What's the best model for economic growth right now?

So this would mean no more Ferrari or extremely improved cars from this brand. No Really improved.

And houses: how would it be with building materials and room if you'd look at what can be produced a lot. In a system that focusses on it having all desired qualities and being available. And space is an issue.

But say building materials. Wouldn't this be only technical to produce as desired?

And space? There are vast lands in the world that are broad, lengthy and empty. And seem to go on and on and on.

And less motivation because of less dependency on work. Or motivation. Some common thought is that it could cost too much of this. But why would it? This can be researched. Though personally I wouldn't trust any research. About this it must be verifiable that the results are correct.
As far as I see this motivation thing will even be far better. Because this is the working of this sort of system. It unleashed enormous powers.

It unleashe-S-. A typo.

I said verifiable, so to anyone. At best. If possible. Like no one would trust his neighbour or anyone else with an enormous part of his fortune.

>What's the best model for economic growth right now?
Whoever has the highest growth rate right now, obviously.

>What is R&D and scientific management.

It's not that simple. One reason being that it could be short term or unsustainable growth.

If you're the leader of a bumfuck poor state, then the Beijing consensus is the way to go at the moment, but the effectiveness of this would be heavily dependent on economic capacity and semi-capable governance

Soviet Stalinist economy was never surpassed, you know.

The only problem is that IMF gonna have kittens, if you attempt to repeat it.

>The only problem is that IMF gonna have kittens, if you attempt to repeat it.
What do you mean by kittens?

>Soviet Stalinist economy was never surpassed, you know.
How was this never surpassed? As far as I know this was one of the worst economies thinkable. Not what it said it was and totally unmerciful.

...

>Soviet Stalinist economy was never surpassed, you know.

K

Free markets, free trade, limited to no government

>austrian school

These things that I posted here, no one really ever has anything better to do. But to make this happen. If it is this nice thing, it can actually succeed.

The only school of thought to have never been wrong yet

It depends on the country and its current level of development, its resources and the indicators one uses to measure economic growth (pure GDP versus overall welfare as in decline in scarcity, low levels of unemployment and high life expectation etc). In the (old) China model, we are now seeing the limitations of growth driven by cheap exports and foreign investment, as global demand has dropped, it now has a lot of overcapacity in various industrial sectors. Furthermore, it is now dealing with its neglect of the environment, which will take its toll on the health industry. Such a model should thus not be replicated.
Untrue, although China's policies were great at the time, it cannot be currently replicated. The developed nations' demand for cheap labor and products is declining. My first thoughts would be to develop the nations infrastructure to boost domestic trade, maintain a stable economic climate for investors, develop services sector.

Rothbard debunked the NIT/basic income idea decades ago. Each coming generation would have further incentive to take less stressful jobs leading to lower real wages and lower GDP in the long run. This would lead to people needing a higher amount of basic income and the cycle would continue until either the mountain of debt is too high to continue and the real private sector wages are unable to fund it

the OP is about models for economic growth. There is only a limited domestic market for firms to be able to grow, and to access foreign markets demands investments in infrastructure that private firms cannot individually afford. Furthermore, having limited or no government sounds like a lot of instability and also would mean mass exploitation of workers which probably erupt in (civil) war and thus hold off foreign investment

i think what he's saying is that stalinist industrialization was the best break-neck industrialization drive in modern history. The Soviet's total victory in WWII is proof of it.

Yes because look at all the civil wars and exploitation going on in Hong Kong!

fiscal haven is the most effective by far.Useless little villages like Lichestein have become the wealthiest countries in the world per capita due to this.

>caring about broad meaningless statistics
This is why you always be cucked by the government

Mixed markets, such as those found in Europe and America, with a balance between private industry and state intervention. We've tried both unhindered free markets and total state control, neither outperforms a balanced approach in the long run.

>We've tried both unhindered free markets
When?

The closest thing to a libertarian society that's ever existed was midieval iceland and reading about just makes you wonder how wonderful it would be if we applied it to today mises.org/library/medieval-iceland-and-absence-government

An oversized offshore banking sector leads to vulnerability though, much like being overdependent on a natural resource. Look what happened to Iceland and Cyprus.
I do agree that it's one of the best ways for a tiny country to outperform.

>Iceland and Cyprus
None are fiscal havens.FIscal havens usually create high paying jobs,and diversifies the economy in the long run.I mean Ireland is a nigh fiscal haven,and it made them wealthier than the UK for their first time in history.

Gilded Age? Free markets can build up a lot of wealth very quickly, but they also lead to terrible social inequality which in turn leads to social unrest. Turns out, even the rich are better off if some of their profits go to the masses.

