5 ms·

> The economic system is the only KEY differenciator to build an economy Are you kidding? Socio-cultural values, religious beliefs, natural resources, foreign

by lukifer 15y ago

> The economic system is the only KEY differenciator to build an economy Are you kidding? Socio-cultural values, religious beliefs, natural resources, foreign policy, domestic policy, monetary systems, infrastructure, none of these things matter at all? Your inferences from history might have value if we had a reliable World Simulator, where we could change and control variables at will and observe the results. But we don't; extrapolating any kind of simple narrative from history pretty much guarantees you're at least partially wrong. Reality is complex, and is under no obligation to work in ways that make intuitive sense to us talking monkeys.

ekianjo 15y ago
Socio-cultural values. Japan has totally different values from the US. China, same.Apparently that does not prevent them from all being prettu successful economically speaking. Religious beliefs. Huh ? Japan, China, same as previous point. Totally different from Europe or US. But otherwise pretty successful countries. Where's the correlation between economy and religion? Natural resources. Japan has no access to natural resources on their land. Singapore has no resources. Luxemburg has no resources. Switzerland has no resources. Holland has no resources. Funny how all those countries have rather healthy economies. Foreign policy Agree on that one. But policies which do not support free exchange of goods tend to do rather badly. Cuba, anyone? Domestic policy Domestic policy in China and in the US are totally different - you will find very few common points there. That does not seem to impact significantly their economic success, at least on the short term. Monetary systems You have a point there, but since all countries have abandoned the Gold standard for long, basically we are all on fiat currency currently, no matter in which part of the world you live in. Money is now paper everywhere, it's hardly a differentiator. Infrastructure Infrastructure usually derived from an economic system. It's when you have a growing economy and growing needs that you worry about infrastructures. Building roads and airports when people are starving is useless. So, not many of the things you mentioned matter at all, I'm afraid. But feel free to prove me wrong.
- lukifer 15y ago
  You're implying direct causal links. I'm talking about synergies, all the components I mentioned (and many others I didn't) operating together as a system. Religion affects how people vote. Voting affects foreign policy. Foreign policy affects international trade. And on and on. For a more concrete example: American capitalism isn't composed just of our currency and the laws on the books regarding incorporation, property, etc. It includes our belief systems about capitalism: the American Dream, Horatio Algers, Ayn Rand, "greed is good", the invisible hand, build a better mousetrap, and on and on. It includes the moral values of consumers, who might make a purchasing decision based on whether it has a green label, or says "Made in the USA". It includes the expectations of workers regarding conditions: Chinese workers put up with the conditions at FoxConn, whereas most Americans would quit or strike (for now, anyway). > But policies which do not support free exchange of goods tend to do rather badly. I challenge you to give me an example of a society that engages in a completely free exchange of goods. Even proto-libertarian countries like Switzerland still outlaw trade of certain things (drugs, organs, humans), levy taxes of some kind, and socialize some economic activity (health care, public safety). The only countries that do not are those without a functioning government, in which case trade cannot be free, because there is nothing stopping someone from taking what they want by force. That said, I agree with the notion that societies do better when they allow people to become rich. But I take umbrage with the idea that our flavor of capitalism is inherently the best one, and the only other alternative is to become Cuba.
  - ekianjo 15y ago
    If you phrase it this way, I can agree with some of your points. I think, more than "allowing people to become rich", I would state "respect and recognition of private property" a an important philosophical factor to enable economic growth. As of today, I have yet to hear about societies where "everything belongs to everyone" ending up being economically successful. So that might be one trait leading to success or improvement. As for the free movement of goods, I know there is no country in the world following pure free market policies. Therefore it is also unfair to judge free market based on the numerous imperfect application of its principles. Note, however, that we do have examples of societies working well without central government, such as the early days of the "Wild West" societies in the US. Those societies were basically growing at an exponential rate at the time with an ongoing flow of immigrants, while managing to self-control and police themselves. The book "The Not so Wild Wild West" explains this point very well, if you are interested to read about this. One last thing. Obviously not every country has to follow either free market or end up like Cuba, however there is a clear trend: when a society decides to indulge in welfare and collectivism, it almost never goes back and ends up going bankrupt and ruining everyone. I do not know how familiar you are with the current situation in Europe, but over the past 30 years you could see the trend of massive public debt (fueled by government intervention in all aspects of private life) growing and growing over time. And now you get Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, close to bankrupcy. Hardly a coincidence.
- Intermernet 15y ago
  Just to throw a spanner in the works, Australia has VERY similar socio-cultural values as the USA, lots of natural resources, racist foreign policy, US based financial infrastructure (free trade, anyone) and really, we're quite different from the USA in many ways. Not sure how this fits with the geographic based theories on climate vs. behavior.
- batista 15y ago
  Socio-cultural values. Japan has totally different values from the US. China, same. Apparently that does not prevent them from all being prettu successful economically speaking. Religious beliefs. Huh ? Japan, China, same as previous point. Totally different from Europe or US. But otherwise pretty successful countries. Where's the correlation between economy and religion? Your argumentation continues in the same vain. But he didn't said that Socio-cultural values have to be THE SAME for economic success. He said that socio-cultural values are a FACTOR for economic success, which is a quite different thing. For example, regarding cultural values: Japan has different values from the US, and China too. That doesn't mean that those kinds of values (Japan/China and US values) are not ALL suited for a successful economy, and a country with a different set of values (say, Mexico) wouldn't do as well. So, the correlation of social values to economic success (which no economist/sociologist really argues against btw), is not that only ONE kind of value system can produce economic success, it's that different value systems do either well or bad on economy. Same for religion, etc. Natural resources. Japan has no access to natural resources on their land. Singapore has no resources. Luxemburg has no resources. Switzerland has no resources. Holland has no resources. Funny how all those countries have rather healthy economies. Funny, how all those countries have different KINDS of economies. Natural resources is a huge factor for China or US like economic success. Not for Singapore (= a corporate hub), not for Kayman Islands (= a tax shelter), etc. That said, Japan without easy ACCESS to natural resources, on the other hand, would have been a complete failure.

