|
|
#41
11-22-2005, 01:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Heavy investment
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I would only point out that one of the economic issues that economists of all political stripes almost universally agree on is the stupidity of protectionism. Its very short sighted thinking. [/ QUOTE ] It is especially stupid for economists who invest heavily in multi national corporations. [/ QUOTE ] Wow that was a great response. Why dont you google comparative advantage and continue on from there? I also highly recommend that you read Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson. It deals with the economic fallacy of protectionism quite clearly and succinctly. 
|
|
#42
11-22-2005, 02:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Heavy investment
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I would only point out that one of the economic issues that economists of all political stripes almost universally agree on is the stupidity of protectionism. Its very short sighted thinking. [/ QUOTE ] It is especially stupid for economists who invest heavily in multi national corporations. [/ QUOTE ] Wow that was a great response. Why dont you google comparative advantage and continue on from there? I also highly recommend that you read Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson. It deals with the economic fallacy of protectionism quite clearly and succinctly. [/ QUOTE ] Spare me the economics lesson. I understand the principles behind free market economics. The problem is not with theoretical free market economics. The problem is with how the model is being implemented in the world right now, and who it benefits. If you don't think interventionist policies didn't economically benefit many of the 3rd world countries whose economies boomed inthe 70's, you are nuts.
|
|
#43
11-22-2005, 07:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Heavy investment
[ QUOTE ]
Spare me the economics lesson. I understand the principles behind free market economics. The problem is not with theoretical free market economics. The problem is with how the model is being implemented in the world right now, and who it benefits. [/ QUOTE ] Wow. What a meaningless, banal statement. What, specifically, is the problem with how free trade is being implemented? You don't just state "there's a problem" and then not explain what the problem is. [ QUOTE ] If you don't think interventionist policies didn't economically benefit many of the 3rd world countries whose economies boomed inthe 70's, you are nuts. [/ QUOTE ] Please, enlighten me. What interventionist policies worked, and what were the logical reasons why? Will
|
|
#44
11-22-2005, 08:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Heavy investment
If you compare South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong to thier neighbors China, Vietnam, and NK I think it becomes clear that less government involvement has been a pretty good thing.
Also, some of the protectionist policies in Japan and elsewhere are partially responsible for the Asian Financial Crisis of 97-98 as well as the nearly 15 year recession in Japan. China and India did horribly for most of this century, and only AFTER disgarding thier socialist tenencies have they started to prosper. The state run enterprises in China still lose money, they just have more private ones now.
|
|
#45
11-22-2005, 09:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Heavy investment
[ QUOTE ]
If you compare South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong to thier neighbors China, Vietnam, and NK I think it becomes clear that less government involvement has been a pretty good thing. [/ QUOTE ] You are fighting a losing battle if you want to draw upon East Asia for support of laissez-faire. China has achieved the most spectacular run of economic growth in modern world history with a very interventionist economy. First Japan, and subsequently South Korea and Taiwan grew very rapidly in the post-war period with economic models that were also interventionist in many key respects. Hong Kong is interesting in that it is perhaps the only example of a late developing state in modern history that has ever substantially closed the gap with more developed countries under a laissez-faire model.
|
|
#46
11-22-2005, 09:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Heavy investment
His charge is that government involvement is what made Japan, etc. prosperous. I made a comparison to its neighbors to show government intervention doesn't help.
Even in China today, the more government the worse it works. Those state owned factories still destroy value. It is private companies that are largely exempt from China's governmental rules that are propering the most. Also, many interventionist policies pursued by Japan have resulted in thier 15 year recession. They have been trying to get rid of them, not add to them.
|
|
#48
11-22-2005, 10:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: \"What\'s good for General Motors, is good for America!\"
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] That's what inevitably happens when you pay your help too much for too long. [/ QUOTE ] The funny thing is that the people working for Toyota, Honda, Nissan, and other foreign automakers in the US make just about the same per hour as the unionized UAW workers. GM would still be making money if they would MAKE SOME CARS THAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY WANTED TO BUY! Jim Cramer on mad money said GM is one of the worst managed companies in history - and while they are losing all this money the CEO and other higher ups are still making millions upon millions of dollars per year. The faliure at GM was not caused by their workers - it was caused by bad and incompetent manangement. [/ QUOTE ] Patently untrue. GM's avg cost for health care and pension benefits per car is $1,360. Honda's US plants average $107 per car. There are currently 1.1 million people collecting benefits from GM. Less than 20% of these are actually working for GM today. Japanese companies pay nothing for health care costs at home because of socialized medicine. And this info came from none other than the website Mr. Cramer founded... [/ QUOTE ] I was talking about the per hour wage, which is what I thought the op was talking about.
|
|
#49
11-22-2005, 10:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Heavy investment
[ QUOTE ]
His charge is that government involvement is what made Japan, etc. prosperous. I made a comparison to its neighbors to show government intervention doesn't help. [/ QUOTE ] The more one studies these things, the more it becomes obvious that it is analytically useless to talk in blanket terms about the effects of "government intervention." But if you look at these cases, it is also obvious that certain forms of government intervention were absolutely critical to their success. There is nobody who is a serious student of Japanese or Korean developmental history who really disputes this. [ QUOTE ] Even in China today, the more government the worse it works. Those state owned factories still destroy value. It is private companies that are largely exempt from China's governmental rules that are propering the most. [/ QUOTE ] The state-owned enterprises are probably disasters, but that is only one (extreme) form of government intervention. Others, especially those that have secured political stability as a byproduct, may have been absolutely critical. Your statement that "the more government the worse it works" is basically unsupportable. Political economy is far more complex than you think, and blanket propositions like thse are almost always wrong. [ QUOTE ] Also, many interventionist policies pursued by Japan have resulted in thier 15 year recession. They have been trying to get rid of them, not add to them. [/ QUOTE ] Some interventionist policies have certainly contributed to the recession. But the primary problem are political - the lack of political will to deal with the banking sector and really allocate certain costs and the realities of dealing with an aging population.
|
|
#50
11-22-2005, 11:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Heavy investment
sam h is exactly right. It is useless to talk about East Asian (or Southeast Asian) economic development without talking about "demographic gift" and "demographic burden." Population factors are absolutely instrumental in the stagnating Japanese economy.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