>Gilded Age
As far as I know it was one of the periods of greatest economic growth in history.

monetarism is god tier, austrian school has too many memes

That was an amazing period of growth, and keep in mind that was after Lincoln wrecked the South's economy, started tariffs, created the income tax, and centralized the banking system even further. Imagine how amazing the growth would've been if the market actually was freer

>monetarism is god tier
It's too bad Greenspan single-handedly caused the housing crisis in 2008 ayy lmao

The E. Coli model.

Medieval Iceland was basically a bunch of tiny villages. Less than 50k people on the entire island, and most of them lived in autonomous hamlets. Reyjavik only had 600 people in 1800 and still barely 10k people at the beginning of the 20th century.
What worked for a medieval village that no one bothered to invade might not work for a modern state.

>None are fiscal havens
According to the Heritage foundation, Iceland is now roughly on the same level as Luxembourg in "economic freedom", even if it hasn't gone back to pre-crisis level.
Cyprus is not exactly a tax haven but:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Cyprus#Role_as_a_financial_hub
Also:
"The Cyprus legal system is founded on English law, and is therefore familiar to most international financiers. Cyprus's legislation was aligned with EU norms in the period leading up to EU accession in 2004. Restrictions on foreign direct investment were removed, permitting 100% foreign ownership in many cases. Foreign portfolio investment in the Cyprus Stock Exchange was also liberalized.[31] In 2002 a modern, business-friendly tax system was put in place with a 10% corporate tax rate, the lowest in the EU. Cyprus has concluded treaties on double taxation with more than 40 countries, and, as a member of the Eurozone, has no exchange restrictions. Non-residents and foreign investors may freely repatriate proceeds from investments in Cyprus."
In fact, given its location, shipping sector, fossil fuel sector and other factors, Cyprus is basically a failed Singapore.

>FIscal havens usually create high paying jobs,and diversifies the economy in the long run
And this didn't happen in Iceland and Cyprus?

Pretty much.

We are entering an age low growth and low demand.

Poor developing countries are fucked.

China (and the BRICS) pulled the manufacturing-led development ladder up with it.

Hong Kong is a result of being the only free market in China.

It feeds off of China's corruption. And now that China is liberalizing and modernizing, HK is slowly going down a long long hole.

>Luxembourg in "economic freedom"
Totally pointless.Chile is not a fiscal haven and is ranked 7.Australia is not a fiscal haven and is ranked 5.
>And this didn't happen in Iceland and Cyprus?
Iceland is pretty succesful and none are a fiscal haven m8

Directly related to industrialization.

Even fucking Communist Russia boomed during its industrialization period.

whatever gets the most technological progress and productive workers

And?It was still one of the most prosperous period in the US history,and recieved tons of migrants because it had beter wages than most of Europe.Putting as an example of failure is dumb as hell

(Me)
It can be that it takes a generation for it to succeed. Though as far as I see there are reasons why this does not have to be a problem.

All in all is a system whereby there is this kind of equality in income this powerful that its failure can be doubted. If you look at examples this should be clear. Personally I want to say: it is 100% certain that this is the most powerful and successful kind of system. But that is not how it works immediately in saying this sort of thing.

Some other thing is how to start it. It must be built in a correct way.

Hey, you were the one who claimed the gilded age was "free marker" not me. I was telling you that if there was free banking, free trade, no income tax, and the North hadn't depleted the economy of the South then MAYBE you would be able to associate it with something close to a free market

The problems (and benefits) of the Gilded age directly led to the reactionary fervor of the Progressive Age and eventually to the Great Depression.

Not the same user

>led to the reactionary fervor of the Progressive Age and eventually to the Great Depression.
How does this descredit the Gilded age?Either way the Great recession had a lot of causes,and the gilded age was just pure economic progress,with a population and economic boost

Cont*

Essentially GDP growth is not all there is to "progress".

Social stability is just as needed. Actually, even more so.

I don't know anything about how the economy worked exactly when Stalin ruled Russia. Basically I know that it was very painful to most people.

I am thinking of something that is right wing, and left wing based. And not just that. As well as other political positions.

>its failure can be doubted
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Harmony,_Indiana
And this one had the support of a millionaire behind it to subsidized it

LookRussia 1920-1955 was the fastest growing economy in the world.

Even without reading it, I can say that this is in no way deciding.

The book I'm currently reading at the moment, called capitalism with Chinese characteristics published by Cambridge suggests that the Beijing model meme is just a meme and not such a huge success. One problem is that it discriminates against local private companies in favour of foreign companies. A lot of the success of local companies such as lenovo was due to the fact that they had an extremely free capital market on its doorstep - Hong Kong.
It's pretty amazing what some peasants do, one got his family to buy two fridges from HK, he tinkered with them, set up a company that was eventually able to outcompete an American company. The legal maximum number of employees was 7 but he managed to get thousands.

