The best
Development & Growth Economics books:
Reddit reviews
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The best of Development & Growth Economics books by number of unique Reddit comments:
Top Reddit reviews mentioning Development & Growth Economics books:
According to Ha-Joon Chang, a developmental economist, it is because these countries have had periods of time in their history in which they were highly protectionist of their own industry and aimed at being export-oriented. In his book Kicking Away the Ladder, he mentions some of these policies which these countries had implemented:
- Introduction of state-owned model factories (pilot plants) in industries where the private sector was lacking
- Huge state role in building infrastructure such as rail
- Copying of successful foreign institutions and systems such as the army, civil law, criminal law, banking etc
- Tariffs to protect infant industries, subsidizing the import of raw materials
- In the case of Japan, their military build-up led to technological spillover
- Export subsidies to promote an export-oriented economy
- Tariff rebates for imported raw materials and machinery for export industries
- Indicative planning to reduce "wasteful competition"
I'd strongly recommend reading the book (you can find a pdf online, yarr) if you're interested about this. Many of these policies were not invented by the East Asian states, but by Britain, France, Prussia, the USA etc. They were just copied.
I recently read Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty - In the book Piketty suggests that the return on capital is now so much higher than the return on labor that traditional income taxes would not be very effective for increasing the tax contributions of the extremely wealthy. Let me know if I'm off-base here, but wouldn't a 90% top income tax bracket just hit a small number of very high earning professionals like doctors, lawyers, etc.?
This was predicted in the 90s in the book the Sovereign Individual, it just took a a couple decades for the Information Age to have the information easily available. The printing press was the last time we had huge changes in easy access to education/knowledge. The church lost so much power ever since the printing press was invented, the internet and information age has further damaged the perceived infallibility of large organizations that acquired power long ago.
With a $20 phone people can now learn and communicate information at a rate that we never thought possible.
They predicted things like cyber money and nationalism itself crumbling while politicians increase the big brother attempts. Its playing out remarkably accurate for a book written so long ago.
https://www.amazon.com/Sovereign-Individual-Mastering-Transition-Information/dp/0684832720/
El tema no es solo qué se exporta, ni principalmente eso, sino la industrialización de cada país.
Todos los países ricos en la actualidad -sin excepción- están altamente industrializados, y por ello todos los gobiernos del mundo, se supone, persiguen la industrialización. La polémica en México más bien es si es mejor el modelo de intervención del estado o el de "la mejor política industrial es no tener política industrial", el dejar al mercado la industrialización del país.
Te recomiendo un excelente libro, que explora la forma histórica cómo los países ricos se industrializaron: https://www.amazon.com/Kicking-Away-Ladder-Development-Perspective/dp/1843310279
El resumen es que, salvo unas cuantas excepciones, la vía fue en dos etapas: primero, el impuso a la industria propia mediante el proteccionismo del mercado local y la intervención del estado, y luego, el impuso del librecomercio sin trabas, una vez alcanzado un nivel de desarrollo industrial que permitía a las empresas nacionales competir internacionalmente.
En otras palabras, los países industrializados llegaron a esa condición haciendo lo contrario a lo que ellos mismo dicen que debemos hacer los otros países para llegar ahí.
Correct. Read Piketty's book Capital in the 21st century.
The market if left to its own devices, will over time, bring us all back to feudalism. As ever larger shares of wealth travel in ever fewer amount of hands. Someone eventually wins the Monopoly game.
I don't disagree that Piketey has probably got it right, that if we don't make it our business as regular people to transition into interest bearing stuff, by way of the market, we have trouble.
The real concern is that Boomers, most definitely did "break" America by way of acceding to the notion that they could have "everything" without having to work for it, the notion of "pay it later" or "leave it for the kids" is EXACTLY what became respectable during the 1980's.
It turned the United States from an aspirant republic capable or generating wealth by way of fostering upward mobility, and through decades of disinvestment in schools, healthcare and infrastructure, to say nothing of militarizing the civic services, we ended up in short order, in an Ayn Rand inspired dystopia, where the engineers and "smart people" all were told to work 80 hours a week and do well, the "moochers" did FAR worse, and at the end of the day the "best and brightest" got the shaft, at some raw outsourcing deal.
