Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Isn’t the Whole World Rich?

asteriskmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 230 posts

Re: Why Isn’t the Whole World Rich?

#101

Post by pizza234 »

docdeek wrote: post #18
newyankee wrote: post #8

One reason is how much ever we try to disagree, the socio economic construct is still a zero sum game with an ever increasing pie. People who argue otherwise point to the size of the pie without practically ever stating what those in difficult positions can realistically do to get more of it. Other reasons are that honestly there is not much "real work" to be done so we can argue that a very small % of existing popul…

FTA: In 2019 there were about 648 million people living in extreme poverty, subsisting on the equivalent of $2.15 per day or less. Those 648 million people made up 8.4% of world population — representing an improvement over 1990, when 35.9% of people lived on that little. This seems to be the inverse of a zero-sum game: the West might have got a lot richer, but hundreds of millions of people were lifeted out of extre…

> This seems to be the inverse of a zero-sum game: the West might have got a lot richer, but hundreds of millions of people were lifeted out of extreme poverty at the same time.

Parent's thesis is that it's not a typical zero-sum game, but "a zero sum game with an ever increasing pie". It's an interesting idea; I don't know if there are formalizations of it.

Re: Why Isn’t the Whole World Rich?

#102

Post by karpierz »

FormerBandmate wrote: post #71
phpnode wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's really no reason to blame this on the foreigners installing corrupt politicians, corruption is far more frequently organic and homegrown. Corrupt people work to further their own goals, if that happens to be using their power to take on e.g. debt on unfavourable terms then so be it, but that's not because they're beholden to foreigners, it's because that is their best route to enriching themselves - they can…

South Korea and Ghana were at the exact same place 50 years ago. South Korea’s leadership were largely competent, so they’ve industrialized and used trade to become one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Ghana has not had nearly as good leadership and institutions, so they haven’t. Everyone constantly blames the West for all the problems of the world. If trade was really that deleterious to developing countrie…

South Korea had a propped up dictatorship that the United States strengthened and funded because they were scared of commies.

Meanwhile Ghana had a dictator which was saddled with US loans who was overthrown. But the country still had to pay the loans back, despite them being will outside of their means.

Re: Why Isn’t the Whole World Rich?

#103

Post by asimpleexample »

The world runs on debt. You need people/countries in debt in order for the system to operate. Here is an example of a country which tried to escape it and didn't fare well. It might also have had something to do with it being socialist.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1989/04/14/d...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_debt_of_the_Socialist_...

Re: Why Isn’t the Whole World Rich?

#104

Post by wizeman »

brutusborn wrote: post #29
mcv wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if the pie increases, it's not really a zero sum game, is it?

I think the logical fallacy is thinking about the economy as a steady state system. At any given time there are finite resources, so it is "zero sum" in that the pie is finite and slices can only be shared once.

That's not zero sum. The pie can be 100% finite and yet, while everything else remains equal, two people can both benefit and be happier at the same time by simply (and voluntarily) exchanging a good or service between them, because they value those things differently at that point in time.

If I have 10 chickens and you have 10 goats, we can exchange between us and each of us would simultaneously benefit more from having 5 chickens and 5 goats each, even though the pie hasn't changed.

Or maybe I prefer to have 8 chickens and 2 goats, while you prefer to have 8 goats and 2 chickens, and both be happier as a result by exchanging between us while the entire pie has remained exactly the same.

So happiness/usefulness/value was created by the exchange of goods and services even though the pie hasn't changed at all.

Also, these preferences can change over time, so value can continue to be created even if the pie doesn't change.

Re: Why Isn’t the Whole World Rich?

#105

Post by mdp2021 »

mathverse wrote: post #84
mdp2021 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither the original post nor this answer make clear sense in the context. The original post seems to relate that "South Korea went from 6% of the GDP in the USA in 1953 to that of the UK in 2020" with a history of dictatorship, while the point of the article is exactly the - noted - "strangeness" of the results. The above reply mentions some quality in products of Samsung while the article is explicitly about the di…

South Korea tried their take on Wirtschaftswunder. They had a model and they knew how to achieve it through propping their industries. To some extent you could say they were state owned companies as they were intentionally directed to do certain things.

Yes, but the point of the article is that research does not seem to have been able to point out what exactly were the "learnt lessons", the winning components in those «propping» and «direct[ing]».

Re: Why Isn’t the Whole World Rich?

#106

Post by phkahler »

jongjong wrote: post #12

Simple answer; people from rich countries will use flaws in the political structures of certain other countries to install corrupt politicians; these politicians are then going to work for the interests of their rich foreign patrons and against the interests of their own people (for kickbacks/self-enrichment). The corrupt politicians will do things like saddle their people with significant public debts (which will fo…

Yeah, balancing both budget and trade imbalance (better yet, a trade surplus) should take a country out of poverty over time. South Korea turned from agrarian to massive tech exporter over the time talked about. I'm writing this comment on a Samsung phone BTW. Not every country can have a trade surplus though, that part is a zero sum game. Having your own currency is probably important with a trade deficit, so exchange rate can be used to prevent outflow of currency used locally. That and tarrifs.

