getfiscal posted:

actually it's explicitly about the combination of state leadership with markets, and his imagined example for a poor country getting rich in the future is trying to compete for high-value exports in emerging sectors. the thing is that his main target is neoliberalism so he has to focus on arguing that state intervention is not intrinsically socialist. but his argument is not a slippery slope, you can't go oh well if more state intervention works then total state control must work even better. his argument is precisely that the state can make the market better, not that the state can surpass the market.

yes he's obviously not arguing for communism, but it's definitely a critique of the supposed inherent efficiency of markets compared to planning, exactly the thing i was arguing against originally lol. oh and about how rich country exploit them to further their dominance, while hypocritically maintaining planning in sectors where it's naturally more competitive.

tpaine posted:

Ironicwarcriminal posted:
Lessons posted:
getfiscal posted:
but like what does ha-joon chang say, being one of the leading developmental state theorists and a korean. oh he says that the market was integral to korea's take-off, that it was almost completely a domestic policy success, that it's easy to imagine foreign aid without translating it into sustainable growth, that other developing countries should focus on a sort of dirigiste capitalism, and that he considers socialism to be a failure.

that's a really self-serving reading of his work. Bad Samaritans isn't about how the market led South Korea to economic glory, but almost the opposite, how firmly it was based on government intervention, planning, and opposition to the conventional market wisdom of the benefits of free trade. he's still a staunch capitalist but if anything it's a direct refutation of what IWC's standard Western propaganda take on Korea.
yeah but i'm not saying "free-trade" made south korea rich which is the standard western line which is obviously wrong. It was quite clearly state capitalism i.e. not a Marxist state, while the full-on Marxist state next door stagnated and descended into poverty



do they have all kinds of lights on their borders or is that an outline on the image. those are from christmas trees

Lessons posted:

it's definitely a critique of the supposed inherent efficiency of markets compared to planning

no it has nothing much to do with socialist planning. it is an argument for more state involvement in capitalist economies. a socialist economy is not a capitalist one with a lot of state involvement. a socialist economy tries to abolish markets by planning in physical terms.

getfiscal posted:

Lessons posted:

it's definitely a critique of the supposed inherent efficiency of markets compared to planning

no it has nothing much to do with socialist planning. it is an argument for more state involvement in capitalist economies. a socialist economy is not a capitalist one with a lot of state involvement. a socialist economy tries to abolish markets by planning in physical terms.

my guess would be chang is in favor of planning in sectors where it's simply better in all circumstances, like healthcare. but yes, he's still a capitalist. i said that at the beginning.

Lessons posted:

my guess would be chang is in favor of planning in sectors where it's simply better in all circumstances, like healthcare. but yes, he's still a capitalist. i said that at the beginning.

that conflates two senses of planning. for example, canada's health care sector is dominated by state administration but it is in no real way socialist. the workers get wages and hospitals get their things (medical equipment, buildings, etc.) by buying them off the market. that's a market economy, not socialist planning.

the thing is this becomes hugely important when you actually try to run an economy. if you end up settling for a sort of market economy with a lot of state leadership then you end up going oh why don't we just allow private capital and foreign partnership and so on. it just has a completely different logic to it.

getfiscal posted:

Lessons posted:

my guess would be chang is in favor of planning in sectors where it's simply better in all circumstances, like healthcare. but yes, he's still a capitalist. i said that at the beginning.

that conflates two senses of planning. for example, canada's health care sector is dominated by state administration but it is in no real way socialist. the workers get wages and hospitals get their things (medical equipment, buildings, etc.) by buying them off the market. that's a market economy, not socialist planning.

much like the soviet or chinese economy :smug:

prikryl posted:

hahahahaah The Planned Economy Under Stalin: a Horrible Failu


also I suppose you never heard of VEBs, NÖSPL and the ÖSS. Yes this is capitalism, just as the NEP was lmao

"A Sort Of Market"

Yeah because it's so hard to destroy Germany

*takes 25 million lives to do what a couple of million Turks can*

Edited by Ironicwarcriminal (July 11, 2012 02:34:56)

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

image leeching from chartercities.org, for shame, iwc...

friedman's grandson and the paypal guy are trying to do this in honduras lol:

Edited by TROT_CUMLOVER (July 11, 2012 05:37:51)

Lessons posted:

here's a wall of impenetrable text that explains why marxism is flawed and will be very convincing to you if you happen to be a pervert, degenerate, etc.

animedad posted:

"Many types of people will have to disappear. Many people will want to join us. Possibly we will conquer the whole world. People will die young but it will be fun. We will burn the corpses of the heroes."

discipline posted:

Tinkzorg posted:
its amazing how bad this forum is and how formulaic and boilerplate the "trolls" have become.


yeah reading this thread made me want to stop posting forever basically

you seem to be having fun jetsetting around the world but some of us have only teh forums to keep us warm...