191–200 of 230 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> IMF policies are arguably extremely toxic Correlation, not causation. The whole point of IMF intervention is to rescue countries that are already in the toilet, and need to consolidate foreign debt.
I wonder if a lot of those countries would do better to declare bankruptcy and not pay those debts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but like Guns, germs and steel it contains data even though the model is flawed, so is an interesting read in any case :) I think the key point of the book is that unless there is a massive transfer of people from place to place the power of historical institutions can carry over generations and generations. Is quality of institutions the one truth to explain it all? No, but I find it pretty hard to argue agains…
But we're not talking about long lived, historic institutions; we're talking about South Korea, a republic formed out of the ashes of Japan's colonial project, and Ghana, a new country formed from the rapid retreat of Britain from its colonial empire. You can talk about the legacy of the colonial institutions in the respective countries, but that has little to do with how hard South Korea worked in the 1950s, and mor…
I agree with what you wrote in general.
Why I find other explanations more worthwhile - which you opened up above - than "US helped them" is that is quite critical for countries to be able to advance economically. Based on several examples I don't think it can be explained simply by having a wealthy external sponsor. Hence it would be more important to focus on the things that made this thing happen, in order to understand if something could be replicated.
As an example of potentially replicable factors, for instance land reform seems to be a thing that has been at the roots of economic advancement of several countries. (Finland, South Korea). Of course, it can be screwed up as well (Zimbabwe).
I agree books that try to simplify things are dangerous, but really entertaining when they structure their thesis around solid facts. I don't think anyone has "the final truth" so an author that has at least tried to put forward an explicit thesis is always a worthwhile read - a clearly stated thesis is something the reader is then able to clearly refuse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This doesn’t seem accurate. Are you saying Poland had GDP growth rate of more than 30% a year?
Exponential growth over 30 years to 9x the original value is 7.6%/yr. Real growth was closer to 7x, so 6.7%/yr and indeed similar growth was sustained over a large part of those three decades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> IMF policies are arguably extremely toxic Correlation, not causation. The whole point of IMF intervention is to rescue countries that are already in the toilet, and need to consolidate foreign debt.
I wonder if a lot of those countries would do better to declare bankruptcy and not pay those debts.
IMF loans are bandaids to stop the bleeding, but the cure depends on the disease. If the country does not cure the disease, the bandaid will not help after a while.
Thermodynamics. You can only extract work from a gradient
Nah, it's gravity. Money attracts money. It coalesces into dense lumps, a few thin clouds of gas, and a whole lot of very empty space.
I thought this question was a joke based on the title. Our economic system itself creates inequality between nations. It's in the best interest of wealthy countries to keep developing countries poor so we can continue extractive processes for their resources. I wasn't aware the question had 'vexed economists for decades'. You can say the same of inequality within a country. Wealth accumulates because we have an econo…
> It's in the best interest of wealthy countries to keep developing countries poor so we can continue extractive processes for their resources. it really bothers me that people think this is an OK thing to do. We can choose to improve both the importing and exporting countries when these negotiations are set up, but we don't, because it's cheaper to turn people into slaves and drive them into the grave. There are exa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's in the best interest of wealthy countries to keep developing countries poor so we can continue extractive processes for their resources. it really bothers me that people think this is an OK thing to do. We can choose to improve both the importing and exporting countries when these negotiations are set up, but we don't, because it's cheaper to turn people into slaves and drive them into the grave. There are exa…
I sympathize with the sentiment, although I don't blame the issues on a dearth of altruism. If you grew up in the 1400's could you expect widespread equality during feudalism? It doesn't matter how magnanimous a king was, inequality was built into society. The question then becomes, IMO, what sort of economic organization would help solve these issues?
money is Aladdin's Lamp; money grants wishes, and no matter who you are or what you have, you will always want more. there will always be a non-zero number of people who want "more" enough that they feel it is ok that others suffer so that it be obtained.
humans create economies wherever they go, and they always have. money takes no action on its own, so humans are the problem. we will be our own demise.
our end will not be due to a supernova or space aliens or anything outside of our own control. we will destroy ourselves unless we somehow change ourselves enough that Aladdin's Lamp no longer holds sway over our lives. that will not happen for 100,000,000 generations of humanity, if it ever happens.
it is in our very being to destroy things or people for personal gain, and everyone who thinks they are entitled to do it will do it.
we may never truly fail as a species (though that is definitely within our reach today) but we will not succeed as a species, either. Aladdin's Lamp is always too close.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your implication is that Ghana failed where South Korea succeeded because they didn't work hard enough. Of course people in South Korea worked hard to get where they are. So did people in Ghana. But in South Korea, the US protected them and funded them. Meanwhile in Ghana, the US stripped them of their wealth. How well off do you think South Korea would be if the US didn't intervene in the Korean War?
> Of course people in South Korea worked hard to get where they are. So did people in Ghana. By what measure did Ghana work as hard as South Korea did? Is that just an assumption?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems like an emotional reaction to a very valid point. If everyone on earth had fair wages things would be far more expensive. Part of what makes your phone affordable is cheap labor in terrible conditions. What happens when those countries start to be less poor? The answer is that the rich countries will find another group of poor people to make their stuff. This is likely why rich people, like Bill Gates, are…
When we find the magic wand to do that, I'm not sure I'd wave it but ok. 'Fair wages' is tossed around a lot. I'm not some money-grubbing oligarch but imagining you can control wages has a pretty bad track record. It's going to take more than talking about the end game, to come up with a game plan. Anyway, I don't think I'm being any more emotional that the knock-off remark I responded to. If I came off as reactionar…
I didn't defend the status-quo, I didn't suggest any alternative, I didn't say it was a good or a bad thing, only that it is how things are right now.
All I said was, that what makes rich countries rich, is that they have more money than poor countries..
the answer is statism. to easy. next!
Or not enough "statism". I read "Childhood's End" by Arthur C. Clarke when I was young. If you read it: the aliens that take over and control the Earth very quickly make production so efficient, global that the work week is reduced to a day or two. No starvation, everyone has a home, comforts.
in my opinion statism is at fault because it is the manifestation of "let us, here, very locally, protect each others shit, while exploiting all the others"
this thought, or concept of "us and them", (for some it starts even more locally: "mine/yours") divides ppl and funnels assets to those that can afford them.
average downvoter "but mlatu, dont you own a car? what if someone took it from you?" me:"in this society? that would be theft, and i'd have to call the cops and my insurance company because im still paying that rustbowl off! but imagine instead, if i could trust that there was a different car available so i still could get home, i wouldnt mind it, or if i could trust that there was another as-good solution to getting home as me driving my car there, let me use it!"
society could be based on sharing instead of on hoarding... one if these days ill have the time to develop some societal simulation model or something...
"owning property" used to be very important, when there were only a couple hundred million of us on this rock, but i believe, the longer we remain on-planet, the more important it gets to overhaul that in favor of equaly sharing all resources.
all in favour of fully automated luxury gay space communism say "where's mah figs?"