Really? Only as long as the US and Europe continues to use debt to fuel the consumption that China produces. Once China realises they won't pay back their debt, we will soon find the going very tough, as will home owners.mld said:
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
If you say so. Personally I'm restructuring my investments for when the sh!t really hits the fan (i.e. when people realise it has already hit).
Giardiasis said:
When will it be their undoing? As Keynes says, "in the long run we are all dead". And barring environmental catastrophe or global economic collapse, the German economy will still be going strong well after you and I are dead. I'd wager on that but have no way to collect.
So, they are arguably the most successful Western economy. Much of their success is due to government investment in education and innovation, and combinations of public and private innovation, along with a unique approach to savings, very strong SME's (often family owned), and a cultural valueing on knowledge, education, engineering and technology. They value their workers and put a high premium on safety and this is also enforced through regulation. They have high rates of taxation, governance and regulation - all these things that you argue are anathema to having a successful economy. And yet they have one of the most successful in the world. The onus is on you to explain why they are successful when free market ideology says that they won't be. Go ahead.
OK, Singapore. Singapore is a very mixed economy with high rates of state investment in business. In fact they call it a "state capitalist mixed economy" - and refer to it as the Singapore model. Bzzt. Another fail Giardiasis - you should have vetted your economies before you put them up as counter examples. Of course, I can guess your response - "Imagine how much better they would do if they abandoned all that and followed Giardiasis' patented free-market philosophy".
Hong Kong? Rates very highly on the indexes of "free economy" ie government intervention. Here's some other reasons why the Hong Kong economy does well. Financial hub - centre for the (highly regulated) stock exchange and merchant banks. A large port earning lots of income from that wonderfully free economy, China. It does have low rates of taxation - however all land in HK is owned by the government. Yes, ALL LAND - which is then leased back to private users. This serves to keep land values artificially high and income from leased land means government company tax and income tax can be kept low.
You are the classic case of an ideologue. Empirical evidence is rejected out of hand - because it contradicts your philosophy - or alternatively, twisted beyond recognition until it somehow does fit. As for me, I'm happy to say that in some circumstances, deregulation and free market approaches work and work well. But then, I try to think rationally, and actually pay attention to empirical evidence.
Get back to me when you can explain the success of the German economy. Or the Singaporean economy for that matter. Bye for now!
evo said:
Absolutely. I never stated that high degrees of government intervention and regulation always lead to good outcomes. I'm merely refuting Giardiasis' statement that deregulated, free markets are inherently good and lead to good economic outcomes, and highly regulated economies are bad and lead to negative outcomes. It ain't that simple and the evidence is all around us.
Antman your ability to read Wikipedia is admirable. Germany's undoing will come from spending more than they produce, same as anyone.
The most successful Western economy? That's like being the tallest midget amongst midgets.
Nowhere in the world will you find an example of the model that Smith, Ricardo, Mises, Mill and Hayek recognise as provided the best way to organise an economy. The freest markets are recognised as Hong Kong and Singapore, yet clearly they are still not free as you demonstrated. It is interesting to note that their export per capita is ~$30,000 more than Germany however.
I'm as much an ideologue as you are, I just believe a different economic philosophy. You think Kaynes is right, I think he is wrong. If you want to understand economic success you can't do it by looking at it scientifically, you look at the environment in which it operates and that tells you all you need to know; http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2003/12/the_new_german_.html
The most successful Western economy? That's like being the tallest midget amongst midgets.
Nowhere in the world will you find an example of the model that Smith, Ricardo, Mises, Mill and Hayek recognise as provided the best way to organise an economy. The freest markets are recognised as Hong Kong and Singapore, yet clearly they are still not free as you demonstrated. It is interesting to note that their export per capita is ~$30,000 more than Germany however.
I'm as much an ideologue as you are, I just believe a different economic philosophy. You think Kaynes is right, I think he is wrong. If you want to understand economic success you can't do it by looking at it scientifically, you look at the environment in which it operates and that tells you all you need to know; http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2003/12/the_new_german_.html
I don't really want to get involved in your discussion but Singapore is a very bad example for you to use.Giardiasis said:
Singapore has only been successful because of Government intervention. The export figures you quote look great because a very large portion of Singapore's exports are re-exports, goods that have been imported get re exported. Its because they have a massively successful container port and bonded warehouse system, run and financed by (yes you guessed it) the Government.
The local economy is dominated by Government quangos like Temasek (Chaired by the Prime Minister's sister who is LKY's daughter) and many others. It has a government who gave massive incentives to MNC's to operate and set up an infrastructure of tax incentives as well as Port/Airport/ schools to keep them there.
I have owned and run businesses in Singapore and I know what it is like to operate there. Go ahead and argue your case but don't use Singapore as an example because it weakens that argument.
Why is it considered at the top of the free market index then? I don't consider anywhere in the world a free market.
Maybe the free market index is flawed? I have no idea. I tend to believe what I see and experience rather than what OECD indexes and things like that say.It is a relatively free market on a global scale , its just one that is dominated by Singaporean Government run businesses.Giardiasis said:
There are a few Singaporean based people on this site and they will know the old joke .
Two men are marooned on a desert island with a beautiful woman. If they are English they would fight over her, if they were French they would share her and if they were Singaporean they would wait for the Government to tell them what to do.
In terms of Government intervention Singapore is in many ways the antithesis of what you are arguing for.
I'd expect a goverment can own businesses, but still score highly in terms of freedoms.
I imagine basics like protection of private property and enforcement of contracts, low taxation, low tariff protection, equal treatment of foreign, local private and publically owned businesses, and regulatory burdens on business aren't mutually exclusive to government ownership of businesses.