So while there are winners in our society, the Mark Z's, and Eric Princes of our society, they were going to do just fine whether fortune smiled heavily or lightly upon them, that they just make it clear, that in fact we've become a casino / winner take all type economy.
It's a massive regression, so instead of public services and intentionally socializing major industrial/economic benefit projects, we wait on the hopeful benevolent patronage of some hyperwealthy person who can personally fund moon-launches, mars colonies. One wonders if they don't name the first colony Galt's Gulch.
What's screwed up is to see the boomers vigorously fuck over their own children and grandchildren so they don't have to think too much about any sort of responsibility or cost to themselves.
The 'me' generation all the way.
This is the syllogism they are using.
A) Black people use this social program B) Republicans want to cut this social program
Therefore, Republicans want to cut social programs because Black people use them.
So if you want to cut welfare you hate black people. If you point out that the large majority of people who use welfare in America are not black, so why you hear, "DIBRPORITONALLHY BLACK." These people have no idea what a proportion is or what it should mean. Ask someone, "What is the proper proportion that something should be of another thing?" They have no idea and can't unpack it.
Bonus points, if instead of talking about disproportionate black people they instead say "people of color" you can ask them how they got so racist that they would use an old-timey racist phrase like "colored people" AND lump in all races into one group as if Cubans, and Italians, and Arabs and Indians and African Americans and Koreans are all the same, have no special identity that matters to them and their only feature is not being white. Sounds like a white supremacist talking point, doesn't it?
Edit: People should actually just read this book instead of launching misinformed and unrelated arguments against what I said. It turns out the professional academic goes into a little more detail and cites extensive sources, unlike my exceedingly brief reddit comment. Literally, go read a book. It's very short, because half of it is citations.
https://i.redd.it/rtkgeknpljl21.jpg This is from the father of the guy that leads the NRG the shithole that invented Brexit. Why don't people understand that people like JRM, Farage, Murdoch and Trump are narcissists or straight psychopath. I still don't get it why people don't see their dead eyes. They are a real danger, they orgenize via internet, and behind closed doors and want to rule the world, and its sadly no joke or conspirecy. What do you think Putin is doing? Read whats above and you know what he does. https://www.amazon.com/Sovereign-Individual-Mastering-Transition-Information/dp/0684832720
I think you will be surprised to learn that what you have come to understand about neoliberalism and the positions supported by this sub are not always in alignment.
Make sure to read <em>Why Nations Fail</em>. Your first book report is due in two weeks.
Jacob Rees-Mogg's dad Lord William Rees-Mogg wrote a book about it - ie about how to move your money off shore, not pay taxes, participate in the weakening of one's nation state by de-funding it, and profit on the demise of one's nation state. The book is the Sovereign Individual. Alistair Campbell has written about this matter.
> The crisis in VZ is a product of lack of diversification and an over reliance on the oil economy to fund social programs.
This is simply nonsense. The crisis in VZ is a product of:
- Price and currency controls
- Corruption and mismanagement in nationalized industries
> how does participation [this] make VZ an example of socialism?
It makes it a perfect example of everything Hayek predicted would result from central/collectivist economies. That the whole thing devolves into starvation and oppression is no head-scratcher. It's right on script.
They're so full of shit even before this.
https://www.amazon.com/Kicking-Away-Ladder-Development-Perspective/dp/1843310279/
https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596915986/
tldr=The west tells weak nations to adopt free trade yet it did the opposite when it was growing.
