4 ms·

The problem is the impossibility of posing counterfactuals about historical questions. If we could compare the last 40+ years with Chicago School economists spr

The problem is the impossibility of posing counterfactuals about historical questions. If we could compare the last 40+ years with Chicago School economists spreading their theories vs. some other school of economic theory or none at all, then your statement would be sensical. As it stands, you're just throwing out a superficially relevant correlation with no possible way of disproving it.

logicchains 9y ago
Fortunately during the past 40 years different countries engaged in different degrees of liberalization, so it is in fact possible to compare them to some degree. Some of these countries even had very similar cultures and economic starting points. For example, Hong Kong and Singapore were extremely economically liberal. They still are, to some extent (some of the lowest tax rates in the world; Singapore even has no capital gains tax, and its top tax rate is 20%). According to Google, Singapore has a per capita GDP of $52,960.71 (the US is $57,466.79), a rich country by international standards. Hong Kong has a GDP per capita of $43,681.14. Taiwan and Korea were/are less economically liberal than Hong Kong and Singapore, but still have relatively low tax rates by international standards. Korea has a GDP per capita of $27,538.81, and Taiwan of $31,900.00. China was slow to open up economically, waiting until the 1970s, and even since then its policies are less liberal than the aforementioned countries (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ease_of_doing_business_index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ease_of_doing_business_index). China now has a GDP per capita of $8,123.18. North Korea is even less liberal than China, almost completely rejecting international trade. It has a GDP per capita of $583.00. While this is not a large sample size, it's better than nothing, and does seem to indicate a correlation between economic liberalisation and economic growth.
- WhatIsDukkha 9y ago
  Or that being agreeable with already established economies, ie the west, allows you to get in on the pyramid scheme early? The longer term impact for global development is explored by Dani Rodrik """This means countries are running out of industrialization opportunities sooner and at much lower levels of income compared to the experience of early industrializers""" https://www.sss.ias.edu/files/papers/econpaper107.pdf https://www.sss.ias.edu/files/papers/econpaper107.pdf Does it bother you at all that you took a simple set of numbers, largely devoid of context, and then waved your hands with some math and made a huge conclusion? No relevance to the subject of the original post we are discussing here? I think its a direct example of Premature Mathiness but I suspect you'll disagree :)
  - logicchains 9y ago
    If you don't like numbers, why not come to Asia sometime and see what people here have achieved, see the standard of living they enjoy, and compare it to pictures of the same places 60 years ago? Or go to the poorest regions in China, which are still richer than most of Asia was 60 years ago, and see the difference. Calling it a "pyramid scheme" is frankly absurd, given the tangible increases in quality of life that have been achieved. >"""This means countries are running out of industrialization opportunities sooner and at much lower levels of income compared to the experience of early industrializers""" >https://www.sss.ias.edu/files/papers/econpaper107.pdf https://www.sss.ias.edu/files/papers/econpaper107.pdf >Does it bother you at all that you took a simple set of numbers, largely devoid of context, and then waved your hands with some math and made a huge conclusion? No relevance to the subject of the original post we are discussing here? How was what I posted not relevant? The person I was replaying to asserted that there was no basis to make comparisons between the effects of different degrees of liberalism, I presented an example refuting that. If anything the link you posted seemed less relevant: how does a reduction in industralisation opportunities relate to the ability to make comparisons between different economic systems?
