March 30, 2006
Lifting boats
In the past four decades, open economies (mostly from Europe, East Asia, North America) have fared far better than closed ones (Africa, Latin America, parts of Eastern Europe). Economists Jeffrey Sachs and Andrew Warner found that from 1970-1989 average annual growth in open developed economies was 2.3%, compared with 0.7% in the closed. In developing countries, those numbers were 4.5% and 0.7%. That trend hasn't changed much as trade and foreign investment have powered global growth.
As befits the dismal science, not to mention the dismal profession of politics, this evidence hasn't settled the intellectual argument. So New York Senator Chuck Schumer and French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin can make their case for "economic patriotism," to use the Frenchman's phrase, with a straight face.
Some weird guy once mentioned in an
Elevator that classical liberalism was very effective. He had an odd haircut and I was glad when he got off the elevator. But the Wall St Journal Ed Page
seems to think he was right.
Such a direct correlation and so many years of correlation, yet the blind do not see. The editorial also talks up one of my favorites:
The real star pupil is Ireland, which went from the bottom of the EU league tables in GDP per capita to the top in a generation by slashing taxes and barriers to investment. Of the OECD countries, Ireland has the highest share of foreign-controlled affiliates in terms of employment (nearly 50%) and turnover (78%). In Portugal, which puts up higher obstacles to foreign investment, it's 15% and 8%. Portugal is today the poorest country in Western Europe.
Gosh, it almost makes one think that lower taxes and freer trade might make us wealthier over here.
Economics and Markets
Posted by jk at March 30, 2006 9:53 AM
OK JK, I told JG he had to move this back to the front page so I could reply, and he said I should give up. I agreed, but, since you linked back to the original post I get to reply again.
This quote comes from TIA Daily’s Robert Tracinski, via Cox and Forkum and seems applicable to the current discussion.
“Remember the old adage about how a coward dies a thousand deaths? Similarly, in seeking to evade one big conflict, the pragmatist guarantees a thousand smaller, endlessly repeating conflicts later on.”
You said, “ I know that's not how you feel but I worry that that is exactly how it is sometimes perceived by those who don't understand.”
The solution to this problem is to teach people to understand, not to accept their incorrect premises and try to alter their perception. You are trying to brainwash them with something that doesn’t agree with reality!
You said, “Hope I didn't step on any toes, but I will confess that the Philosophy vs. Politics argument gets me down.”
No toes stepped on but it makes me sad that you see this as an argument. I see correct politics as a natural result of correct philosophy. They are inextricably linked.
You said, “I know it's important to you but it seems so academic to me.”
I highly recommend an Ayn Rand article called, “Philosophy who needs it?” Note that there is a whole book by this title but it includes other essays. Philosophy is definitely NOT academic to politics (sort of like the engine in the Porsche). You can’t see it and maybe you don’t even know how it works, but if it isn’t there, the car doesn’t go.
You said, “If I could sell people on classical liberalism because it ended global warming and scum from shower doors (both of which it would), I would do it.”
If you sell it to them this way, they will return it as not as good as the next product to come along (see opening quote.) You must, “sell,” it to them based on its real value if you want happy customers.
OK JK, I told JG he had to move this back to the front page so I could reply, and he said I should give up. I agreed, but, since you linked back to the original post I get to reply again.
This quote comes from TIA Daily’s Robert Tracinski, via Cox and Forkum and seems applicable to the current discussion.
“Remember the old adage about how a coward dies a thousand deaths? Similarly, in seeking to evade one big conflict, the pragmatist guarantees a thousand smaller, endlessly repeating conflicts later on.”
You said, “ I know that's not how you feel but I worry that that is exactly how it is sometimes perceived by those who don't understand.”
The solution to this problem is to teach people to understand, not to accept their incorrect premises and try to alter their perception. You are trying to brainwash them with something that doesn’t agree with reality!
You said, “Hope I didn't step on any toes, but I will confess that the Philosophy vs. Politics argument gets me down.”
No toes stepped on but it makes me sad that you see this as an argument. I see correct politics as a natural result of correct philosophy. They are inextricably linked.
You said, “I know it's important to you but it seems so academic to me.”
I highly recommend an Ayn Rand article called, “Philosophy who needs it?” Note that there is a whole book by this title but it includes other essays. Philosophy is definitely NOT academic to politics (sort of like the engine in the Porsche). You can’t see it and maybe you don’t even know how it works, but if it isn’t there, the car doesn’t go.
You said, “If I could sell people on classical liberalism because it ended global warming and scum from shower doors (both of which it would), I would do it.”
If you sell it to them this way, they will return it as not as good as the next product to come along (see opening quote.) You must, “sell,” it to them based on its real value if you want happy customers.
Posted by: dagny at March 31, 2006 12:22 AMTouche` on the pragmatist line -- it's funny and there is some truth in it.
Oddly enough I am very proud of my ideology. I have spent many years and read many tedious treatises to become the pedantic bore I am today. I agree that you have to have a center and speak from a core belief system.
The antithesis is Bill O'Reilly on FOXNews. He brags that he's not an ideologue, that he looks at every new problem in a new light. So he can straight-facedly call for the government to "take over thing x" in one segment and then berate government for its inefficacy in the next.
I read all the Ayn Rand I could get my hands on in my 20s and I credit her writing with breaking me out of the "Folk Marxism" I was brought up in. But I'll take recommendations from you and JG for some refresher material. I'll do the OPAR book but have been unimpressed with Dr. Peikoff, he always struck me as Rand's Lew Rockwell.
Come up with a book or two (I've read the popular ones: Atlas Shrugged, Fountainhead, Virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism, Anthem) and I'll give her another shot.
Posted by: jk at March 31, 2006 9:23 AMTry the book she just mentioned, JK: 'Philosophy: Who Needs It?'
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0451138937/ sr=8-1/qid=1143838956/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-9439318-9679219?%5Fencoding=UTF8
From Amazon: "Written with all the clarity and eloquence that have placed Ayn Rand�s objectivist philosophy in the mainstream of American thought, these essays range over such basic issues as education, morality, censorship, and inflation to prove that philosophy is the fundamental force in all our lives."
Posted by: johngalt at March 31, 2006 4:06 PMIt's on the way, thanks -- I was hoping you'd recommend that, that's the one I wanted.
It should be the perfect chaser to the overly-pragmatic Hugh Hewitt book that shipped to me last week.
Posted by: jk at April 2, 2006 7:18 PMNot familiar with Lew Rockwell, but Peikoff is not the joy to read that Rand is. It took me three tries to get through OPAR and I am an insatiable reader and a pedantic bore too. I highly recommend it nonetheless as the insights it provided me regarding how the world works have proven invaluable.
Posted by: dagny at April 3, 2006 12:13 AMLew Rockwell runs the Mises Institute and I feel that he has hijacked the ideas of Mises to fit his own.
Seeing Peikoff on TV, I questioned whether it was valid for him to claim the mantle of Ayn Rand for his beliefs. He seemed quick to put words in the mouth of one who has passed away. You can quote them, but I think it is wrong to claim or imply that you know how they would speak on current issues.
Admittedly, this is a first impression.
Posted by: jk at April 3, 2006 10:02 AM | What do you think? [6]