This is not a dumb though at all. The Sovereign Individual, 1997 goes through these ideas when the internet started to gain traction. Companies like Paypal have been inspired by this book (co-founder Peter Thiel especially). Although the technology wasn't ready back then people were inspired to automate as much as possible and remove the government's monopoly on violence. Arguably, people will start to behave more & more like political actors. I recommend reading the book. IgniteDAO has also been inspired by this idea. To be the first legal DAO in The Netherlands also hopefully should give us an edge with the government.
https://i.redd.it/rtkgeknpljl21.jpg This is from the father of the guy that leads the ERG the shithole that invented Brexit. Why don't people understand that people like JRM, Farage, Murdoch, and Trump are narcissists or straight psychopath. I still don't get it why people don't see their dead eyes. They are a real danger, they orgenize via internet, and behind closed doors and want to rule the world, and its sadly no joke or conspirecy. What do you think Putin is doing? Read whats above and you know what he does. Trump is a wannebe part of this network like McConnell and Tucker. Putin, the Arabfamilies, UK elites, US big Money work together. https://www.amazon.com/Sovereign-Individual-Mastering-Transition-Information/dp/0684832720 And plz don't buy the Book just wanted to show its in the open. So this nice guy is a MP of the UK parlaiment and he is an evil person. He wants cheap shoes and food for the workers, so he and his nazibrothers can revel in riches. He should explain why he gets money from russia, that little prick.
The disaster capitalism book: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sovereign-Individual-James-Dale-Davidson/dp/0684832720
​
>But in today's political landscape party lines just don't cut it any more - people are more single issue than that. We need a form of proportional representation in the future, otherwise our political system will continue to be paralysed for years to come.
Great point.
Anbefaler alle som er interessert i bistandspolitikk å lese Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa av Dambisa Moyo. Jeg synes FrP er en gjeng klovner, men ser man tilbake på alle de pengene som har gått med til bistand så er det grunn til å spørre seg hvorfor det ikke har fungert i Afrika.
Probably a good time to read The Road to Serfdom, or at least to flick through the brief illustrated version.
> Unfortunately, most countries practice bad economic policy, partly because the IMF / World Bank / rich country economic advisors got things really wrong. They recommended free markets and open borders, which are good for rich countries, but bad for developing ones. Developing countries need to start with planned economies, then phase in free market policies gradually and in the right order. Since rich country economists kept leading everyone astray, the only countries that developed properly were weird nationalist dictatorships and communist states that ignored the Western establishment out of spite. But now the economic establishment is starting to admit its mistakes, giving other countries a chance to catch up.
Scott, bless his soul, stays true to Quokka-speak, but I can't not suspect a Straussian reading here.
Also reminds me of Biden's attempts to create an «alternative to BRI with its debt-traps».
The article doesn't really seem to answer the question about Senegalese "wanting" Peace Corps Volunteers, most RPCVs/PCVs know that the host country government has to buy into Peace Corps and local communities have to ask for a volunteer. I think that the interesting thing is that a president of Senegal said that pursuing free markets helped pull a lot of countries out of poverty, and Africa didn't pursue that course so that is a problem and that countries that receive foreign aid haven't been able to develop as fast. I ran across a book on Amazon I didn't purchase:
It seems to promulgate the same idea that massive amounts of foreign aid cause problems as there is, obviously, corruption in a lot of countries and the massive influx of money destabilizes things.
HOWEVER, the Peace Corps, IMHO, isn't foreign aid, it is living with communities to promote change and capacity building, and not dumping in a lot of cash.
I'd take the article and the book (which I haven't read yet) with a big grain of salt as Forbes praises both of them, in addition to the Wall Street journal for the book. But I guess it is good to challenge your beliefs about how development should function and being too proud that America pumps billions into foreign aid every year.
You only need the part after "dp". Check this out:
Will take you to the same page as:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307719227/
Good URL hygiene is important!
Oh that's cute. You linked me Sowell. Now try reading a big boy economist: https://www.amazon.com/Capital-Twenty-Century-Thomas-Piketty/dp/067443000X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1496878948&sr=8-1&keywords=Capital+in+the+Twenty-First+Century
I know the math looks really hard but trust me, it won't be so bad.
I don't get your fixation on the raw number of shares someone holds it should be on the amount of money the have in it. If you have 100k worth of a company A with 10 shares and 100k worth of company B with 5 shares and they both pay a dividend of 10% you'll still get paid 10k from both companies regardless of the amount of shares you have.