How was it unstable m8? Millions of migrants came to the US every year due its high wages,and scholarization skyrocketed

>is in no way deciding
What do you mean?It was a place with total equity,that failed horribly,despite a millionaire throwing millions of dolars onto it.

>it is 100% certain that this is the most powerful and successful system

It has literally never been tried before you have no basis to say this. We have seen other welfare states however to look at and show us that the real income of the poor in lowered every passing generation leading to a continuation of leeching. This is the unfortunate state of blacks in the US who refuse to get educated and take real jobs because they can combine their welfare and minimum wage jobs to live semi-comfortably anyway

I suddenly feel as if talking bad about Russia. And I don't mean to do this. The first thing about this is, I think, that as far as I know this is not their habit.

Being able to mass produce tanks isn't exactly welfare maximising. The south Korea model should be preferable with a market system in place but the government provides cheap loans to businessmen who have to complete internationally with the government supporting the winners. This was quite necessary as there was a capital market failure. Free markets don't work if there is no market at all.

Also with Stalinism there was a large trade off between current consumption and future consumption. He essentially impoverished one generation so that an other could be better off. Some compromise is needed.

Technocratic Franquism

I'm saying short term Russia was fucking amazing, but their system was inherently socially instable.

All those changes caused the future instability that nearly destroyed America.

The SK/Japan/Taiwan model is literally China's model + US aid and preferential trade deals.

Look it up.

>All those changes caused the future instability that nearly destroyed America.
No. The great depression were just banks giving too easy loans and people misinvesting. And this was mainly due the Fed created in 1913

That info graphic is dreadful.
It's almost as bad as the "anarchists increased production in catalonia" meme with no evidence behind it.

F R E E
T R A D E

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Asian_model_of_capitalism

Probably the best model for development in homogenous nations

I think it is interesting to have look at. But I just know that the mistake was...er...(I'm not reading it, but thinking)...What is THE mistake in that sort of thing.....?

Well, first of all, it is not "done" to say it, but it could be something that is just untrustworthy altogether.

Further...I don't know I would have to read it.

No. The Fed was way too tight.

That alongside the FREE MARKET bubbles caused the GD.

Thanks Mr. Goldstein!

>no evidence behind it.
The 60's had an average growth of 7% for Spain,and all the data comes from official sources. Deal with it commie.

>The Fed was way too tight.
>That alongside the FREE MARKET bubbles caused the GD.
The debt bubble was caused by the Fed. People could take loans like crazy,and they just took said loans and putted them on the stock market. The Fed fucked up later after the bubble exploted, but that is another discussion

>let me just ignore 1939-1960 when everyone except Spain was booming

>The debt bubble was caused by the Fed. People could take loans like crazy,and they just took said loans and putted them on the stock market.

(Citation needed)

2008 != 1929

>government backing toxic assets
>monetarism

He kept the interest rate too low for too long you moron, he caused the mortgage market to become "toxic"

Keynesian retard detected

Yes,the rest of the world embargoed Spain,and it still grew faster than during the republican period. When sanctions were lifted Spain exploded economically and pushed over half of its population into the middle class in 10 years

Money in it = it will work no. If it is in order it will be visible before it starts that it will work.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Depression

Find your argument with a citation here

How about this view:

The left is interested in improving the right.

>Keynesianopedia

Nice try Krugman

It grew faster than during the GD and civil war???? Wow!

fee.org/articles/the-great-depression-according-to-milton-friedman/
If you are interested,this is a dummary of one of Friedman's books. The Fed lowered the rates before the great depression

Spain wasnt affected very little due the great depression. The only period that grew as much as it did with Franco was with Miguel Primo de Rivera

Banks like Lehman Brothers collapsed because they invested in sub-prime mortgages repackaged as MBSs, CMOs and CDOs which hid the risks involved. Ordinarily these institutions would never do something that is the equivalent of putting all their money into high risk penny stocks, but regulators gave them the OK and government sponsored enterprises like Fannie May and Freddie Mac were also involved.

Low interest rates were a factor, but alone the housing bubble wouldn't have been as severe and rates slowly increased back to sensible levels for a few years beforehand.

You seem to think fed interest rates are actually powerful.

Kill yourself

They are literally the only factor in the quantity of money in the economy and the ratio of how people invest, save, or spend it

Lmao hell no wtf

This is not even a biased viewpoint, that is literally what the federal reserve does and how their monetary policy influences the economy kid

Friedman stated that the feds contractionary monetary policy caused a normal recession to turn into the great depression due to a decline in the monetary base. Lowering interest rates is generally a sign of an expansionary monetary policy, which ought to help in the case of a recession.

...

There is nothing wrong with Keynes, unless if it's blatant vulgar Keynesianism. To quote Nixon/Friedman "we are all Keynesians now".
Only Austriatards disagree.