Re: Why Isn’t the Whole World Rich?

#107

Post by ravenspeed »

jongjong wrote: post #12

Simple answer; people from rich countries will use flaws in the political structures of certain other countries to install corrupt politicians; these politicians are then going to work for the interests of their rich foreign patrons and against the interests of their own people (for kickbacks/self-enrichment). The corrupt politicians will do things like saddle their people with significant public debts (which will fo…

If "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" by Gilens et al. convinced you, then, you have reason to assume oligarchy in the US. Whether you can assume the same in other well off countries is an open question.

Is it not strange that investment bankers get into state institutions? Is it not strange that those rich countries do not mind your privacy (AMD PSP, Intel, ARM CPUs). As if intelligence agencies form a hidden legislative role and they fear their own citizens. Why is there a need to become like China?

Despite all that, people have many more potential conspiracies.

Popular ones are:

- Leader of the WEF - Soros - Gates

How valid those potential conspiracies are, is another question.

One example, Epstein supposedly killed himself. Some people are sceptical about that. But I would say: beware your confirmation bias. Potential coincidence should not make you disregard due process.

In my estimation, you do not need conspiracies. It is very simple, if you are very rich, you can buy yourself free from your duties (e.g. Amazon) and you can influence policy making (i.e., lobbying). It is also easy to see why the US or rather the intelligence agencies engage in conflict (e.g. Taiwan/TSMC).

To be fair, an article on Vox says that the above finding is false. It is hard to be certain on "truth" or to be "certain" at all. You end up with beliefs (which has many forms: assumptions, trust, axioms, ...). Better stay off politics and news.

Re: Why Isn’t the Whole World Rich?

#108

Post by nickpp »

Free Markets - the biggest wealth creation engine known to man.

The most impressive and amazing reversal of fortune I've personally lived through was the switch from planned economy to free markets which took place in Eastern Europe after the fall of communism. You could even predict the degree of improvement or the trajectory of a country by the percent of the free market reforms vs protectionism left in place.

Of course, free markets require rule of law, so countries with a justice system controlled by an aristocratic class, clergy, dictator or political class will fail to acquire said free markets.

And reversely, the more populist politicians will get socialist policies voted through, policies which control, retard and corrupt the markets - the more their countries will slow down and be left behind. Case to the point - most Western European countries - after becoming incredibly wealthy after starting from scratch at the end of WWII to being left behind by the IT/computer revolution and becoming dependent on the cheap energy provided by a malevolent, war-mongering fading ex-superpower.

But why are free markets such an amazing success? Because they're the only mechanism which aligns and harness the humans' natural individual desire to improve one's station to drive and fuel the improvement of the whole society. A simple concept like "if each individual is allowed to decide and do whatever is best for her (and keep most of the result) then everybody will benefit" became such an subversive idea that dictators everywhere are still trying their best to extinguish it.

Re: Why Isn’t the Whole World Rich?

#109

Post by emanuer »

For anyone interested in this topic, I can wholeheartedly recommend the book: "The WEIRDest People in the World" by Joseph Henrich.

The book provieds a beautifully constructed framework to understand culture and its effect on psychological development, as well as economic development.

  1. In the book, the author argues that innovation rates of countries correlate positively with the psychological dimension of "individualism". (FIGURE 13.5)
  2. The the dissolution of strong kinship ties correlates significantly with high economic growth. An argument the author repeats in his paper from 2022 [1]
My personal opinion is: gaining wealth is not a zero-sum-game, but a — the more participants the bigger the pie gets — kind of game. I truly believe, if cultures and institutions change, everyone in the world can be wealthy. With "wealthy" I refer to the living-standard North-American or Europeans enjoy.

[1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4200629

Re: Why Isn’t the Whole World Rich?

#110

Post by sokoloff »

jongjong wrote: post #74
realgeniushere wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I agree it has to do with bad governance. But you deflect all blame away from the people in those poorly governed country, instead blaming wealthy people in other countries. I’ll say though, the worst thing the West has done to the third world is insist on democracy. Peasants don’t know what they need government to do, and the political classes in those countries don’t have the maturity to steer them.

People in those poorly governed countries don't always have a choice. You could be living in such a country, see everything that's wrong with your political system and yet be punished for it nevertheless. There is a flawed assumption which infers that because the majority of people in a specific country are idiots, everyone who lives in that country should be punished... Imagine how hard life is for intelligent peopl…

> Imagine how hard life is for intelligent people in those countries who are ruled by corrupt idiots, surrounded by idiots and utterly powerless to do anything about it.

I think the "those countries" in your sentence could very easily include many rich countries as well as the set of countries you were originally contemplating.

Post reply on HN