I will agree though as I have numerous times throughout this thread that wealth inequality is a problem and I would 100% not want money being concentrated in the higher parts of society.
Yes I agree 10000% that the fed's lowered interest rates which have allowed for the growth of capital/assets to be higher than the growth in the economy leads to worsening wealth inequality, which Thomas Piketty extremely thoroughly discusses in his book Capital.
What I've been trying to get at (although badly, sorry slow day) is that given the circumstances that we've been dealt, and with the knowledge that the Fed's actions do help the economy recover and lessen the effects from a recession, and "as long as we don’t see inflation on the consumer side" during the Fed's efforts I dont see a problem with the lowered rates.
The main problem is how long it took the economy to recover and the length at which the fed kept it's policies in place, which I why I stated that I hope we start to see a continuation of the precovid labor market as well as large gains with wages so that the Fed can start to ease off its easy credit policies fast and asset prices can drop/stabilize.
I recommend <em>Capital in the 21st Century</em>. It's an extensive study of income, economy growth, capital, and how it all relates to the rising rates of inequality in the world. It finishes with tentative policy recommendations for governments to look into to counteract the inevitable market trends.
It's written by an economist, so it is kind of number heavy, but I think it's worth getting through.
Sorry ! Should be readable. The book is linked below:
https://www.amazon.com/Sovereign-Individual-Mastering-Transition-Information/dp/0684832720
20 pounds new on co.uk for the hardcover version. (Remember that amazon has excellent policies if you somehow get shipped a used version)
Just in case you don't like reading on pdf (I know I don't): https://www.amazon.co.uk/Age-Reason-Thomas-Paine/dp/1515090825/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1471357854&sr=8-4&keywords=age+of+reason 5 pounds
Not to make this political. But everyone should care. Global inequality is at all time highs.
We can feed and clothe the poor many times over and we choose not to. We destroy the environment and pollute our bodies in the name of economic growth. It ultimately leads to civil unrest, which we are experiencing now, because people can’t get by working full time jobs. They can’t afford health care. They can’t provide for their families. The middle class is disappearing and being replaced by what amounts to modern day slaves.
Capital in the Twenty First Century is on my reading list and covers some of these topics.
Discrimination and Disparities https://www.amazon.com/dp/1541645634/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_4kCuFb699QVY1
Her entire argument is trashed by a much more intelligent man than her. Thomas Sowell is the boss when it comes to these topics.
Quote him and watch them call him a racist. Then drop a picture of him. 😂
Oh, Krugman. It's a trope among economists that the plebs do not understand comparative advantage. They seem to loathe admitting that the idea is, in fact, not that hard, yet the assumptions its relevance hinges on are much harder to justify, so even reasonable people can persist in their skepticism. Krugman laments having to stoop to baby-talk, but it's precisely beyond the baby-talk level, the "wine and cloth" stuff, where the unadulterated virtue of free trade starts to unravel. Real nations have limited and unequal state capacity, human capital, resource pool, and they also have geopolitical ambitions, alliances, values beyond profit; which is precisely why they, not just some laymen, sometimes discard Ricardo and bail out of profitable international deals. How does America calculate Huawei-CCP ties and Taiwan sovereignty into its trade policy? How does China factor in the increase in dependence on a capricious partner who can weather separation better, thanks largely to its unprecedented role in the global financial system?
On net, Ricardian logic is sound and the case for international trade is still stronger than the case for autarky. But you do not need to look for "intellectuals" to have some legitimate holes in the narrative pointed out to you. Literally HuffPost would suffice. Or "Kicking away the ladder".
Most of us here expect oil production to peak soon/already, but people still keep posting articles about the details of how/when that's happening.
Same thing with demand destruction, it's interesting to talk about how it may collapse. Zeihan details how different regions of the world will collapse at different rates and why.
I'm not saying people here didn't see this coming or this is all original, it's just interesting to me to see different takes on how it all falls down.
Zeihan wrote a book called, The End of the World Is Just the Beginning: Mapping the Collapse of Globalization.
Wife and I are child free by choice but the teacher isnt wrong about the demographics shift
Read this if you have a chance