4 ms·

You should look at Jonathan Goldsmith's appearance on Charlie Rose. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwmOkaKh3-s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwmOkaKh3-s Fr

by sprafa 10y ago

You should look at Jonathan Goldsmith's appearance on Charlie Rose. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwmOkaKh3-s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwmOkaKh3-s Free Trade is not always good, and he correctly predicts that the global movement of capital will disrupt the current agreement between capital and labor that served the West so well. Donald Trump is wrong on many issues, but this is not one of them as far as I can tell. There a religiosity to the argument that free trade is "always good", even though high performing Asian economies are somewhat protective. Economics at its current understanding is almost like a religion of capitalism. It has little to do with actual economic behaviour and has very little predictive power. That's why we keep having crises. Look into the work of anthropologists and behavioural economists to see the reality of how humans actually behave and what that means for "classical economics". Basically, most of it is bunk, all the way down to Adam Smith. One of the best references I've read on this so far is "Debt the first 5000 years" "How Asia Works" On behavioural economics, there's studies coming out all the time. The evidence is piling up that little of what economists have said makes sense. They've deducted general guidelines that sort of work at the macro scale, but their fundamentals are mostly wrong.

icebraining 10y ago
Isn't the "Asian miracle" barely thirty years old, and already showing problems (e.g. Japanese stagnation)? Sounds a bit early to proclaim them as undeniable examples of the superiority of protectionism.
- sprafa 10y ago
  Hm. The japanese miracle is a bit separate from the rest of the Asian miracle. It was artificially engineered by America to establish a counter to Chinese/USSR/North Korean growing influence in the region, through a sort of Asian Marshall Plan. Essentially America airplaned cash in to stop Communism. I'm increasingly growing into the opinion that capitalism fails to engineer any new "real" growth after physical needs are met for the majority of the population and this is true of any developed economy. Developed economies by nature stagnate. And when you look into post-physical-needs-are-met growth you mostly see financial services that might not be any net-benefit to society. Again I am still studying the topic so not sure. But it's the impression I get. If you look at Japanese society it's clearly hit that stage. Physical needs, basic human needs for food and shelter, have been met. Therefore capitalism has for the most part stopped functioning. Most developed economies reach that stage. The issue is we're not satisfied and we keep asking for more and more "growth", even though capitalism might not be able to deliver it. It might've worked before, but without physical needs capitalism stops functioning effectively, maybe at all. I've written about it here: http://www.rafaelkino.com/essays/capitalismisfailing.html http://www.rafaelkino.com/essays/capitalismisfailing.html

by sprafa 10y ago

icebraining 10y ago

Isn't the "Asian miracle" barely thirty years old, and already showing problems (e.g. Japanese stagnation)? Sounds a bit early to proclaim them as undeniable examples of the superiority of protectionism.

sprafa 10y ago
Hm. The japanese miracle is a bit separate from the rest of the Asian miracle. It was artificially engineered by America to establish a counter to Chinese/USSR/North Korean growing influence in the region, through a sort of Asian Marshall Plan. Essentially America airplaned cash in to stop Communism. I'm increasingly growing into the opinion that capitalism fails to engineer any new "real" growth after physical needs are met for the majority of the population and this is true of any developed economy. Developed economies by nature stagnate. And when you look into post-physical-needs-are-met growth you mostly see financial services that might not be any net-benefit to society. Again I am still studying the topic so not sure. But it's the impression I get. If you look at Japanese society it's clearly hit that stage. Physical needs, basic human needs for food and shelter, have been met. Therefore capitalism has for the most part stopped functioning. Most developed economies reach that stage. The issue is we're not satisfied and we keep asking for more and more "growth", even though capitalism might not be able to deliver it. It might've worked before, but without physical needs capitalism stops functioning effectively, maybe at all. I've written about it here: http://www.rafaelkino.com/essays/capitalismisfailing.html http://www.rafaelkino.com/essays/capitalismisfailing.html