I imagine basics like protection of private property and enforcement of contracts, low taxation, low tariff protection, equal treatment of foreign, local private and publically owned businesses, and regulatory burdens on business aren't mutually exclusive to government ownership of businesses.
A little snippet that sums up the mindset in Singapore nicely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_U-turn_syndrome
The only things that happen in Singapore are those that the Government wants to happen. If the government doesn't want it, it doesn't happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_U-turn_syndrome
The only things that happen in Singapore are those that the Government wants to happen. If the government doesn't want it, it doesn't happen.
Good one Baloo. I thought a robust discussion about Singapore may attract you to this thread.Baloo said:
Giardiasis said:
Wikipedia is great starting point for factual information. Oh and now it's about spending more than they produce? I thought it was all about free(er) markets vs highly regulated ones. No backsliding dude.
What? OECD economies are still very very large, very very productive and very very important. Asia is growing fast as are the BRIC countries, but don't write off the West! And to prove how poorly you read, Germany is the second largest exporter in the world. THE WORLD. Pretty tall midget indeed.
There are problems with the examples you produced. You have not addressed these.
I don't have an economic philosophy dude. I'm not an idealogue. I don't think regulated economies are inherently better. I don't think free markets are inherently better. I think in the real world there are various mixes of these and some work well for different reasons.
Here's another hint - just because I quote JM Keynes does not mean I think he is "right". He was "right" about some things, "wrong" about others no doubt. But when he said "in the long run we are all dead", he was most definitely right.
Giardiasis said:
Sorry, I forgot to respond to this wonderful article on this great site that is poorly laid out, has no explanation of who runs it and why, and seems to host random blogs about booklists amongst other things. Who is Tyler Cowen anyway? He's a bit behind the times. He still considers Germany the "sick man of Europe", but this term hasn't been used for about 7 years. But just to quote some random sites - actually these have some gravitas unlike yours.
So you tend to read stuff like : "Once Called the 'Sick Man' of Europe, Germany Is Showing New Signs of Vitality " (2007) http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1693 that's the Wharton Business School of the University of Pennsylvania dude! Perhaps you've heard of them? Ok, it's you, perhaps not.
Or Germany: 2003; 'Sick man of Europe'; 2010; Eurozone growth powerhouse" http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1020365.shtml ... Ok so it's the Irish Finance News, but its an actual news service.
This is my favourite though. IT'S THE WALL STREET *smile* JOURNAL!!!! You must have heard of this one Giardiasis.. please tell me you have.
"Germany’s Economic Miracle Continues Unabated" http://blogs.wsj.com/source/2011/05/13/germanys-economic-miracle-continues-unabated/
As I said, you are an ideologue. You blindly follow an ideology - if there is actual evidence that contradicts it, you close your eyes, and pretend it never happened.
Some fascinating posting going here, although think your conceit is a bit much antman.
Not sure if the social market economy is the answer. According to the infamous wikipedia 1 in 6 German children depended on welfare in 2007, up from 1 in 75 in 1965. Do enough searching and you'll find just what you want.
Have seen plenty of articles suggesting labour market reform and use of cheap labour has been a stimulant for Germany's recent performance and suggesting further reforms are required for continued success. In regards to exploitation of cheap labour here is an interesting piece from the Financial Times that suggests a higher % of the labour force in Geramny is categoerised as cheap labour than the US. http://users.ox.ac.uk/~polf0050/King%20Rueda%20FT.pdf
I imagine the technical/engineering advantage Germany have enjoyed will one day cease as the eastern nations further develop. I anticipate China will soon (if not already) be buying/importing the technical expertise the Germans currently enjoy and combining it with their cheaper labour.
Personally I'm glad I live in Aus as at least if the proverbial hits the fan we can be self sufficient.
Not sure if the social market economy is the answer. According to the infamous wikipedia 1 in 6 German children depended on welfare in 2007, up from 1 in 75 in 1965. Do enough searching and you'll find just what you want.
Have seen plenty of articles suggesting labour market reform and use of cheap labour has been a stimulant for Germany's recent performance and suggesting further reforms are required for continued success. In regards to exploitation of cheap labour here is an interesting piece from the Financial Times that suggests a higher % of the labour force in Geramny is categoerised as cheap labour than the US. http://users.ox.ac.uk/~polf0050/King%20Rueda%20FT.pdf
I imagine the technical/engineering advantage Germany have enjoyed will one day cease as the eastern nations further develop. I anticipate China will soon (if not already) be buying/importing the technical expertise the Germans currently enjoy and combining it with their cheaper labour.
Personally I'm glad I live in Aus as at least if the proverbial hits the fan we can be self sufficient.
Big Cat Lover said:
Some excellent points BCL, and I take those on board. Remember though my goal is to debunk G-man's hypothesis that free markets are inherently better than regulated markets - depending on what indicators you use, the German economy is highly regulated and yet highly successful. But no, it's far from a utopia. Issues of social welfare are another issue
The technological question is pertinent. In the past Western countries could often stay ahead of the game by better innovation and R&D rolled out into better product development - Japan and Korea excepted. There are many reasons why Germany is still a massively successful manufacturing and exporting economy - and I'd still argue that they are well placed to remain in this position, and these reasons are mostly cultural and social! German industrial culture is all about design, precision, quality and these things are highly valued. Just watch how the Germans play football. High levels of technical ability, high levels of discipline, high levels of organisation, high levels of training, combined with a high degree of innovation.
I'd agree Australia is somewhat well placed, but not because we are self-sufficient. We aren't. What do you mean by "self-sufficient" anyway?
Big Cat Lover said:
Certainly makes for a large burden on the state. I'd expect the dramatic increase is still a result of the integration of what was East Germany. The new states are still well behind the rest of the country economically and in terms of standard of living.
