5 ms·

> Instead, much of the difference seems to be that the poor nations (many of which are democracies) are those that more often adopted dumb policies, policies wh

> Instead, much of the difference seems to be that the poor nations (many of which are democracies) are those that more often adopted dumb policies, policies which hurt most everyone in the nation. And even rich nations frequently adopt such policies. Ok, if we ignore the effects of wars, colonialism, IMF structural adjustment, and other generally malicious acts that make up most of real history. With no mention of those things, this essay is written for an entirely theoretical world and not the real one.

rocky1138 8y ago
The unforunate part of this idea is that both conditions will have to be tested in order to determine which of the two were better, meaning we'd have to try slavery, genocide, rape, or pretty much anything really. This system doesn't work because there are some things we know are wrong without having to attempt them at least once.
- ada1981 8y ago
  Is that true? I don’t need to try out jumping off a cliff to know it’s a bad idea. And you could have a bill of rights.
barry-cotter 8y ago
Good economic policies make up for a multitude of mistakes and bad ones squander the best history, infrastructure and previous policies. Singapore is much wealthier than Malaysia, which is much wealthier than Indonesia. The differences in natural resources and infrastructure there do not account for the differences in wealth, policy does. In 1954 Ghana was far richer than South Korea, which was a bombed out hellscape that had been the scene of a conflict between superpowers after WWII. Ghana is no longer richer than South Korea, to put it mildly. Botswana and Equatorial Guinea are both blessed with abundant mineral resources, diamonds for the former, oil for the latter. Botswana is a prosperous middle income country; Equatorial Guinea’s people live in wretched poverty while the president and his cronies live in luxury. If we look at Botswana’s neighbour, Zimbabwe, we can see what bad policy can do, turning the breadbasket of Africa into a basket case and a food importer. Or compare Venezuela and Colombia. Their colonial experiences were similar, they were once one country and Venezuela had the advantage of massive oil reserves. None of it matters if your policies are bad enough. Price controls, seizure of private property and general thuggish incompetence have turned Venezuela into a disaster. Enough of the soft bigotry of low expectations; some countries have done much better than any plausible comparator because of good policy. We should praise those who did and decry those who didn’t. Ethiopia and Tanzania both started stupid campaigns of collectivisation leading to mass famine. Tanzania stopped, Ethiopia kept going. If we see idiocy we should call it out, good policy we should praise it.
- sanxiyn 8y ago
  Note: there is genuine uncertainty around what good economic policies are. For example, South Korea became rich by blatantly ignoring advices by world economists. Back then, everyone recommended ISI(import substitution industrialization), but South Korea tried ELI(export led industrialization) and succeeded. Another example is land reform. US was against South Korea land reform because it reminded of communism, but recent research suggests land reform dismantling landowner class was critical to South Korea's success.
  - barry-cotter 8y ago
    There’s uncertainty on the details of good economic policy. Hong Kong grew rich with a policy of unilateral free trade and no government growth or industrialisation policy to speak of. What isn’t in dispute is that secure private property and a functioning legal system work better than the alternatives. There’s no point in investing in anything if the government will be along shortly to take everything. Even where the government are less rapacious they can mess things up, see India’s Licence Raj, and the increase in growth rates after the repeal of most of the government controls of industry. There is a lot of disagreement on the best economic policy, there’s very little on good economic policy, and that’s 80 or 90% of the way to the best. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licence_Raj http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licence_Raj
    - sanxiyn 8y ago
      Hong Kong is a super special exception that does not generalize. Approximately everyone became rich by using industrial policy: read Kicking Away the Ladder for detailed historical research. Our understanding of growth economics is not very good, so history is better guide than theory. Experience of China and South Korea shows you can be very flexible about secure private property and functioning legal system. Or market capitalism and democracy for that matter. South Korea freely used eminent domain to build infrastructures like highway. It also declared everyone should trash all their electronics so that country can upgrade transmission voltage from 110V to 220V to reduce loss. Both decisions are considered good in retrospective. What seems to be essential is investment in infrastructures like water, electricity, and transportation. You mentioned Ethiopia. It stopped stupid collectivization and is doing rather well recently. It's kind of mystifying why World Bank and like are against projects like Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. World Bank was also against South Korea's Soyang Dam, so it had to borrow from Japan. (Ethiopia is borrowing from China.)

rocky1138 8y ago

The unforunate part of this idea is that both conditions will have to be tested in order to determine which of the two were better, meaning we'd have to try slavery, genocide, rape, or pretty much anything really. This system doesn't work because there are some things we know are wrong without having to attempt them at least once.

ada1981 8y ago
Is that true? I don’t need to try out jumping off a cliff to know it’s a bad idea. And you could have a bill of rights.

barry-cotter 8y ago

Good economic policies make up for a multitude of mistakes and bad ones squander the best history, infrastructure and previous policies. Singapore is much wealthier than Malaysia, which is much wealthier than Indonesia. The differences in natural resources and infrastructure there do not account for the differences in wealth, policy does. In 1954 Ghana was far richer than South Korea, which was a bombed out hellscape that had been the scene of a conflict between superpowers after WWII. Ghana is no longer richer than South Korea, to put it mildly. Botswana and Equatorial Guinea are both blessed with abundant mineral resources, diamonds for the former, oil for the latter. Botswana is a prosperous middle income country; Equatorial Guinea’s people live in wretched poverty while the president and his cronies live in luxury. If we look at Botswana’s neighbour, Zimbabwe, we can see what bad policy can do, turning the breadbasket of Africa into a basket case and a food importer. Or compare Venezuela and Colombia. Their colonial experiences were similar, they were once one country and Venezuela had the advantage of massive oil reserves. None of it matters if your policies are bad enough. Price controls, seizure of private property and general thuggish incompetence have turned Venezuela into a disaster. Enough of the soft bigotry of low expectations; some countries have done much better than any plausible comparator because of good policy. We should praise those who did and decry those who didn’t. Ethiopia and Tanzania both started stupid campaigns of collectivisation leading to mass famine. Tanzania stopped, Ethiopia kept going. If we see idiocy we should call it out, good policy we should praise it.

sanxiyn 8y ago
Note: there is genuine uncertainty around what good economic policies are. For example, South Korea became rich by blatantly ignoring advices by world economists. Back then, everyone recommended ISI(import substitution industrialization), but South Korea tried ELI(export led industrialization) and succeeded. Another example is land reform. US was against South Korea land reform because it reminded of communism, but recent research suggests land reform dismantling landowner class was critical to South Korea's success.
- barry-cotter 8y ago
  There’s uncertainty on the details of good economic policy. Hong Kong grew rich with a policy of unilateral free trade and no government growth or industrialisation policy to speak of. What isn’t in dispute is that secure private property and a functioning legal system work better than the alternatives. There’s no point in investing in anything if the government will be along shortly to take everything. Even where the government are less rapacious they can mess things up, see India’s Licence Raj, and the increase in growth rates after the repeal of most of the government controls of industry. There is a lot of disagreement on the best economic policy, there’s very little on good economic policy, and that’s 80 or 90% of the way to the best. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licence_Raj http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licence_Raj
  - sanxiyn 8y ago
    Hong Kong is a super special exception that does not generalize. Approximately everyone became rich by using industrial policy: read Kicking Away the Ladder for detailed historical research. Our understanding of growth economics is not very good, so history is better guide than theory. Experience of China and South Korea shows you can be very flexible about secure private property and functioning legal system. Or market capitalism and democracy for that matter. South Korea freely used eminent domain to build infrastructures like highway. It also declared everyone should trash all their electronics so that country can upgrade transmission voltage from 110V to 220V to reduce loss. Both decisions are considered good in retrospective. What seems to be essential is investment in infrastructures like water, electricity, and transportation. You mentioned Ethiopia. It stopped stupid collectivization and is doing rather well recently. It's kind of mystifying why World Bank and like are against projects like Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. World Bank was also against South Korea's Soyang Dam, so it had to borrow from Japan. (Ethiopia is borrowing from China.)