Acabas de recitar como perico los tipicos cliches del caracter del Mexicano, que no explican la situacion socioeconomica del pais. El Libro Bad Samaritans rescata testimonios historicos de un comerciante australiano recitando las mismas quejas y topicos de algunas sociedades atrasadas... Japon y Alemania hace 100 años.
Por cierto, se te cae un poquito la ideologia. Digo, tus ejemplos resultan un poco parciales. Pero bueno, solo por dar una explicacion alterna a tu otro comentario: La queda de "los ricos deben pagar impuestos" mas que realcionarse con la "envidia", es una observacion mas relacionada a la realidad de que la productividad de las empresas y las ganancias siguen subiendo (con el famosisimo PIB), sin embargo los salarios medios en Mexico estan estancados y la recaudacion que sostiene los servicios sociales no crece al mismo ritmo gracias a los agujeros fiscales que se aprovechan algunas empresas e individuos, es decir un llamado a mantener la proporcionalidad de los impuestos (un mandato que incluso recoje la constitucion).
May be interesting https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596915986
Sometimes it feels like our entire political economy is locked into extinct ideological framing and are fighting over how to pull is to one or the other nonsensical extreme.
Do you know that in every sentence you've made I need to give you hours and hours explanation.. There is a remotely good book with facts that could answer to your question, the book called Bad Samaritans here . I hope you'll enjoy realizing what is real history is
In his book Bad Samaritians, South Korean economist Ha- Joon Chang demonstrated that western neoliberal thinkers want developing countries to change their policies to open markets in order to facilitate economic growth but there is not much evidence of open markets generating the economic trade.
TBH Ha-Joon's book is very important to people who intend to understand developmental economics.
China isn't a communist country. They've been running a ~400 billion dollar trade surplus with the US. In fact, read this book and you'll see how what China has done since Deng is the exact same thing Hamilton did in the US after the American Revolution and what England did in the 16th century to the Flemish wool industry.
American innovation stems from heavy government investments in research in after-war years. GPS, Internet and many many other things were conceived in governmental agencies and then later given for free to companies to dominate the global market.
Most innovative companies have root in government-funded technologies or where straight-up funded by government. I recommend you the book Bad Samaritans, the author shows many examples of such thing.
>theory
its a spherical cow that does not exist in reality
> free-er trade
weasel word that can mean anything at all
again, we can see the booms in japan, korea and the asian tiger economies for very clear examples of domestic protectionism that has had resounding successes.
as well as china, which has had the largest economic boom in human history and totally cheated on trade via currency pegging and unfair trade tactics
maybe you should read a book about it
I assume you are simply uneducated on these fact
https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596915986
I think you and I aren't going to see eye-to-eye here on these subjects. We both agree that these jobs are going to be automated, so I'm perfectly happy having these jobs that will eventually go away stay here for the interim. At least this way, folks have jobs before automation eventually removes them. Without a strong safety-net and public welfare system offshoring the jobs effectively creates the situation now that automation eventually will. And we're no where near ready as a society mentally and politically to deal with the fallout of automation.
As for tariffs, those have a long and sordid history. According to Ha-Joon Chang the countries that are doing well now, European countries, US, Japan, South Korea, China, Taiwan, and others got that way by using tariffs to their advantage. They keep tariffs high in certain sectors so that their budding companies and industries could flourish internally until they were ready to compete globally. So tariffs and free trade aren't necessarily as clear cut as "free-trade good, tariffs bad". If you have something you would like me to check out, send a link, I'd like to read more on the subject.
Are they really "playing against the rules" though?
I agree that the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution were disasters, but it seems their current actions are still following the rules of how to become a super power.
Because if you look at the history of developed countries, they all went through a pattern of protectionism, stealing technology, and doing everything possible to ensure they keep increasing in power.
So in the case of the South China Seas, it's a critical area both in resources, but also strategically, as they can't allow other nations to box them in.
That's why it seems they are still following the "actual" system of becoming a truly developed nation.
Trumps trade policy is actually smart and dead on.
