5 ms·

> The Swiss model does seem to scale. The population has scaled from 6.2 million in 1970 to about 8.2 million today. GDP per capita also went up significantly d

by ci5er 10y ago

> The Swiss model does seem to scale. The population has scaled from 6.2 million in 1970 to about 8.2 million today. GDP per capita also went up significantly during this time, and outpaced GDP per capita growth in the USA. While that is certainly adorable (and, seriously, good for them!), "scale" in GP is referring to: "Will it work for 450M people at the same time?" -- or in China's case: "Will it work for 1.3B people at the same time"? GP posits that in a large liquid world, big enough to support the Ch or SG populations, they will both do well, but that it requires this large external world to pull it off. If the model WAS the external world, it wouldn't.

drdeca 10y ago
> adorable Do you mean admirable? I have a hard time thinking of an economy as being adorable, except maybe if the whole thing is very physically small (like, a city of miniscule people, or something like that)
- stevejb 10y ago
  Switzerland's economy is adorably small. It is approximately 3x the size of LA County, and in there are cheese makers, watch makers, ski chalets, etc. "inspiring great affection; delightful; charming" This seems adorable to me.
- dgfgfdagasdfgfa 10y ago
  I think it's meant as a diminutive. Also, economies have natural sizes that are not bound to geography; it's rather easy to compare them on any number of characteristics.
- coldtea 10y ago
  Adorable is used to belittle things -- it's even a meme: “That’s Cute” (otherwise known as “That’s Adorable”) is a sarcastic expression used to patronize or dismiss someone’s self-complacency or boastful statement, similar to the phrase “bitch, please.” It is typically used to juxtapose the capabilities or accomplishments of two comparable subjects
zigzigzag 10y ago
That's obviously unknowable, but I present evidence that the model has scaled. I see no reason why China couldn't become as wealthy as Switzerland if it followed the same models (but I doubt it will any time soon).
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  But I think the claim being made is "scale in size only works with a larger scaling somewhere else". Pointing to growth in Switzerland doesn't do much to argue with the idea that this model only works when you have massive regions with less wealth to absorb exports and services. To simplify absurdly, average global global wealth per person is ~$24,000. If everyone in China had median Swiss wealth, that would be half the world's wealth. If everyone in China had mean Swiss wealth, that would be more wealth than exists in the entire world. So at least in the short term, no. China can't become as wealthy as Switzerland. Global wealth has doubled over the last ~40 years - even if China captured every penny of the next doubling, it would still take >50 years to match Switzerland under any realistic model. Swiss wealth is inescapably a product of inequality, in the sense that there doesn't exist enough wealth to raise everyone to their level.
  - zigzigzag 10y ago
    But we aren't talking about the short term, or are we? 50 years in the grand scheme of things seems quite short term when discussing such extreme cases as a communist country that was starving only decades ago and Switzerland: they are two polar opposites. But fundamentally wealth is not a zero sum game. Countries have internal markets too. The idea that China can only grow if the rest of the world gets richer too isn't right: they can achieve enormous growth by selling things to themselves as well. That wasn't their primary economic model so far but that has more to do with the political priorities of the CCP than anything else.
    - Bartweiss 10y ago
      I agree with all of this, but that 50 year case was ludicrously generous - I gave China every penny of economic growth in the entire world. What I'm saying is that "China could be like Switzerland by implementing Swiss policies" is implausible, because there simply isn't enough money to be like Switzerland. Even if you think it would work, which I don't, the timeframes involved are up there with "dawn of industrialization to now". I'm not mistaking the global economy for a zero sum game, but I'm saying that growth is bounded for any merely-strategic change. And, I'm saying that Switzerland's strategy is largely a zero-sum one of providing luxury goods and services to transfer foreign wealth in. China could reach Swiss wealth with a breakthrough in graphene superconduction (not zero sum, increases rate of global wealth growth), but it's not realistic by becoming a banking and luxury goods hub (near-zero sum, doesn't alter existing ~2% global growth rates).

by ci5er 10y ago

drdeca 10y ago

> adorable Do you mean admirable? I have a hard time thinking of an economy as being adorable, except maybe if the whole thing is very physically small (like, a city of miniscule people, or something like that)

stevejb 10y ago
Switzerland's economy is adorably small. It is approximately 3x the size of LA County, and in there are cheese makers, watch makers, ski chalets, etc. "inspiring great affection; delightful; charming" This seems adorable to me.
dgfgfdagasdfgfa 10y ago
I think it's meant as a diminutive. Also, economies have natural sizes that are not bound to geography; it's rather easy to compare them on any number of characteristics.
coldtea 10y ago
Adorable is used to belittle things -- it's even a meme: “That’s Cute” (otherwise known as “That’s Adorable”) is a sarcastic expression used to patronize or dismiss someone’s self-complacency or boastful statement, similar to the phrase “bitch, please.” It is typically used to juxtapose the capabilities or accomplishments of two comparable subjects

zigzigzag 10y ago

That's obviously unknowable, but I present evidence that the model has scaled. I see no reason why China couldn't become as wealthy as Switzerland if it followed the same models (but I doubt it will any time soon).

Bartweiss 10y ago
But I think the claim being made is "scale in size only works with a larger scaling somewhere else". Pointing to growth in Switzerland doesn't do much to argue with the idea that this model only works when you have massive regions with less wealth to absorb exports and services. To simplify absurdly, average global global wealth per person is ~$24,000. If everyone in China had median Swiss wealth, that would be half the world's wealth. If everyone in China had mean Swiss wealth, that would be more wealth than exists in the entire world. So at least in the short term, no. China can't become as wealthy as Switzerland. Global wealth has doubled over the last ~40 years - even if China captured every penny of the next doubling, it would still take >50 years to match Switzerland under any realistic model. Swiss wealth is inescapably a product of inequality, in the sense that there doesn't exist enough wealth to raise everyone to their level.
- zigzigzag 10y ago
  But we aren't talking about the short term, or are we? 50 years in the grand scheme of things seems quite short term when discussing such extreme cases as a communist country that was starving only decades ago and Switzerland: they are two polar opposites. But fundamentally wealth is not a zero sum game. Countries have internal markets too. The idea that China can only grow if the rest of the world gets richer too isn't right: they can achieve enormous growth by selling things to themselves as well. That wasn't their primary economic model so far but that has more to do with the political priorities of the CCP than anything else.
  - Bartweiss 10y ago
    I agree with all of this, but that 50 year case was ludicrously generous - I gave China every penny of economic growth in the entire world. What I'm saying is that "China could be like Switzerland by implementing Swiss policies" is implausible, because there simply isn't enough money to be like Switzerland. Even if you think it would work, which I don't, the timeframes involved are up there with "dawn of industrialization to now". I'm not mistaking the global economy for a zero sum game, but I'm saying that growth is bounded for any merely-strategic change. And, I'm saying that Switzerland's strategy is largely a zero-sum one of providing luxury goods and services to transfer foreign wealth in. China could reach Swiss wealth with a breakthrough in graphene superconduction (not zero sum, increases rate of global wealth growth), but it's not realistic by becoming a banking and luxury goods hub (near-zero sum, doesn't alter existing ~2% global growth rates).