by lukifer 15y ago

ekianjo 15y ago

Socio-cultural values. Japan has totally different values from the US. China, same.Apparently that does not prevent them from all being prettu successful economically speaking. Religious beliefs. Huh ? Japan, China, same as previous point. Totally different from Europe or US. But otherwise pretty successful countries. Where's the correlation between economy and religion? Natural resources. Japan has no access to natural resources on their land. Singapore has no resources. Luxemburg has no resources. Switzerland has no resources. Holland has no resources. Funny how all those countries have rather healthy economies. Foreign policy Agree on that one. But policies which do not support free exchange of goods tend to do rather badly. Cuba, anyone? Domestic policy Domestic policy in China and in the US are totally different - you will find very few common points there. That does not seem to impact significantly their economic success, at least on the short term. Monetary systems You have a point there, but since all countries have abandoned the Gold standard for long, basically we are all on fiat currency currently, no matter in which part of the world you live in. Money is now paper everywhere, it's hardly a differentiator. Infrastructure Infrastructure usually derived from an economic system. It's when you have a growing economy and growing needs that you worry about infrastructures. Building roads and airports when people are starving is useless. So, not many of the things you mentioned matter at all, I'm afraid. But feel free to prove me wrong.

lukifer 15y ago
You're implying direct causal links. I'm talking about synergies, all the components I mentioned (and many others I didn't) operating together as a system. Religion affects how people vote. Voting affects foreign policy. Foreign policy affects international trade. And on and on. For a more concrete example: American capitalism isn't composed just of our currency and the laws on the books regarding incorporation, property, etc. It includes our belief systems about capitalism: the American Dream, Horatio Algers, Ayn Rand, "greed is good", the invisible hand, build a better mousetrap, and on and on. It includes the moral values of consumers, who might make a purchasing decision based on whether it has a green label, or says "Made in the USA". It includes the expectations of workers regarding conditions: Chinese workers put up with the conditions at FoxConn, whereas most Americans would quit or strike (for now, anyway). > But policies which do not support free exchange of goods tend to do rather badly. I challenge you to give me an example of a society that engages in a completely free exchange of goods. Even proto-libertarian countries like Switzerland still outlaw trade of certain things (drugs, organs, humans), levy taxes of some kind, and socialize some economic activity (health care, public safety). The only countries that do not are those without a functioning government, in which case trade cannot be free, because there is nothing stopping someone from taking what they want by force. That said, I agree with the notion that societies do better when they allow people to become rich. But I take umbrage with the idea that our flavor of capitalism is inherently the best one, and the only other alternative is to become Cuba.
- ekianjo 15y ago
  If you phrase it this way, I can agree with some of your points. I think, more than "allowing people to become rich", I would state "respect and recognition of private property" a an important philosophical factor to enable economic growth. As of today, I have yet to hear about societies where "everything belongs to everyone" ending up being economically successful. So that might be one trait leading to success or improvement. As for the free movement of goods, I know there is no country in the world following pure free market policies. Therefore it is also unfair to judge free market based on the numerous imperfect application of its principles. Note, however, that we do have examples of societies working well without central government, such as the early days of the "Wild West" societies in the US. Those societies were basically growing at an exponential rate at the time with an ongoing flow of immigrants, while managing to self-control and police themselves. The book "The Not so Wild Wild West" explains this point very well, if you are interested to read about this. One last thing. Obviously not every country has to follow either free market or end up like Cuba, however there is a clear trend: when a society decides to indulge in welfare and collectivism, it almost never goes back and ends up going bankrupt and ruining everyone. I do not know how familiar you are with the current situation in Europe, but over the past 30 years you could see the trend of massive public debt (fueled by government intervention in all aspects of private life) growing and growing over time. And now you get Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, close to bankrupcy. Hardly a coincidence.
Intermernet 15y ago
Just to throw a spanner in the works, Australia has VERY similar socio-cultural values as the USA, lots of natural resources, racist foreign policy, US based financial infrastructure (free trade, anyone) and really, we're quite different from the USA in many ways. Not sure how this fits with the geographic based theories on climate vs. behavior.
batista 15y ago
Socio-cultural values. Japan has totally different values from the US. China, same. Apparently that does not prevent them from all being prettu successful economically speaking. Religious beliefs. Huh ? Japan, China, same as previous point. Totally different from Europe or US. But otherwise pretty successful countries. Where's the correlation between economy and religion? Your argumentation continues in the same vain. But he didn't said that Socio-cultural values have to be THE SAME for economic success. He said that socio-cultural values are a FACTOR for economic success, which is a quite different thing. For example, regarding cultural values: Japan has different values from the US, and China too. That doesn't mean that those kinds of values (Japan/China and US values) are not ALL suited for a successful economy, and a country with a different set of values (say, Mexico) wouldn't do as well. So, the correlation of social values to economic success (which no economist/sociologist really argues against btw), is not that only ONE kind of value system can produce economic success, it's that different value systems do either well or bad on economy. Same for religion, etc. Natural resources. Japan has no access to natural resources on their land. Singapore has no resources. Luxemburg has no resources. Switzerland has no resources. Holland has no resources. Funny how all those countries have rather healthy economies. Funny, how all those countries have different KINDS of economies. Natural resources is a huge factor for China or US like economic success. Not for Singapore (= a corporate hub), not for Kayman Islands (= a tax shelter), etc. That said, Japan without easy ACCESS to natural resources, on the other hand, would have been a complete failure.