    - WhatIsDukkha 9y ago
      Simply put, the gains Asia made in becoming the microchip and refrigerator manufacturing SOLE SOURCE for the world will not be replicated in Africa and South America. "Relevance" wasn't the metric. The metric was you very directly seeing numbers at hand and then using the math tool you had and coming to a broad, simplistic and wrong answer about whether "liberalization" is the way forward in 2017. Many many mainstream economists are increasingly disagreeing with your simplistic and ideological model.
      - logicchains 9y ago
        >Simply put, the gains Asia made in becoming the microchip and refrigerator manufacturing SOLE SOURCE for the world will not be replicated in Africa and South America. >"Relevance" wasn't the metric. The metric was you very directly seeing numbers at hand and then using the math tool you had and coming to a broad, simplistic and wrong answer about whether "liberalization" is the way forward in 2017. Then if liberalisation is not the way forward, how will countries in Africa and South America be better served by denying opportunities to them and the people in them?
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  "For example, Hong Kong and Singapore were extremely economically liberal." I'd seriously question this. There's a ton of stuff which they have both done which would be met with horror by "economically liberal" types if it were tried in the west. For example, in Singapore 90% of the housing market is directly controlled by the government and if you look at the medical market, they have some really stringent price controls. Then there's the currency manipulation: both states, while small, have enormous holdings of treasuries which they buy in order to make their exports more competitive. I think those "ease of doing business measures" are fluff at best and at worst, basically just outright propaganda on behalf of foreign investors. "North Korea is even less liberal than China, almost completely rejecting international trade. It has a GDP per capita of $583.00." Nobody really has a clue what North Korea's numbers are and my level of trust in the CIA's estimates hovers around zero. Having been there and to Bangladesh I'd have to argue that the latter, while more open to the outside world, is much poorer. Whatever propaganda you are fed, it's fairly obvious from the eye that, for instance, the quality of housing in Bangladesh countryside/2nd tier towns is worse than those in North Korea's 2nd tier towns and countryside.
  - logicchains 9y ago
    >I'd seriously question this. There's a ton of stuff which they have both done which would be met with horror by "economically liberal" types if it were tried in the west. I'd wager the vast majority of economic liberals would welcome government controls on the housing market and medical market if it meant a top tax rate of 20% (with the average person paying much less), no capital gains tax, and extremely liberal immigration policies. The lesser of two evils, so to speak. >I think those "ease of doing business measures" are fluff at best and at worst, basically just outright propaganda on behalf of foreign investors. If you want a more concrete example: in Australia it takes approximately one day and zero dollars to open a business. In China it often takes over 30 days and thousands of dollars in deposit, depending on the kind of business. >Whatever propaganda you are fed, it's fairly obvious from the eye that, for instance, the quality of housing in Bangladesh countryside/2nd tier towns is worse than those in North Korea's 2nd tier towns and countryside. I encourage you to watch accounts given by people who managed to escape from North Korea: they give me the impression that starvation is a bigger problem there than even in Bangladesh.
pacala 9y ago
Actually, we can. Peek behind the Iron Curtain and its late survivors (Venezuela, North Korea). Massive failures. Societal collapse.
friedman23 9y ago
It's like you completely forgot that East and West Berlin exist. The Soviets dumped billions into East Berlin and it was still a shithole

