3 ms·

these countries were always agrarian economies that had enourmous GDP numbers due to their sheer population numbers which supported a minuscule wealthy landed e

by kwere 4y ago

these countries were always agrarian economies that had enourmous GDP numbers due to their sheer population numbers which supported a minuscule wealthy landed elite, nothing comparable to industrialised and service based economies. Explotation was always limited, first due to tecnological limits, so it cant be used to describe systemic failure in decades spans. The culpript for stagnation is easily found in Centralization, mindless bureaucratization, socialism and commando economy idiocy both in Cina and India, and how things improved when approaches changed after decades of stagnation at best. >in the US a person would need to have just 1 vacation instead of 3, while in India someone can put some food in their table and allow their kids to go to college this is a view of economics which put the center of economic productivity in raw workhours and not organizations and capital. Not true in most cases, the competitivity of poor countries outside of manpower intensive Industries (es: garments, which moved out of china in 2018 due to labour cost) is low to no regulation on (bad) business practicies which increase shareholder values edit: economics are not for the most part zero sum games

ausudhz 4y ago
> these countries were always agrarian economies that had enourmous GDP numbers due to their sheer population numbers which supported a minuscule wealthy landed elite, nothing comparable to industrialised and service based economies. Nothing different than a service based economy where a huge percentage of people live paycheck to paycheck and supports wealthy billionaires. What are you trying to prove? Because what you say has not meaning and point whatsoever. We could even argue that certain technologies advantage were reached by China before the west and people like Marco Polo have made their fortune trading them (without going there and start wars for example). Does that make them a "agrarian economy"? They were doing trades with Europe and Asia before America was even discovered (and to that extent before Jesus was born). Unless you've any evidence of what you just said, you just made an empty argument. > this is a view of economics which put the center of economic productivity in raw workhours I never talked about this, you're playing a movie in your head and that is the output of your own imagination. The point I was making is in contradiction to the previous post that mentions how globalism made the west poorer while enriching other countries. The reason is that with the previous era (colonialist) the west lived above their mean because of the exploitation that was perpetrated elsewhere (Africa and Asia). Now that these countries have added values in their economy which resulted in uplifting their own citizen to a better living standard is creating some trouble in the west.

by kwere 4y ago

ausudhz 4y ago

> these countries were always agrarian economies that had enourmous GDP numbers due to their sheer population numbers which supported a minuscule wealthy landed elite, nothing comparable to industrialised and service based economies. Nothing different than a service based economy where a huge percentage of people live paycheck to paycheck and supports wealthy billionaires. What are you trying to prove? Because what you say has not meaning and point whatsoever. We could even argue that certain technologies advantage were reached by China before the west and people like Marco Polo have made their fortune trading them (without going there and start wars for example). Does that make them a "agrarian economy"? They were doing trades with Europe and Asia before America was even discovered (and to that extent before Jesus was born). Unless you've any evidence of what you just said, you just made an empty argument. > this is a view of economics which put the center of economic productivity in raw workhours I never talked about this, you're playing a movie in your head and that is the output of your own imagination. The point I was making is in contradiction to the previous post that mentions how globalism made the west poorer while enriching other countries. The reason is that with the previous era (colonialist) the west lived above their mean because of the exploitation that was perpetrated elsewhere (Africa and Asia). Now that these countries have added values in their economy which resulted in uplifting their own citizen to a better living standard is creating some trouble in the west.