Nearly all of today’s rich countries have become rich through the combination of protectionism, subsidies, and other policies which they advise and sometimes force developing countries NOT to adopt. The performance of developing countries were better in the ‘bad old days’ of state led development, than during the following period of market oriented reform.

I can guess few people agree. However, here are the policies of two developing countries, one today, one in 1880. Can you name these countries?


Country 1:

• heavy restrictions on cross border capital flows,
• a state owned banking sector,
• many restrictions on foreign ownership of financial assets,
• foreign firms discriminated through differential taxes and regulations,
• riddled with corruption,
• large number of state owned enterprises making losses
• propped up by subsidies and government granted monopoly rights.

Country 2:

• the most protectionist trade policy in the world with industrial tariff rates at 40-55%.
• most population can't vote
• vote-buying and electoral fraud is widespread.
• corruption is rampant with political parties selling government jobs to financial backers.
• they have never recruited a civil servant through an open competitive process. public finances are precarious.
• they discriminate against foreign investors, whilst foreigners are prohibited from becoming directors especially in the financial sector, and foreign shareholders can’t exercise their voting rights.
• there is no competition law preventing cartels, and other forms of monopoly,
• they often refuse to protect foreign copyrights.

It is pretty well-know true capitalism has never been so even today. I am at a loss what we are suppose to discuss here.

I think U.S should off-set some of it's trade deficit by increasing taxes on Chinese imported goods. It is obvious they have a much greater advantage and have pretty high tariffs on some U.S good anyways.

Wonder how the WTO complaints U.S and other countries are putting againt China is going.

Sometime in the last 20 yrs, before China regained Hong Kong, Reason Magazine published an article comparing H.K., an island w/o resourses of its own & the highest population density on the plant with another Island Nation. H.K. has one of the biggest economys & it was through very liberal application of the free market system. The other island nation was the Philippines, resourse rich but poor because of protectionism & crony capitalism as an outgrowth of the Spanish colonial Merchantile system.

Well you have subconsciously answered the question correctly Country 1 is China, Country 2 was the USA in 1880. The point is of course these countries did/are doing very well through a high level of state intervention. There are some exceptions with small states, however even Hong Kong was notorious for its violation of intellectual property rights, hardly a feature rich countries would find acceptable!

Originally Posted by perseus

Well you have subconsciously answered the question correctly Country 1 is China, Country 2 was the USA in 1880. The point is of course these countries did/are doing very well through a high level of state intervention. There are some exceptions with small states, however even Hong Kong was notorious for its violation of intellectual property rights, hardly a feature rich countries would find acceptable!

H.K. may not be a perfect example, but it shows the power of free market capitalism. China's economic output has exploded with the shift from total govt ownership/control of the economy to the direction of the free market vs the US where Libs are steering us tword Euro style socialism that won't work all that well, especially when the number of people working for a living is just barely larger than the number of people voting for a living.

I think what it shows you have to make capitalism to work for you. In the case of developing countries high levels of artificial controls are required in the early stages. Only when your economy is fully developed you can them compete with the big boys. What is happening is that the World bank and IMF dictate free market terms to the developing countries so their industries can't mature, and they are simply exploited by already develped foreign businesses.

The analogy is a developing child. Would you send them to work straight away to be exploited like we used to do in Victorian mills, or shield them with state funded education so once they are mature enough they can fend for themselves in the big bad world?

The argument the free market uses is that these children get paid more in the mills than at school.

Govt schools coddle the kids now, don't want them having self esteem problems so they are given hollow honors. They get out in the real world & the real world smacks em over the head.

This thread wreaks of personal opinions and idea's of what wealth really is.

Originally Posted by Yossarian

This thread wreaks of personal opinions and idea's of what wealth really is.

That's like the book "Think and grow rich" from Napoleon Hill.

Many people forget to live and misinterpret wealth with money.

Originally Posted by Yossarian

This thread wreaks of personal opinions and idea's of what wealth really is.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

That's like the book "Think and grow rich" from Napoleon Hill.

Many people forget to live and misinterpret wealth with money.

Wealth of Nations & what system best creates it is/was the Topic, not how exactly an idividual measures wealth