Discuss economic theories, argue over economic history, and ask your economic questions.
&Humanities needs a dedicated economics thread each week. I'll do my best to make that happen.
Economics Thread #1
Jordan Stewart
Other urls found in this thread:
blogs.worldbank.org
google.es
economist.com
imf.org
atlanticcouncil.org
themoneyillusion.com
analepsis.files.wordpress.com
socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com
socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com.ar
twitter.com
Cooper Torres
Furthermore, I'll answer all questions to the best of my ability. I focus less on theory and models, and more on economic history and results.
Isaac Cook
Finally, keep the shitflinging to a minimum. A slow and comfy thread is better than a shitfest.
Jackson Morales
The Silk Road is more important than the Roman Mediterranean sea.
Therefore it is obvious the Mongol Emperors were wealthier than the Roman Emperors.
Josiah Young
Gonna start with an interesting question for you all.
Does the Middle-Income Trap exist? I have my own answer.
Logan Kelly
Maybe at times. Difficult to measure.
Jose Nguyen
My answer is similar to the conclusion drawn here. blogs.worldbank.org
Essentially, when we compare the statistics between economies 1950-2000, we don't see a middle income trap. The fast growing nations continue to outperform, while the slow growing nations continue to underperform.
Wyatt Stewart
Another interesting related analysis.
John Bennett
>fedora_content
lol not sure why that is there but
Abstract:
>Asian emerging market countries have followed growth convergence from a low-
income, high-growth state to a middle-income, middle-growth state through industrialization. >The economic development of Japan was first followed by the “four tigers” in the 1970s, by the ASEAN countries in the 1980s, and China in the 1990s to 2000s. Asian economies were severely affected by the Asian Currency Crisis of 1997-98, and again by the Global Financial Crisis of 2008-09, but much more so by the former.
The growth rates of Asian countries are slowing over time. The growth rate may fall to the advanced countries level, before the income level fully catches up to the advanced countries’ level, which is defined as the middle income trap in the paper.
>This paper proposes a hypothesis that there exist three convergence paths in Asia: low-income, middle-income, and high-income. Countries need to shift from one convergence path to a higher one by implementing economic and political reforms that would generate innovations. Without reform, countries may fall into a low-income trap or a middle-income trap.
The findings in the paper have important implications for the literature about middle-income traps. Providing an interpretation of the middle-income trap in the growth convergence framework is novel. Empirical investigations using panel data are also new. Some Asian countries are successfully transforming to a high-income convergence path, but others have failed thus far to make that transition. However, these results are more in the form of suggestive evidence than a hypothesis testing due to the limited sample size.
Sebastian Jackson
economist.com
TE usually has the most nuanced (and balanced) views out there, although they have their biases. The analysis here is similar to the previous linked research paper.
Essentially, nations that outperform generally continue to while those that underperform normally continue to underperform. This is why many nations in the world have not caught up to the USA in GDP per capita. And it is why places like Brazil and South Africa remain stagnant and poor, while places like China and Vietnam exceed everyone else.
Wyatt Reyes
imf.org
IMF 2017 outlook. See how your cunt is doing.
Samuel Flores
I think I need a bait image for the next thread.
Adam Smith doesn't trigger enough people.
Jeremiah Young
imf.org
Only 2.7% global growth. That means, on average, people are only getting 1.4% richer each year.
Andrew Sanchez
>And it is why places like Brazil and South Africa remain stagnant and poor, while places like China and Vietnam exceed everyone else.
This is hardly surprising. It's the people inside it.
Michael Wilson
Here you go.
Jace Rivera
Why were China and South Korea and RoC dirt poor in 1965 then?
Why were Brazil and South Africa far richer in 1965?
People aren't as important as the proper policies and institutions, or the geopolitical environment.
Luis Howard
Good... good....
I need scarred Keynes as well.
Xavier Young
It was before all those stupid civil rights and PoC empowerment socialist movements. Also, communism and authoritarianism for those East Asians countries.
Jeremiah Richardson
Africa's per capita GDP growth since 1970 has only been 1% per year. Lower than any other place on the planet.
Jaxon Rogers
Meaning that whites made the so-called countries prosperous back then.
Jackson Torres
Seriously, have you ever seen an asian and a black guy in your life? Guess which one is hardworking and smart? They're of different stock of people. No matter what kind of economic system, it wouldn't help if the human resources themselves are innately poor.
Cameron Long
Although I don't want to dismiss your point outright, apartheid Africa and military dictatorship Brazil weren't exactly any better.
The inequality in these countries is so bad that their societies, and economies, have been severely affected in a negative manner. It's why their political and business system is so hilariously corrupt.
Nonetheless, the similarities between the authoritarian systems in SK/Taiwan/PRC and Brazil/South Africa are numerous. One group succeeded while the other failed though.
Angel Hughes
Okay. Assuming you are correct and there is this huge divide between the two, how do we alleviate that problem and improve the life of Africans?
If we don't, there will be 4 billion Africans pouring en masse into Europe and Asia by 2100.
Lucas Garcia
Also, not to mention that those Asian countries are more monocultural and monoracial, while countries such as Indonesia and India fell behind.
