|
Guavanaut posted:Like GulMadred said though, being as there are still areas of the world with high birth rates, it would be easier and more pleasant to import more immigrants than to defund health and education or bribe/pressure people to breed more. Racists and nationalists don't like it but lol I'd rather see a system in which demographic sustainability wasn't achieved through a wholesale uprooting and "importing" (what an unfortunate word, lol) of people subjected to suffering and economic injustice at home, hth.
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2015 10:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 01:56 |
|
|
asdf32 posted:China has sustained growth through periods of US and western recession. And at this stage the first world is diminishing in terms of its share of world consumption. Chinese economic growth is 100% thanks to government spending and government agencies juicing their budgets as much as possible. The typical cycle of development in China looks something like this - the central government relaxes fiscal and monetary regulations placed on local governments; local officials begin competing for places in central national organizations; the best way to win favour is to ensure excellent growth figures; local governments start spending as fast as possible on local investments, often before they even can attract businesses willing to use these developments, or without much consideration for practical usefulness of new infrastructure projects; local finances become strained (as growth is financed through locally sourced revenue streams without central support or coordination, which makes regional economies vulnerable); central government is called in to stabilize the situation, limits the ability of the local officials to spend until situation stabilizes, thus ending the current cycle of growth. Some reading: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2014/wp1404.pdf https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/wp13243.pdf Similarly difference in regional ability to secure revenue sources for decentralized fiscal policies is a major driving force behind widening regional wealth gaps in China, showing that government spending is a key to starting and sustaining growth: http://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/63529/1/517991365.pdf steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Sep 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
Those specific papers mainly discuss changing form of local funds post the crisis, but they do not claim the overall scheme is limited to post-2009, in fact they make references to relevant historical legislation. Also they make salient points as to why a chart such as the one you provide is pointless in a country with decentralized fiscal policy. In fact the paper https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/wp13243.pdf Shows that investment to GDP ratio in China, the relevant indicator of government economic stimulation, is the highest of all major economies, see page 9. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Sep 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Middle income countries are basically Latin America, China, Russia and Eastern Europe, along with the less hosed up parts of SE Asia and the ME like Turkey and Malaysia The contrast between Latin America and Eastern Europe, including Turkey, is quite illustrative of the main problem facing these countries, I think. Eastern Europe has been doing really well, almost invariably, since the fall of the Iron Curtain, and especially since the beginning of their EEC association. Latin America in contrast has been generally struggling, for decades, to get out of stagnation. There are some apparent possible causes, like different structural paths of development, but the truth is that even countries that didn't rely on e.g. the structural shortcut (i.e. skipping to a service economy without having prior extensive industrial economy), that is mostly countries influenced by the doctrine of Latin American structuralism (Celso Furtado etc.), and which as a result followed a path similar to that of Eastern European countries before the 1990s (national interventionism in preferred industries with little focus on securing foreign investments and emphasis on income distribution), saw themselves falling into one crisis after another. So what is the key difference between the winners and losers in this middle income category? I'd argue it's a systematic predisposition for protectionism in the Latin American countries, borne arguably out of the structuralist legacy and intrenched in institutional path dependency, vs. dedication to open markets in Eastern Europe, Turkey etc., even if such dedication had to be enforced from above, by intergovernmental and supranational processes.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:So is it safe to say that it's nearly impossible to have good job growth without reasonably low interest rates? Very low interest rates sustained for a long time will probably lead to a bubble and job loss, so the answer is that while moderate or high interest rates don't stimulate job growth per se, they are important to actually protect jobs from imploding. E; FB, should read all replies before posting.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 07:15
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:The classic middle income trap countries seem to all have monstrous inequality. Makes sense from the Kuznets Curve theoretical perspective. Badger of Basra posted:Is there any interesting data on what inequality was like in advanced countries before 1945, say? http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2011/09/picture.htm This article has some graphs for couple dozen countries between 1900 and 2010, unfortunately their resolution is pretty awful.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 01:56 |
|
|
asdf32 posted:In the export market. They very well may have remained protected at home but that doesn't help Hyundai sell Excels in the U.S. The domestic market was tiny and their growth was fueled by exports. And again, besides increasing trade in general this encouraged continued improvements because while the government may have been happy to subsidize it had every reason to want greater return and that meant industry needed to compete on the global market. Right, also the Latin Ameriican states suffered from what I called path dependency: Their bureaucratic authorities responsible for economic policies were not interested in resisting the import substitution elites, it was easier for them to approve budgets helping the import substitution industries, than to deal with the fact those industries were a drain on national welfare.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2015 02:16
|
|