Free trade is not beneficial to 1st world countries that want to make stuff. 1st world companies cannot compete with a penny an hour labor 3rd world companies that have zero trade restrictions to sell to those 1st world customers. OR multi-nat companies that use 3rd world labor to make stuff to sell to 1st world customers (hint: what do the 1st world people do for work)
That's economics 101. Free trade is as crazy as a 3rd party corporation printing a sovereign government's money then charging that country interest on the "loans" that that 3rd party corporation (federal reserve) lends by printing money to give to the government.
see Ha Joon Changs book- bad Samaritans
About how free trade has always been lies and how good governments have a much stronger role in trade and commerce that we think.
take the red pill of business and economics.
Just read about South Korea's industrial economic development? A good source for this is South Korean economist Ha-Joon Chang, in several of his works (like his excellent work "Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism"), where he sums up how his own country developed in the preface. Not only that, but he also criticizes the idea of criticizing other countries for "stealing technology", or for being overtly protectionist; it's literally the foundation of any country developing its own economy. The US, Germany and the rest of Europe did it against England in the 1800's. The Japanese against the US and Europe in the 1950's and 60's.
South Korea and the other "Asian Tigers" later on. South Korea was poorer than Africa in 1960. Then the foundation for the industrialization started, with decades of extreme government protectionism, with high levels of investment, ban on import goods (or high restrictions), and foreign technological equipment being imported and copied en masse (even to this day, certain forms of capital flight in the Asian countries are punishable by death). In the 80's you'd see smaller South Korean businesses import IBM machines, take them apart and make their own versions. That's how they started, and eventually they reached a point where they could stand on their own feet. Today they have some of the most innovate corporations in the world; they are among the top 5 countries that apply for new patents in the world. The other 3 countries are the US, Japan and China.
Japan did the exact same thing as I said (just look at how they developed their car industry for example -- and interestingly how the US responded to superior Japanese competition in this area; namely by protectionist measures in the 80's), and China is still undergoing the process we are discussing. They are also already hugely innovative, being the no. 1 on the list applied patents.
The hypocrisy is amazing. Britain, Germany, America certainly had no problems with stealing intellectual property [see below] or erecting huge barriers to trade [https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596915986/]. In fact, they even invaded and drugged a nation to steal wealth [https://www.amazon.com/Chinese-Opium-Wars-Jack-Beeching/dp/0156170949/].
IP theft is a century's long Western tradition
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-05-26/china-didn-t-invent-industrial-espionage
http://www.amazon.com/For-All-Tea-China-Favorite/dp/0143118749
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/26/a_nation_of_outlaws/?page=full
http://www.amazon.com/Operation-Paperclip-Intelligence-Program-Scientists/dp/0316221031/
>a) How unfair China is to foreign companies because they steal IP
Half truth. All nations steal ip. The master is America with its illegal global spying. Also, developing nations are allowed by WTO to gain access to tech. Market access in exchange for some ip is a business transaction - not "theft".
>b) They manipulate their currency
Everyone does. This is outdated. The rmb has been appreciating. The biggest scammer is the usa with their petrodollar scam that steals from everyone every time they print money all usd holders suffer inflation eg their money buys less than before.
>c) They impose tariffs on US goods to protect their economy
Everyone does. The west is a giant hypocrite that erected huge market barriers to develop. Currently, they use bullshit like "national security" [Huawei, Toshiba], law warfare [Alstom], extended ip laws, and economic sabotage [Huawei] to block competition.
https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596915986/
BTW, these same cunts forced Japan to manipulate their currency upward [Plaza Accord] to make their exports UNcompetitively priced, which led to their decades of stagnation.
>d) China's state-owned enterprises are unfair competition
Everyone does this. Pharma giants gets free research from National Institutes of Health. Google/facebook has funding/ties to CIA/military. Internet spun off of arpanet which came from DARPA. Boeing gets giant gov contracts. Lots of consumer products were spun off of free gov military research. Silicon Valley was the result of intense gov funding. There is even a law called "buy American" that forces us gov to buy from American suppliers. UsAid is a subsidy for us agriculture and others. In the case of us agr, they wage predatory pricing to kill off foreign competitors and then monopolize their markets. And, their military is the muscle for the oligarchy to overthrow governments and take over markets. http://www.amazon.com/War-Racket-Antiwar-Americas-Decorated/dp/0922915865/ and https://i.imgur.com/OMawpLS.jpg
These whites are full of shit. I barely scratched the surface.
