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

201–210 of 230 posts

Re: Why Isn’t the Whole World Rich?

#201

Post by imtringued »

bennysonething wrote: post #157
rippercushions wrote: post #115

What ties together their poster boys of South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore? They all had a baseline of education and decent government (for corporations, anyway), which they used to attract foreign investment (read: money flowing into the country) for industries that employed large amounts of people in roles where they could learn useful skills, kick-starting middle class wealth that could then propel the rest of the…

Actually there is a simpler explanation: Rule of law Property rights

The article is about how that isn't enough.

Re: Why Isn’t the Whole World Rich?

#202

Post by [deleted] »

wizeman wrote: post #104
brutusborn wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ha…

[deleted]

Re: Why Isn’t the Whole World Rich?

#203

Post by imtringued »

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…

I agree with the foreign debt strategy.

E.g. Greece is being talked about as if it was somehow an immoral country that is constantly living beyond their means and somehow the Germans are the heroes who bail out the Greeks who used the debt to buy uh what exactly did they buy? German exports? Wait a moment. If Greeks are buying German products, why aren't Germans just buying Greek products instead of bailing them out? It would be mutually beneficial and solve the debt problem. It turns out, paying off the debt is the last thing Germany wants. If anything, it wants the debt to stay there to act out a nationalist hero role that is both counterproductive to German and Greek citizens and only really benefits the German export industry and the handful of workers directly employed by them.

For Greek products to become competitive in Germany, wages in Germany would have to go up. In other words, Greece is a scape goat to distract from domestic issues in Germany just like the EU was the scape goat for the UK.

Re: Why Isn’t the Whole World Rich?

#204

Post by imtringued »

jongjong wrote: post #91
somedude895 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Simple answer; No, read the article before commenting please. Edit: I just realized this comment breaks the site's rules > Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. I do wish @dang was around though, most of the comments in here don't reference the article at all, even though it's really insightful.

The article touches on corruption but it dances around the root causes of corruption and the international debt-based monetary system which systematizes it. Woke politicians and economists are all too happy to talk up the cause of oppressed minorities until you point out the possibility that they are the root cause of the oppression... No, it's not the ancestors from a distant past who are the oppressors, it's happen…

What I find strange is that economists declare the money/debt problem nonexistent except maybe Keynes who said you will have to either inflate money to erode debts or use something like the Bancor system where excessive balances are sanctioned with fees.

Other economists just assume that all of this debt is 100% voluntary and could be paid back at any time.

Re: Why Isn’t the Whole World Rich?

#205

Post by imtringued »

zozbot234 wrote: post #122
phkahler wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 exchan…

A trade deficit is an investment surplus, and vice versa. It's not like one is always good or the other always bad, you can't reason like that from a single number.

Ok but why are poor countries financing the rich countries in this scenario?

I mean think about it. Country A borrows from Country B and buys Country B products, which effectively finances Country B companies. This is particularly bad when the imported products aren't physical capital but basic necessities.

Re: Why Isn’t the Whole World Rich?

#206

Post by imtringued »

realgeniushere wrote: post #182
jongjong wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If you put your hand in the fire, no one has punished you with a burn.

Ok but that doesn't explain why the house is on fire or why it should stay that way.

Re: Why Isn’t the Whole World Rich?

#207

Post by imtringued »

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…

The problem is that people think money is wealth, it is merely a claim to wealth. Each dollar is backed by a dollar of debt. That makes sense but it doesn't mean having more dollars means more wealth, it just means more dollars are necessary to run the economy.

If anything, a worshipping of money as wealth results in the opposite problem. People think they are wealthier than they are and then get disappointed, which is why governments and economists insist on permanent growth as debt increases.

A lot of wealth is not in the form of a stock but in the form of a flow. The wealth is alive so to speak and you must keep it alive if you want to benefit.

Re: Why Isn’t the Whole World Rich?

#208

Post by imtringued »

brutusborn wrote: post #48
snidane wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Entities without competition inflate prices until they capture all the extra new pie. You receive increase in salary from your boss one year and next year it gets eaten away by monopolies like healthcare, education, housing and landlords.

Rent seeking may be zero sum, but the economy as a whole not. If we banned rent seeking the economy would likely grow faster. You could argue that's changing the game, but the economy is a weird one in that changing the game is part of the game.

Banning rent seeking doesn't work. Christianity tried banning interest and it just causes non Christians to offer lending services which then results in xenophobia. Interest payments partially derive from the liquidity services provided by market participants (think long opening hours and storing products ahead of time). Money effectively becomes a public institution where people voluntarily give it value in the form of liquidity services. That public institution is then kept in private hands who lend out money and then get to market these liquidity services as if they provided the public institution themselves. Basically someone else does the work and you get to benefit.

The answer to this problem is a demurrage fee on cash. Banks can then compete by offering the ideal negative rate that is in proportion to the liquidity premium. Banks can then use this fee to pay for liquidity services.

Is anyone doing this? No and I don't think it will happen in the next 30 years.

Re: Why Isn’t the Whole World Rich?

#209

Post by imtringued »

ninkendo wrote: post #21
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…

If there has to be poor people in order for there to be rich people, let’s make robots be the poor people. The best endgame we can probably hope for is for there to be a sustainably small number of really comfortable, happy humans on this planet, and an army of robot servants/AI to keep us all fat and happy.

That doesn't work. You have to pay the full costs of the robot yourself. If you hire a human the production cost of the human has been borne by their parents. In fact, employees are expected to pay for their own education via college tuition.

Re: Why Isn’t the Whole World Rich?

#210

Post by Tade0 »

bergenty wrote: post #193
Tade0 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What does exponential growth mean here?

The mathematical definition.
Post reply on HN