4 ms·

Poorer countries like Romania and Poland benefited more than richer countries like Austria and Luxemburg (exception were intermediate countries like Greece and

Poorer countries like Romania and Poland benefited more than richer countries like Austria and Luxemburg (exception were intermediate countries like Greece and Italy that piled on too much debt). This was planned (called EU convergence), and is a victory of bureaucratic planning. Whatever you think of the goals or methods, I think it's awe inspiring that an organization can plan and follow through with a plan on multi-decade time horizon.

rayiner 11mo ago
[flagged]
- ekjhgkejhgk 11mo ago
  > Moreover, I’m not sure Germany, France, etc., voted to join the EU under the promise to sacrifice their own growth—they have significantly underperformed the U.S. over this time frame—to facilitate the development of eastern europe. Can you provide evidence that Germany, France, sacrificed their own growth? Unless you know something that I don't, what I see is that you're imagining a zero sum situation which is well known doesn't apply to things like markets. That they underperformed the US isn't not evidence of that. Germany and France underperformed the US in the time period, and in the last 100 years too.
  - rayiner 11mo ago
    That's how I understood your thesis: "This was planned (called EU convergence), and is a victory of bureaucratic planning." If you don't think Germany and France sacrificed their own growth, what exactly do you think "EU convergence" means?
    - immibis 11mo ago
      Why should I only grow 1.8% while you grow 2%, when it would be much fairer if we both grew 0%?
      - ekjhgkejhgk 11mo ago
        It's clear that you have no clue economics, as hinted by the comical numbers that you chose to pick for your disengenious example.
    - ekjhgkejhgk 11mo ago
      > If you don't think Germany and France sacrificed their own growth, what exactly do you think "EU convergence" means? Convergence doesn't refer to growth rates approaching, but incomes (per capita) appproaching. It doesn't mean that the richer countries grow slower than otherwise. They might grow the same, or faster. The claim is something along the lines of: Without planned convergence: country G grows 2% per year starting from income of 30k/capita and country P grows %1 per year starting from income to 10k/capita. Country P will never approach country G in income/capita. With planned convergence: country G grows 2% per year starting from income of 30k/capita and country P grows %4 per year starting from income to 10k/capita. The two countries's income per capita will converge. Economics and counterfactuals are devilishily complicated subjects, but claim isn't complicated.
      - rayiner 11mo ago
        But what does any of that have to do with the EU or bureaucratic planning? It seems to me like Poland was poised to grow quickly as it transitioned from communism to capitalism with or without the EU.
- alde 11mo ago
  Soviet-aligned countries that didn't join the EU did much worse than those that did.
  - KellyCriterion 10mo ago
    If you take a look at the payments across the EU from richer to poorer countries, its quite clear why this happened: The EU invested everything to pamper them to make the "EU favorable for them".
- lbreakjai 11mo ago
  This is not a zero sum game. Germany should have benefited tremendously from Poland getting much richer.
  - ekjhgkejhgk 11mo ago
    Yes, in fact I've heard people argue the opposite point, that EU benefits Germany more than the rest of the EU countries. The argument starts from Germany being more competitive than most EU countries. Protection from external trade is usually needed so that an industry can home brew and reach competitive or almost-competitive state, and trade barriers are then removed to keep improving against competition. But with competition in place you can't go from zero to one in established industries. The result, the argument goes, is that Germany ends up owning entire industries within the EU. But some people cannot conceive that some arrangements can be win-win.
rvba 11mo ago
That's how the maths works though. If you are a farmer in Africa you buy one scythe for 10 dollars and your productivity increases by 100% If you are a farmer in Denmark you buy the second tractor and your productity increases by 20%. Also nothing was planned. If rhis was planned then USA losing and China winning was planned too. Just globalization meaning everyone goes towards optimum
- ekjhgkejhgk 11mo ago
  > Just globalization meaning everyone goes towards optimum You're a free market fundamentalist. This isn't an insult. I'm describing what I see. Someone who says "if you don't plan things will turn out the best possible" is a free market fundamentalist.
  - rvba 11mo ago
    I am not a fundamentalist. I describe what happens - world is converging due to market forces. Also free market? China is for example not open - you cannot fully own a company there as an investment. EU market is converging towards optimum - and countries like Poland are still at 50% of level of Germany
    - ekjhgkejhgk 11mo ago
      > I am not a fundamentalist. > Just globalization meaning everyone goes towards optimum