I would not explain this to your average Trump supporter. He is destroying the usa. Don't interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake.
both, Ha-Joon Chang goes over a lot of examples (check out Singapore's state controlled companies).
Ha-Joon Chang is a development economist at Cambridge, his book Bad Samaritans blew my mind. It's the best teardown of neoliberalism I've ever read.
This talk he gave is a great summary of the book https://youtu.be/T5-ojv5-b3U
Mark Blyth is also one of my favorites on the topic https://youtu.be/BsqGITb0W4A
Except that Danish private debt is offset by their large assets and pensions http://www.nationalbanken.dk/en/publications/themes/Pages/Household-wealth-and-debt.aspx
Meanwhile they have low public debt, unlike many other european countries that have high amounts of both, barring Germany.
Washingpost is behind a pay wall.
ISIS isn't worth hundreds of billions in domestic or foreign military spending.
I didn't say that mass migration didn't carry problems. I'm saying you shouldn't have a Muslim ban and that these ppl aren't subhuman.
No shitkicker, that's revisionist history, free markets did not build the west. It was Hamiltonian economics of targeted investment, regulation of foreign ownership, capital controls, tariffs, subsidies, beefing up domestic industry to make it competitive globally. There's no such thing as a 1st world economy that developed using laissez faire policies you rube https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596915986/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1501344161&sr=8-1&keywords=bad+samaritans
Russians are even poorer than they were under communism you rube. Eastern europe is an example of free market failure. The only thing keeping them afloat is capital flows from the ECB, IMF, and other large european countries, otherwise they'd implode.
If u want to talk about the east, look at how the 4 asian tigers developed. They forcefully redistributed land from the aristocracy ffs, so they could redistribute it to peasants so they could get more productivity per acre, instead of the free market alternative in central america where the rich took over land to keep their competitors from using it and 90% of the profits went overseas.
Here's 2 books you can read about china fucking everyone over on trade. both on the macro level here
https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596915986
and the micro level here
https://www.amazon.com/Factory-Man-Furniture-Offshoring-American/dp/031623141X
is it my fault you're a naive fuck who thinks china will abide by these SELF REPORTING bullshit metrics?
What's the informed opinion on trade-skeptical economists? E.g. Ha Joon-Chang, and post-Keynesians from Tufts University. I've been talking about free trade with some well educated and politically active people who strongly believe the mainstream economics is wrong about free trade, primarily citing the infant industry argument and unjustified optimism about the invisible hand.
As part of these neoliberal free trade agreements, foreign countries are forced to accept into their economies goods made by American corporations, as well as the goods made by other first-world industrialized nations. (You're right, a lot of these goods are not actually made in America, but overseas). I'm getting my information on this from this book.
Anyway, a developing nation many times cannot possibly compete with goods made by large multinational corporations, American or otherwise. Historically, the developed nations used high tariffs on foreign goods to protect their nascent industries. So, for example, when Japan was developing its auto industry, it put high tariffs on American cars so it was not economically feasible to import them, and Japan only allowed as many car imports as were necessary. The first cars Toyota ever produced were fairly terrible, literally falling apart as they came off the assembly lines. But people bought them because the cars were all that was available due to the high tariffs on imports. In time, Toyotas got a lot better, and after number of years became quality cars that are in demand worldwide. But this would have never happened for Toyota had it been forced to compete with foreign imported cars from the beginning. The Japanese would have simply bought American cars because they were better.
Through neoliberal trade deals, we force developing nations to accept the goods of American corporations and don't allow them to put tariffs on them. Many times, these deals deny developing nations access to money from the World Bank and the IMF if they put tariffs on American goods. So, we now deny developing nations the protections we ourselves used to get our own industrial economy off the ground. In this way, we exacerbate and prolong world poverty in the name of short term corporate profits. It's truly sad, because a more developed and industrialized world would do much to alleviate world poverty and unrest.