Bring back the white men there to get shit done. Oh wait, the chinamen has been doing that to no avail either, so fuck if I know.
Aaron Brown
We should share our favorite economic blogs and economic articles here as well.
Here is my new favorite. themoneyillusion.com
Perfect mix of economics and how political changes/systems mess up economics.
Sebastian Ross
ok so I started learning basic economics by myself through videos and manuals every now and then when I feel like it. Microeconomics was kind of logical to understand but macroeconomics models just seem to be a load of shit that self proves its argument through mathematical fuckery.
Keynes' multiplier's effect for example "demonstrates" that for 1 unit increase of public expenditure the income increases at x>1 unit. Thus 1 dollar in public expenditure generates more that 1 dollar increase of income.
and how is it proven ? math equation that ends up with 1/1-c and since any number divided by something lower that 1 always gives a result superior to 1. So it is mathematically demonstrated that increasing expenditure is the way to go in terms of policy, but what about empirical basis ? It can't happen this way just because divide rule. And then there's that Haveelno dude that gets a nobel for proving the same way that you can increase the income of the population while fully financing the expenditure with taxes because the multiplier's effect is that good.
is this indeed bullshit or am I retarded ?
Samuel Parker
analepsis.files.wordpress.com
Page 167 (193 of pdf)
Samuel Price
China isn't monocultural.
Indonesia is about 95% muslim. India is a basket case though. Only rabid anti-paki nationalism keeps them from fighting each other even more.
Yet, India has averaged 7% growth annually since 1990 while Indonesia has average 5%, Brazil around 4%, and Moldova/Ukraine actually negative.
The cultural homogeneity argument is only one factor IMO.
Also, the Chinese involvement in Africa (buying resources and building infrastructure) is the main reason they broke out of the constant starvation/economic collapse period of 1970-2000.
Ethiopia is growing 8% this year because of Chinese help. They love the Chinese.
Ryder Collins
Nathan Peterson
The multiplier effect is almost solely applicable during a period of a potential GDP gap. Hence, when there is very little demand relative to supply, a government dollar making someone dig a hole to China will actually improve the economy. (although there are far more productive activities).
Lucas Thomas
>socialdemocracy21stcentury
Not to judge a book by its cover, but...
Joseph Hughes
In the 1800's-1920's when the Chinamen (and other East Asians) were getting slaughtered and humiliated by the Europeans, the prevailing view was that East Asians are lazy and apathetic people who have no desire to innovate or change their way of life.
Nathaniel Robinson
>Japan was lazy
That guy was stupid. One of the reason why Japanese slaves were highly priced centuries earlier is clearly because they're (guess what) smart and hardworking.
Similar point above.
Nathaniel Morales
>unironically being a commie economist
No, you're the questionable one.
Landon Myers
Once of the biggest events of the 20th century has always bugged me. The Great Depression led to the rise of Hitler and possibly less directly contributed to Japanese militarism and the Stalinist purges as countries reeled at the sudden breakdown in global trade. However a conclusive explanation isn't forthcoming.
The federal reserve was created for the express purpose of bailing out banks after a crisis like the panic of 1907. Why did it not do is job in 1929?
How much did the federal reserve's presence contribute to risky lending by banks leading up to the stock market crash?
Some claim markets just randomly implode every so often. Others claim the market adapts and other influences like sudden disruptions cause economic bubbles and crashes. Who is right? Is it a little of both?
These are my questions.
Nathan Edwards
>Japanese slaves were highly valued
Actually, it was mostly because they were seen as exotic.
Nah. He is what I think of when I see that blog name.
My economic and political views are closer to those of FDR/Truman.
Blake Bell
You mean you want to perpetuate economic downturns with half baked interventions?
Charles Rivera
He's a postkeynesian, not a marxist. He's written several posts against marxism: socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com.ar
Jayden Murphy
The true answer is very nuanced and no one knows for sure what happened.
Nonetheless, the Fed was full of free market theorists who believed it would self-correct. The 1929-1930 period wasn't actually much different than previous stock market crises/recessions. 1931-1933 brought the bank runs and the credit crisis.
The Federal Reserve's presence increased the marketization and strength of finance in the economy. Most economists would state that this was a good thing, on the whole. Yet, the Fed in 1929 was not very talented. They had little experience to look back upon.
Ben Bernanke states that the Fed caused the Great Depression and they will never let it happen again. The Fed in late 2008-2009 acted properly and averted any possibility of a new Great Depression, although the likelihood of it occurring in the modern era is far smaller than in 1929.
Both are correct to an extent. Depends on your views though, especially upon the EMH.
Dylan Gray
(You).
1933-1953 saw the fastest growth in the US economy on record. They weren't flawless, but the New Deal saved the United States.
I understand. I simply looked at the url. I'll click on it and read some of the work tonight.
Landon Evans
What do you think caused the Great Depression. Is Friedman's view that it was caused by the Fed shrinking the money supply appealing to you?
Henry Peterson
It is. Although that is not the own thing Friedman says or the only thing that caused it.
The proximate cause was definitely the Fed not acting at all. No matter what, having your banking system crash is NEVER a net benefit to your nation.