3 ms·

> If we narrowly pursued our comparative advantage without government investing in tech Why are you holding government R&D as mutually exclusive of free trade

> If we narrowly pursued our comparative advantage without government investing in tech Why are you holding government R&D as mutually exclusive of free trade policy and an open economy? > we'd be just trading in furs and stuff. Asinine straw man. > rather than be stuck undeveloped, enslaved to comparative advantage, we stole trade secrets from the more powerful nation, heavily subsidized R&D Either/or fallacy once again. > All the Asian tiger countries avoided almost all of our free trade advice and did heavily protectionist policies in order to achieve their rapid development. This statement is laughably false. Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan are practically famous for having leveraged free trade and open economies to catapult to economic stardom. On the whole, this is a stunningly poor counterargument. It's so lacking in sense that it reads like it was generated by GPT-3.

cma 5y ago
> This statement is laughably false. Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan are practically famous for having leveraged free trade and open economies to catapult to economic stardom. The state played a heavy role in all of them: "The four countries were inspired by Japan's evident success, and they collectively pursued the same goal by investing in the same categories: infrastructure and education." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Asian_Tigers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Asian_Tigers Re: protectionism and South Korea I think Ha-Joon Chang covered the development of their steel industry (a later big force behind their "free trade" auto industry) for an example of extreme protectionism in the book I linked. Samsung is practically corporate-state. Once capabilities are developed and become a comparative advantage for a state, they encourage free trade in them and attack others' subsidies as being protectionist by benefiting the upstart state's local industry instead of pursuing comparative advantage in menial labor, natural resources, etc. (Chang's book Kicking Away the Ladder is about this I think).

cma 5y ago

> This statement is laughably false. Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan are practically famous for having leveraged free trade and open economies to catapult to economic stardom. The state played a heavy role in all of them: "The four countries were inspired by Japan's evident success, and they collectively pursued the same goal by investing in the same categories: infrastructure and education." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Asian_Tigers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Asian_Tigers Re: protectionism and South Korea I think Ha-Joon Chang covered the development of their steel industry (a later big force behind their "free trade" auto industry) for an example of extreme protectionism in the book I linked. Samsung is practically corporate-state. Once capabilities are developed and become a comparative advantage for a state, they encourage free trade in them and attack others' subsidies as being protectionist by benefiting the upstart state's local industry instead of pursuing comparative advantage in menial labor, natural resources, etc. (Chang's book Kicking Away the Ladder is about this I think).