Nobody said 100% closed trade was ideal. The overwhelming majority of wealthy countries adopted a 3rd way of development economics to get out of poverty. They used tariffs, protectionism, subsidies, etc. to develop their economy at the expense of importers. i.e. the US had tariffs as high as 30-40% during the height of their GDP growth. Japan, for example, had a really shitty auto industry, but their ministry of trade kept bailing out Toyota and imposed import quotas on US car manufacturers until Toyota was finally competent. It's called the infant industry argument.
That's because you don't think there is any other way to reduce global poverty, which is understandable. Those jobs are the not the miraculous poverty irradiators you think they are. Often, those jobs are held over the heads of the goverment leaders in those countries for leverage. Governments are prevented from enforcing labor protection or stiffer environmental regulations by threat of companies packing up and moving to more "business friendly" areas. It's extortion and it actually keeps wages from going up very much. If the western countries really wanted to eradicate poverty, they could do it much more easily and quickly. Here's a good article on the subject, and the economist Ha-Joon Chang wrote a great book about it.
Im just repeating information that came from this economist.
https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596915986
> Ok there, buckaroo. Whatever you say.
So you admit you fail to understand basic US history because you have a poor education. Got it.
> How do you explain the increases in standard of living over time otherwise?
In what country, specifically? Read about the history of liberal democratic governments's roles in fostering mixed-market economies. Some increases in wealth of some countries began with pillaging during colonialism, surplus wealth generated through chattel slavery that spurred the industrial revolution, the rise of selective state interventions in certain sectors ie infant industries, the mid-20th century mixed market, etc.
You don't have an answer.
> Non-dominant firms have, and do, consistently accumulate capital because every consumer has different needs.
Your claim that people who have money should dictate how public funds are spent is essentially advocating oligarchy. You're ignorant of basic political economic concepts.
> advantageous allocation of capital?
"Advantageous allocation of capital" is a meaningless phrase. There are man factors that account for certain countries' rise in wealth - it certainly isn't a result of oligarchies, as you advocate. Again, you're too ignorant and uneducated to even begin to grasp the actual, objective history of developed, modern, mixed-market systems.
> Peasants going to hate.
Bigoted Grosse Pointers gonna deny basic history. I thought GP valued education?
> I'll admit that I am no anachro-capitalist
Which is basically you admitting that you neither understand basic political theory nor basic economic history. You're free to believe whatever ignorant strain of thought you choose, but you're yet incapable of defending or backing it up.
> You've been having a lot of trouble with this concept
Why are you incapable of understanding fundamentals of rights theory? Is it because you've never studied basic US history or political theory? Because you have no God-given right to own a gun. Again, you live in a toothless, poor-informed fantasyland. Can't argue with the wilfully uninformed.
> I am not the one calling for poll tests over there,
You're contriving fabricated strawmen because you're too cowardly to argue in good faith? Got it. Logic fails you.
> They didn't go to the moon, I don't care.
You're ignorant of basic geography and history and you're proud.
You sound like a classic anarcho-capitalist: ignorant of basic history and world affairs, too lazy to read, too childish to care. Your education has failed you.
Wow you're wrong on alot of things. First off Sanders never said anything was free. He just wants health insurance and college to be regulated and paid for through taxes so they'll be astronomically cheaper and more widely available than our existing systems. Look I'm shit faced and don't feel like having an entire economic debate (unless you ask me specific economic questions), so here's a book I recommend: https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596915986/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1488581719&sr=1-1&keywords=bad+samaritans
Not just opening up, but by having protectionist policies that helped their economy grow.
China's recent success also follows this practice of protecting it's national industry and growing it.
For more, check out this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596915986
> They would also be pretty unhappy if you told them that they had to walk to the grocery store instead of taking a bus or driving a car.
Actaully they would be unhappy, but only because they would see rich people driving by them.
If the entire country suddenly had to walk to the store, people would be fine with it. It would suck at first, but as I said, the issue is the income GAP, not GDP.
>Quick.. start informing people in China that economic growth isn't that important. Millions of people are being pulled out of poverty every day.
Standard /r/econ talking point. "Its ok, some people over there got out of poverty". No one who pushed free trade agreements ever gave a shit about poor people in china.