logicchains 9y ago

Fortunately during the past 40 years different countries engaged in different degrees of liberalization, so it is in fact possible to compare them to some degree. Some of these countries even had very similar cultures and economic starting points. For example, Hong Kong and Singapore were extremely economically liberal. They still are, to some extent (some of the lowest tax rates in the world; Singapore even has no capital gains tax, and its top tax rate is 20%). According to Google, Singapore has a per capita GDP of $52,960.71 (the US is $57,466.79), a rich country by international standards. Hong Kong has a GDP per capita of $43,681.14. Taiwan and Korea were/are less economically liberal than Hong Kong and Singapore, but still have relatively low tax rates by international standards. Korea has a GDP per capita of $27,538.81, and Taiwan of $31,900.00. China was slow to open up economically, waiting until the 1970s, and even since then its policies are less liberal than the aforementioned countries (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ease_of_doing_business_index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ease_of_doing_business_index). China now has a GDP per capita of $8,123.18. North Korea is even less liberal than China, almost completely rejecting international trade. It has a GDP per capita of $583.00. While this is not a large sample size, it's better than nothing, and does seem to indicate a correlation between economic liberalisation and economic growth.

WhatIsDukkha 9y ago
Or that being agreeable with already established economies, ie the west, allows you to get in on the pyramid scheme early? The longer term impact for global development is explored by Dani Rodrik """This means countries are running out of industrialization opportunities sooner and at much lower levels of income compared to the experience of early industrializers""" https://www.sss.ias.edu/files/papers/econpaper107.pdf https://www.sss.ias.edu/files/papers/econpaper107.pdf Does it bother you at all that you took a simple set of numbers, largely devoid of context, and then waved your hands with some math and made a huge conclusion? No relevance to the subject of the original post we are discussing here? I think its a direct example of Premature Mathiness but I suspect you'll disagree :)
- logicchains 9y ago
  If you don't like numbers, why not come to Asia sometime and see what people here have achieved, see the standard of living they enjoy, and compare it to pictures of the same places 60 years ago? Or go to the poorest regions in China, which are still richer than most of Asia was 60 years ago, and see the difference. Calling it a "pyramid scheme" is frankly absurd, given the tangible increases in quality of life that have been achieved. >"""This means countries are running out of industrialization opportunities sooner and at much lower levels of income compared to the experience of early industrializers""" >https://www.sss.ias.edu/files/papers/econpaper107.pdf https://www.sss.ias.edu/files/papers/econpaper107.pdf >Does it bother you at all that you took a simple set of numbers, largely devoid of context, and then waved your hands with some math and made a huge conclusion? No relevance to the subject of the original post we are discussing here? How was what I posted not relevant? The person I was replaying to asserted that there was no basis to make comparisons between the effects of different degrees of liberalism, I presented an example refuting that. If anything the link you posted seemed less relevant: how does a reduction in industralisation opportunities relate to the ability to make comparisons between different economic systems?
  - WhatIsDukkha 9y ago
    Simply put, the gains Asia made in becoming the microchip and refrigerator manufacturing SOLE SOURCE for the world will not be replicated in Africa and South America. "Relevance" wasn't the metric. The metric was you very directly seeing numbers at hand and then using the math tool you had and coming to a broad, simplistic and wrong answer about whether "liberalization" is the way forward in 2017. Many many mainstream economists are increasingly disagreeing with your simplistic and ideological model.
    - logicchains 9y ago
      >Simply put, the gains Asia made in becoming the microchip and refrigerator manufacturing SOLE SOURCE for the world will not be replicated in Africa and South America. >"Relevance" wasn't the metric. The metric was you very directly seeing numbers at hand and then using the math tool you had and coming to a broad, simplistic and wrong answer about whether "liberalization" is the way forward in 2017. Then if liberalisation is not the way forward, how will countries in Africa and South America be better served by denying opportunities to them and the people in them?
crdoconnor 9y ago
"For example, Hong Kong and Singapore were extremely economically liberal." I'd seriously question this. There's a ton of stuff which they have both done which would be met with horror by "economically liberal" types if it were tried in the west. For example, in Singapore 90% of the housing market is directly controlled by the government and if you look at the medical market, they have some really stringent price controls. Then there's the currency manipulation: both states, while small, have enormous holdings of treasuries which they buy in order to make their exports more competitive. I think those "ease of doing business measures" are fluff at best and at worst, basically just outright propaganda on behalf of foreign investors. "North Korea is even less liberal than China, almost completely rejecting international trade. It has a GDP per capita of $583.00." Nobody really has a clue what North Korea's numbers are and my level of trust in the CIA's estimates hovers around zero. Having been there and to Bangladesh I'd have to argue that the latter, while more open to the outside world, is much poorer. Whatever propaganda you are fed, it's fairly obvious from the eye that, for instance, the quality of housing in Bangladesh countryside/2nd tier towns is worse than those in North Korea's 2nd tier towns and countryside.
- logicchains 9y ago
  >I'd seriously question this. There's a ton of stuff which they have both done which would be met with horror by "economically liberal" types if it were tried in the west. I'd wager the vast majority of economic liberals would welcome government controls on the housing market and medical market if it meant a top tax rate of 20% (with the average person paying much less), no capital gains tax, and extremely liberal immigration policies. The lesser of two evils, so to speak. >I think those "ease of doing business measures" are fluff at best and at worst, basically just outright propaganda on behalf of foreign investors. If you want a more concrete example: in Australia it takes approximately one day and zero dollars to open a business. In China it often takes over 30 days and thousands of dollars in deposit, depending on the kind of business. >Whatever propaganda you are fed, it's fairly obvious from the eye that, for instance, the quality of housing in Bangladesh countryside/2nd tier towns is worse than those in North Korea's 2nd tier towns and countryside. I encourage you to watch accounts given by people who managed to escape from North Korea: they give me the impression that starvation is a bigger problem there than even in Bangladesh.

pacala 9y ago

Actually, we can. Peek behind the Iron Curtain and its late survivors (Venezuela, North Korea). Massive failures. Societal collapse.

friedman23 9y ago

It's like you completely forgot that East and West Berlin exist. The Soviets dumped billions into East Berlin and it was still a shithole