|
Helsing posted:Some policy options are different but there are some very striking similarities in terms of circumstances and strategy that show up in the history of successfully developed countries its foolhardy to dismiss or ignore them. Taiwan wasn't affected much at all. Second, to say that they countries fall under the category of "booming growth and lax government regulation" is sort of the opposite of the situation. South Korea's government was played a major role both in setting broader goals for the economy and in setting micro level policies. In return it gave businesses all the credit they wanted and more, which led to the later crisis, but that's not the same thing as lax regulation by any means.
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 06:24 |
|
|
The problem with this entire argument is simple- a big part of the reason growth has been "bad" is because the ISI-fueled growth that the paper above touts above was the definition of an unsustainable bubble. Latin American governments propped up their inefficient (i.e. wages too high/productivity too low to be truly competitive on the world market) industries through heavy borrowing and the end result was a huge economic crisis when the credit ran out. Latin American countries didn't move away from ISI because they were tricked by nefarious advocates of the free market, they did so because ISI was a disaster. Growth rates in America from 2001-2007 were reasonably good, but that doesn't mean we should start another subprime bubble to boost growth. Mercantilism isn't necessarily bad, but if you the industries you protect never produce anything people abroad want you're going straight down a dead end.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:There's been some noise That China is just about to overtake the United states as the largest economy in the world by Purchasing Power Parity I dont know if this really means anything because it's not really as decisive as GDP per capita is in terms of true economic power but I guess the wind is blowing in that direction, doesnt mean that china is ACTUALLY a more developed country than the US by a long shot. India: the third most developed country in the world. (you might be missing a step here...)
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 08:35
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSS7N0MG03P20140603?irpc=932 rip gordon chang, until next month.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 08:26
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/09/world/asia/china-naked-officials/index.html Honestly, I can't even be positive about that. You can enact sumptuary laws, arrest 100 umpteen corrupt officials, execute 100 billion of them and so on, but as long as the legal system is a joke and connections are needed to get anything done the problem won't be solved. Anti-corruption campaigns have been going on for ages and they've always been wildly ineffective. dilbertschalter fucked around with this message at 14:51 on Jun 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Yeah the response was more to the question "do democratic countries fare better than undemocratic ones". I think the issue isn't quite as much democratic vs. undemocratic as it is whether or not there's something resembling a rule of law (though I think there's a strong correlation- it's difficult, though not impossible, for authoritarian countries to force themselves not to act in an arbitrary manner). Basically, when the government doesn't have to follow its own laws/regulations, the correct way navigate the system is to often behave in a "lawless" manner yourself.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
Pimpmust posted:Sea level rise is gonna be trouble for the Yancheng, Shanghai, Tianjin, Weifang and the Guangzhou areas. Yeah, the Yangtze River Delta has been the economic/cultural heartland of China most of the last thousand years and even fairly "small" rises in sea level doom it. One thing that I'm sad about (in a morbid and terrible way) is that I probably won't be around to see some of the insane engineering projects the Chinese government dreams up to deal with sea level rise.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 12:12
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Uh, no, democratic China would probably fracture instantly between the rich ultracapitalist cities and the countryside who are still dreaming of Cultural Revolution Part 2. Also it's a hell of a big ask for the Chinese institutions of power to deliver free and fair elections. The second point you raise is a very real problem, the first is just CPC style scaremongering.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2014 13:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 06:24 |
|
|
Fangz posted:On what basis do you think that suggesting tremendous ideological and economic division would lead to political divisiveness is just scaremongering? "fracture sharply" implies some sort of dramatic crack-up. Obviously the rural-urban divide would be a big issue, but many countries are quite intensely divided and manage to be democratic all the same (democratic government is, in fact, a highly effective means of resolving grievances/divisions between competing regions). As for "sorting out" corruption, the corruption isn't something that is actually tackled or reduced by "anti-corruption campaigns" of that sort we're seeing now- rather, it depends on the existence of a rule law and of general trust in government, both of which are awfully non-existent in the current Chinese system. quote:There's an urban-rural divide pretty much everywhere (there certainly is in the US and parts of Europe), it's just especially dangerous in China because there's about equal numbers of each group and there's an institutional bias against the rural people (hukou et all). Which is itself a direct product of an authoritarian government (wanna-be totalitarian at the time) trying to enforce social stability, not something that was or is destined to exist forever because of immutable conditions. dilbertschalter fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Sep 25, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2014 16:44
|
|