3 ms·

> they are the same "industrial policies" that japan, south korea, and the u.s (and many other advanced countries) used to develop rapidly and fully At a very

> they are the same "industrial policies" that japan, south korea, and the u.s (and many other advanced countries) used to develop rapidly and fully At a very high level yes. But when you look closer, not at all. Abenomics for example, can be contrasted with Reagonimics [1]. Because while there are some similarities, there are also important differences. But more importantly, why does this matter? No one said the Chinese government used "special secrets" for the wildly successful past two decades. The original question was "when will China start". You seem to be of the same view as everyone else here: they already did start. You also avoided the question I asked. Can you answer it? Why didn't China's rapid rise out of poverty happen to other "3rd world" nations? Some poor countries have the same industrial policies as the US but aren't quickly rising out of poverty. You need to explain why China is different. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-JRTB-18051 https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-JRTB-18051

andrekandre 4y ago
> Abenomics for example, can be contrasted with Reagonimics [1] oh definitely what i was referring specifically to was the period of dramatic growth and improvement in quality of life, so japan up until the 90s, the us until around the end of the 60s etc in those periods, they had real honest-to-god industrial policies how they wanted to direct research and development, improve technology and investment etc abenomics and regonomics are basically the opposite and signal the neoliberal turn in thinking > The original question was "when will China start". You seem to be of the same view as everyone else here: they already did start. sorry, maybe i missed that, but anyways i agree with you 100% > You also avoided the question I asked. Can you answer it? Why didn't China's rapid rise out of poverty happen to other "3rd world" nations? i didn't know i avoided it, but im happy to try and answer ^^ > Some poor countries have the same industrial policies as the US but aren't quickly rising out of poverty. You need to explain why China is different. as i alluded to earlier, the us and many other "1st world" countries had mostly given up on what is called "industrial policy" and directed investments that gave them so much growth and prosperity in the early days. following neoliberal economic thinking (mainstreamed in the 70s) that austerity and free-market economics (including allowing vast monopolies) and privatization of public services would somehow bring everlasting high growth (supply-side economics) but instead results in lower growth, higher costs (just look at cost of healthcare in the us) and bigger wealth-gap causing all kinds of issues many "3rd world" countries followed those neoliberal economic policies and quickly found out that austerity and privatization of too many public services (to name just a few things) just caused collapse and chaos, and then they cant pay off their imf loans meaning... more privatization and austerity as part of the condition to extend payments (this just causes a downward spiral and locks many countries in and almost "debt peonage" type of situation) --- actually this is really a long discussion hard to do in hn, but probably we are more in agreement than disagreement i am guessing but if you have a different perspective im very curious to see your explanation as well, so please by all means ^^

andrekandre 4y ago

> Abenomics for example, can be contrasted with Reagonimics [1] oh definitely what i was referring specifically to was the period of dramatic growth and improvement in quality of life, so japan up until the 90s, the us until around the end of the 60s etc in those periods, they had real honest-to-god industrial policies how they wanted to direct research and development, improve technology and investment etc abenomics and regonomics are basically the opposite and signal the neoliberal turn in thinking > The original question was "when will China start". You seem to be of the same view as everyone else here: they already did start. sorry, maybe i missed that, but anyways i agree with you 100% > You also avoided the question I asked. Can you answer it? Why didn't China's rapid rise out of poverty happen to other "3rd world" nations? i didn't know i avoided it, but im happy to try and answer ^^ > Some poor countries have the same industrial policies as the US but aren't quickly rising out of poverty. You need to explain why China is different. as i alluded to earlier, the us and many other "1st world" countries had mostly given up on what is called "industrial policy" and directed investments that gave them so much growth and prosperity in the early days. following neoliberal economic thinking (mainstreamed in the 70s) that austerity and free-market economics (including allowing vast monopolies) and privatization of public services would somehow bring everlasting high growth (supply-side economics) but instead results in lower growth, higher costs (just look at cost of healthcare in the us) and bigger wealth-gap causing all kinds of issues many "3rd world" countries followed those neoliberal economic policies and quickly found out that austerity and privatization of too many public services (to name just a few things) just caused collapse and chaos, and then they cant pay off their imf loans meaning... more privatization and austerity as part of the condition to extend payments (this just causes a downward spiral and locks many countries in and almost "debt peonage" type of situation) --- actually this is really a long discussion hard to do in hn, but probably we are more in agreement than disagreement i am guessing but if you have a different perspective im very curious to see your explanation as well, so please by all means ^^