rayiner 11mo ago

[flagged]

ekjhgkejhgk 11mo ago
> Moreover, I’m not sure Germany, France, etc., voted to join the EU under the promise to sacrifice their own growth—they have significantly underperformed the U.S. over this time frame—to facilitate the development of eastern europe. Can you provide evidence that Germany, France, sacrificed their own growth? Unless you know something that I don't, what I see is that you're imagining a zero sum situation which is well known doesn't apply to things like markets. That they underperformed the US isn't not evidence of that. Germany and France underperformed the US in the time period, and in the last 100 years too.
- rayiner 11mo ago
  That's how I understood your thesis: "This was planned (called EU convergence), and is a victory of bureaucratic planning." If you don't think Germany and France sacrificed their own growth, what exactly do you think "EU convergence" means?
  - immibis 11mo ago
    Why should I only grow 1.8% while you grow 2%, when it would be much fairer if we both grew 0%?
    - ekjhgkejhgk 11mo ago
      It's clear that you have no clue economics, as hinted by the comical numbers that you chose to pick for your disengenious example.
  - ekjhgkejhgk 11mo ago
    > If you don't think Germany and France sacrificed their own growth, what exactly do you think "EU convergence" means? Convergence doesn't refer to growth rates approaching, but incomes (per capita) appproaching. It doesn't mean that the richer countries grow slower than otherwise. They might grow the same, or faster. The claim is something along the lines of: Without planned convergence: country G grows 2% per year starting from income of 30k/capita and country P grows %1 per year starting from income to 10k/capita. Country P will never approach country G in income/capita. With planned convergence: country G grows 2% per year starting from income of 30k/capita and country P grows %4 per year starting from income to 10k/capita. The two countries's income per capita will converge. Economics and counterfactuals are devilishily complicated subjects, but claim isn't complicated.
    - rayiner 11mo ago
      But what does any of that have to do with the EU or bureaucratic planning? It seems to me like Poland was poised to grow quickly as it transitioned from communism to capitalism with or without the EU.
alde 11mo ago
Soviet-aligned countries that didn't join the EU did much worse than those that did.
- KellyCriterion 10mo ago
  If you take a look at the payments across the EU from richer to poorer countries, its quite clear why this happened: The EU invested everything to pamper them to make the "EU favorable for them".
lbreakjai 11mo ago
This is not a zero sum game. Germany should have benefited tremendously from Poland getting much richer.
- ekjhgkejhgk 11mo ago
  Yes, in fact I've heard people argue the opposite point, that EU benefits Germany more than the rest of the EU countries. The argument starts from Germany being more competitive than most EU countries. Protection from external trade is usually needed so that an industry can home brew and reach competitive or almost-competitive state, and trade barriers are then removed to keep improving against competition. But with competition in place you can't go from zero to one in established industries. The result, the argument goes, is that Germany ends up owning entire industries within the EU. But some people cannot conceive that some arrangements can be win-win.

rvba 11mo ago

That's how the maths works though. If you are a farmer in Africa you buy one scythe for 10 dollars and your productivity increases by 100% If you are a farmer in Denmark you buy the second tractor and your productity increases by 20%. Also nothing was planned. If rhis was planned then USA losing and China winning was planned too. Just globalization meaning everyone goes towards optimum

ekjhgkejhgk 11mo ago
> Just globalization meaning everyone goes towards optimum You're a free market fundamentalist. This isn't an insult. I'm describing what I see. Someone who says "if you don't plan things will turn out the best possible" is a free market fundamentalist.
- rvba 11mo ago
  I am not a fundamentalist. I describe what happens - world is converging due to market forces. Also free market? China is for example not open - you cannot fully own a company there as an investment. EU market is converging towards optimum - and countries like Poland are still at 50% of level of Germany
  - ekjhgkejhgk 11mo ago
    > I am not a fundamentalist. > Just globalization meaning everyone goes towards optimum