepeasantry and perpetuate its distress). In short, the new paradigm must entail afoodgrain-led growth strategy (on the basis of peasant agriculture), sustainedthrough larger government spending towards this end, which simultaneously ridsthe world of both depression and financial and food crises. The trade andfinancial arrangements of the world economy have to be oriented towardsachieving this rather than being made to conform to some a priori freemarket principles that have the effect of pushing the world economy intofinancial crises and slumps, and the peasantry and small producers of the worldinto destitution both during the booms and also, additionally, during theslumps.