The thing is... China might have done just as well withotu those agreements. And mexico had better per capita income growth before NAFTA. The overall GDP has risen since then, but per capita income has stagnated... the reason for that is that mexico now has rich billionaires, so while GDP has gone up, NAFTA didn't really help the average worker. NAFTA increased the income gap. Interesting that free trade makes things worse.
>The article you cited looks nice, but it doesn't give us the entire picture. But it's good for cherry picking feel good stories to justify welfare.
Come on, /r/econ shouts 'lots of chinese are less poor now!' and that's not cherry picking?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/world/africa/02malawi.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Here is another article that explains why free trade and neoliberalism is a sham.
http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596915986
This book also talks about it.
Im not sure if youre the guy I already said this stuff to, if so, sorry. I just lose interest in these discussions, people are not open minded here much at all.
Lets get rid of copyright and patent laws, if you are so eager to remove global poverty. S Korea gained it's success by pirating the software and books to educate its people. If it had had to pay more for books and software, it would have been able to educate many less people. Instead decades ago they stole books and software and many people there were able to get educations.
So... we're all about eliminating poverty around the globe right? Lets remove patents and copyright laws, and allow our knowledge and IP to flow freely into these poor nations!
Suddenly, freedom isn't so appealing, is it? Now all the business and tech people suddenly get all protectionist. Funny how that is.
Anyone interested in following up on just how right /u/Yackity-Yack is on this subject, please refer to this
Incorrect, virtually every rich country became rich because government protected their own industries until they could compete on their own. You probably think Japan setting import quotas on foreign cars and subsidizing failing companies like Toyota multiple until they stopped sucking is a good example of 'free markets'.
http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596915986
Virtually every other country that tried neo-liberal reforms of free trade/less government intervention stayed poor.
I see you weren't convinced by my Banana in Canada during winter argument.
Well it's a broad point that needs to be made. I'm not going to go over every one of the logistical solutions for food security for the world but we can start with a few simple issues. For example, neo-liberal trade policies and the war against protectionism that the WTO and IMF have waged on the third world has made their agricultural sectors increasingly focused on propping up their export economies.
Due to the increase in demand for food stuffs to be exported internationally the intranational price has gone up beyond what most of the population can afford to pay.
The solution to this, and a boat load of other issues, is mostly to abandon neo-liberal trade policy as it really isn't doing anyone very much good other than wealthy first world nations. You can read Bad Samaritans by Ha-Joon Chang if you need further convincing of that.
Plan B 4.0 is also a great source for solving the vast majority of the world's problems. Plan B argues, if my memory serves me correctly, that most of the worlds food issues can be solved by a combination of infrastructure development, localization, and reconfiguring of our farming priorities to suit human needs.
For example, currently, "Twenty-six percent of the Planet's ice-free land is used for livestock grazing and 33 percent of croplands are used for livestock feed production." Similarly increased demand for biofuels has produced increased food insecurity.
If we shift our focus again, Africa and South America contain 80% of the world's agricultural land reserves. Decreased export pressure on developing nations and increases in aid would allow those two continents to develop food security locally, which is very important given the way that hunger is distributed geographically.
Anyways, just to reiterate, most of our problems are very easily solved. It's a really interesting question to ask why aren't they being solved then. I've read a lot of interesting arguments by people either arguing that what is a problem for a third world nation is profit for a first, which is definitely true in a lot of these cases. Other cases are less sinister, some problems are more difficult to solve than others, or some people in control of some aspect of development generally mean well, but are incompetent. However, a serious amount of our developmental problems are caused by Neo-liberal economics (once again I refer you to Bad Samaritans... It's really eye opening), which really shouldn't be part of our developmental world view anymore.
edit:
>-edit- Sure, with a mountain of money, it's no problem. We don't have unlimited fuel for transport, unlimited people time to find out and process the logistics, unlimited resources to make infrastructure to deliver the goods, ...
We need a fantastically small portion of our resources in order to achieve developmental goals. As I said in my original post, the entire plan B budget can be achieved with 13% of the 2008 total world military budget or about 1/3rd of the US military budget. This may surprise you, but organizations such as the FAO actually commission many studies each year about how to solve the problems we face. Then they release detailed action plans such as this one describing how to do it. It's just that nobody chooses to do it.
Have him read this book:
Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism