5 ms·

Yeah. Many countries do that sort of thing, like the US imposing tariffs on car imports unless a some of the assembly is done domestically. I wouldn't necessari

by firasd 8y ago

Yeah. Many countries do that sort of thing, like the US imposing tariffs on car imports unless a some of the assembly is done domestically. I wouldn't necessarily endorse too much protectionism either—India has a clear example of the benefits of moving towards an open market after 1991. In fact the biggest Indian startup exit is Flipkart, bought by Walmart, which demonstrates the value of free flow of capital.

redditmigrant 8y ago
There is also the example of China which has policies that favor local companies and China has created dramatically more economic value for it's citizens than India's open market.
- firasd 8y ago
  Fair enough, but China's main growth strategy was exporting manufactured goods. I'm not sure it is repeatable...
- seanmcdirmid 8y ago
  Correlation isn’t causation. China could have done even better than it did if it was a more open market, and indeed it didn’t start growing rapidly until the government started getting out of the way in the 80s.
  - IllogicalLogic 8y ago
    England, France and the US have vested interests in China not growing, atleast a very powerful minority do. Opening markets when these foreign actors very recently attacked your population is basically suicide. Open markets require a certain level of development. Post-Xi (and his anti-corruption measures), this will be possible.
    - antidesitter 8y ago
      > Opening markets when these foreign actors very recently attacked your population is basically suicide. Do you have evidence to support this claim? You seem to be conflating these countries’ governments with their businesses. Also, can you clarify what you mean by “attacked their population”?
      - IllogicalLogic 8y ago
        Trump is actively setting trade/economic policy considering 18-19th century history (economic history more specifically). Remember the Opium Wars and the families it made rich (most famous, Coolidge (descendants of Thomas Jefferson), Roosevelts (through the Delano family), Forbes (John Kerry's family), etc.. in the US). On the otherside of the pond, in 1890 (peak opium crisis), 30% of Britain's GDP was illegal opium smuggling to China. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/3/30/opium-at-harvard/ https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/3/30/opium-at-harvar... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_%26_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_%26_Company https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0AJ59vqzzg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0AJ59vqzzg The seperator between government and companies isn't as big as you think when this much multi-generational wealth and political power is invloved. Kind of funny that many don't know their own history (Roman history is tough...going through 300 years of US history is trivially easy but most still don't).
        mirimir 8y ago
        Yes, there's lots of ugly in US history. It's been very effectively suppressed. Most Americans will think that you're some sort of conspiracy theorist :( And by the way, US tobacco manufacturers also managed to addict most of Southeast Asia. I highly recommend Drugs and Rights by Douglas N. Husak (Rutgers, 1992).[0] 0) https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/drugs-and-rights/0C9669C39C15FF7B55EAF551FB830E5F https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/drugs-and-rights/0C9669...
        IllogicalLogic 8y ago
        Economic history has less incentive to lie and it's hard to retroactively change 100 years of accounting/trade history to maintain a fake national narrative. Remember in international trade, atleast 3 seperate entities end up with copies of every transaction (buyer/seller/shipper). It's why I consider it more trustworthy... https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/business-history-review/article/american-merchants-and-the-china-opium-trade-18001840/CAF870083D191F963CA77113B11320A3 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/business-history-rev...
    - TheAceOfHearts 8y ago
      > England, France and the US have vested interests in China not growing, atleast a very powerful minority do. I'll admit I don't know much about China, but this seems like a very board statement. Could you expand on it a bit? What powerful minority are you thinking of? Aren't they already growing? I mean, China has pretty much taken over a ton of manufacturing.
      - gerdesj 8y ago
        You are responding to "IllogicalLogic" who whitters on about England, France and the US! I'd get my fake news elsewhere: * England is just one part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland * Germany's economy is rather bigger than either the UK or FR - why not mention them?
        IllogicalLogic 8y ago
        I generally use England interchangeably with Britian for Opium War related statements, because the main actors (and beneficiaries) at the end of the day were English, not Irish, not Australian, etc... down the list. Germans werent huge Opium pushers at the time (compared to the English, French, and American). So score 1 for Germany, good decision on their part. I would expect not having major part of your economy propped up by illcit trading has long term positive consequences, Germany is enjoying the fruits of that to some extent. You can predict what people with ill-gotten gains do with their money (it's a different discussion but consider what corruption costs society/economy when looking at the 2nd and 3rd order effects of corrupt money).
    - mr_toad 8y ago
      > Opening markets when these foreign actors very recently attacked your population is basically suicide. Opening markets in Europe immediately afte WW2 were a major contributor to preventing another European war. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_(1951) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_(1951)
      - Nomentatus 8y ago
        Well, yeah, defeat utterly then open markets, that would work.
  - redditmigrant 8y ago
    If co-relation isnt causation then you can say the same about becoming an open market too right? Also, there is a difference between government ownership of enterprises, private but domestic ownership and foreign ownership. China has tried to ensure that important businesses are owned domestically.

by firasd 8y ago

redditmigrant 8y ago

There is also the example of China which has policies that favor local companies and China has created dramatically more economic value for it's citizens than India's open market.

firasd 8y ago
Fair enough, but China's main growth strategy was exporting manufactured goods. I'm not sure it is repeatable...
seanmcdirmid 8y ago
Correlation isn’t causation. China could have done even better than it did if it was a more open market, and indeed it didn’t start growing rapidly until the government started getting out of the way in the 80s.
- IllogicalLogic 8y ago
  England, France and the US have vested interests in China not growing, atleast a very powerful minority do. Opening markets when these foreign actors very recently attacked your population is basically suicide. Open markets require a certain level of development. Post-Xi (and his anti-corruption measures), this will be possible.
  - antidesitter 8y ago
    > Opening markets when these foreign actors very recently attacked your population is basically suicide. Do you have evidence to support this claim? You seem to be conflating these countries’ governments with their businesses. Also, can you clarify what you mean by “attacked their population”?
    - IllogicalLogic 8y ago
      Trump is actively setting trade/economic policy considering 18-19th century history (economic history more specifically). Remember the Opium Wars and the families it made rich (most famous, Coolidge (descendants of Thomas Jefferson), Roosevelts (through the Delano family), Forbes (John Kerry's family), etc.. in the US). On the otherside of the pond, in 1890 (peak opium crisis), 30% of Britain's GDP was illegal opium smuggling to China. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/3/30/opium-at-harvard/ https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/3/30/opium-at-harvar... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_%26_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_%26_Company https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0AJ59vqzzg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0AJ59vqzzg The seperator between government and companies isn't as big as you think when this much multi-generational wealth and political power is invloved. Kind of funny that many don't know their own history (Roman history is tough...going through 300 years of US history is trivially easy but most still don't).
      - mirimir 8y ago
        Yes, there's lots of ugly in US history. It's been very effectively suppressed. Most Americans will think that you're some sort of conspiracy theorist :( And by the way, US tobacco manufacturers also managed to addict most of Southeast Asia. I highly recommend Drugs and Rights by Douglas N. Husak (Rutgers, 1992).[0] 0) https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/drugs-and-rights/0C9669C39C15FF7B55EAF551FB830E5F https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/drugs-and-rights/0C9669...
        IllogicalLogic 8y ago
        Economic history has less incentive to lie and it's hard to retroactively change 100 years of accounting/trade history to maintain a fake national narrative. Remember in international trade, atleast 3 seperate entities end up with copies of every transaction (buyer/seller/shipper). It's why I consider it more trustworthy... https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/business-history-review/article/american-merchants-and-the-china-opium-trade-18001840/CAF870083D191F963CA77113B11320A3 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/business-history-rev...
  - TheAceOfHearts 8y ago
    > England, France and the US have vested interests in China not growing, atleast a very powerful minority do. I'll admit I don't know much about China, but this seems like a very board statement. Could you expand on it a bit? What powerful minority are you thinking of? Aren't they already growing? I mean, China has pretty much taken over a ton of manufacturing.
    - gerdesj 8y ago
      You are responding to "IllogicalLogic" who whitters on about England, France and the US! I'd get my fake news elsewhere: * England is just one part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland * Germany's economy is rather bigger than either the UK or FR - why not mention them?
      - IllogicalLogic 8y ago
        I generally use England interchangeably with Britian for Opium War related statements, because the main actors (and beneficiaries) at the end of the day were English, not Irish, not Australian, etc... down the list. Germans werent huge Opium pushers at the time (compared to the English, French, and American). So score 1 for Germany, good decision on their part. I would expect not having major part of your economy propped up by illcit trading has long term positive consequences, Germany is enjoying the fruits of that to some extent. You can predict what people with ill-gotten gains do with their money (it's a different discussion but consider what corruption costs society/economy when looking at the 2nd and 3rd order effects of corrupt money).
  - mr_toad 8y ago
    > Opening markets when these foreign actors very recently attacked your population is basically suicide. Opening markets in Europe immediately afte WW2 were a major contributor to preventing another European war. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_(1951) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_(1951)
    - Nomentatus 8y ago
      Well, yeah, defeat utterly then open markets, that would work.
- redditmigrant 8y ago
  If co-relation isnt causation then you can say the same about becoming an open market too right? Also, there is a difference between government ownership of enterprises, private but domestic ownership and foreign ownership. China has tried to ensure that important businesses are owned domestically.