Misesans are obsessed with changes in economic policy and the drastic effects they imagine them to be. Well Guess what, free market hallmarks like Ireland and Iceland with ~10% corporate tax did not develop fast sustainable growth, whereas resource driven economies like Norway, Canada, Australia and Arab oil countries have been the leading first world economic engines. The bottom line is this - you can debate and argue over policy all you want, but in the end the guys with the ores make the big bucks while the ones without it dont. You can shuffle around or cut your taxes or regulatory burdens all you want, it doesnt do jack in the grand scheme of things, as is visible in the world state of affairs.
Ireland and Iceland had anti-Austrian monetary policy, which brought them to the crisis. Free Market is underrated in our world.
apples, oranges… I like 'em.
Someone doesn’t understand economic theory.
Chyd3nius… banking system like every other country in the world. hardly a case agaainst considering resource availability as a more important than economic policy is. Look at even Russia, which has caught up and surpassed rest of ex-USSR countries’ GDP despite much more backwards and corrupted economic policy and slower privatization, all thanks to having oil, and yes controlled fully by the state owned allegedly “inefficient” companies.
Neodoxy, i understand it full well. I merely propose its relevance to the real world is overrated compared to other factors like the natural resources available. And guess what, the resource based economies prove my point, leading the first world economy despite having joe-average economic policies
How do you explain Japan?
Not much resources in Japan but for some reason they are able to maintain one of the largest economic outputs in the world…
What about Japan?
There are not much natural resoures in Japan but somehow they manage to maintain one of the largest ecconomic outputs in the world…
What about Hong Kong and Singapore? They are tiny island with virtually no natural resourcces whatsoever. How is it they have such produictive economies?
Africa sucks economicly while Hong Kong and Singapore rule. Resources aren’t as important as good economic policies. Sure, a country with lots of resources might do well with decent economic policy, but country with no resources can have amazing results only with good economic policies.
“Neodoxy, i understand it full well.”
Bullshit you do
There are a plethora of nations which developed specifically because of their free market economic policies. Canada has one of the freest economies in the world, Hong Kong has no resources but has arguably the freest economy on earth, Russia has a per capita income slightly higher than MEXICO that is about one third that of the United States, the Scandanavian countries have only gotten up there in the income brackets after liberalizing their economies, most of the now industrialized world developed thanks to their free market policies despite their relatively poor national resources, most oil nations still have relatively small per capita incomes, many resource rich nations are still poverty striken because of their restrictive economic policies (if you look at the most economically retarded places on earth then for the most part you’ll find the most restrictive economies), Singapore has an amazingly free economy and has a higher per capita income than the United States, Saudi Arabia has been exploited for its oil for a very long time now and has the highest per capita income in the middle east, it’s still half of that seen in the United States (it also has a somewhat free economy), China has only developed since opening up its markets (although there’s still a lot of natural resources there) and considering the number of resources there it would seem that according to your theory they should have been rolling in the green right now.
Those are the FACTS you are either ignorant of or omitting.
As for economic theory you haven’t addressed the fact of how exactly empirical evidence when recieved from different situations can be applied to something else. Put in different terms, how it is that an experament on X which is fundumentally different than Y can yield results which apply to Y, how you can test the boiling point of alchohol and apply that to water. Nations are different, the people in them are different, the facts surrounding the success or failure are different.
Finally, and most importantly. No one EVER claimed that natural resources played a fundumental role in determining the wealth of nations, a nation with few natural resources is most likely going to experience squalor when compared to nations with rich natural resources, however both will be much better off FROM WHAT THEY COULD HAVE BEEN if they liberalize their economies. This is seen in the current data where economies with repressive pasts have terrible economies, regardless of their natural resources. You provide no reason to the contrary and exceedingly weak evidence against an overwhelming amount of evidence that you are wrong.
You don’t understand economic theory. At best you have a basic grasp.
This explains why Zimbabwe residents can flourish on less than $500/year and Hong Kong residents must toil their days away to eek out at least $30,000 just to survive.
More natural resources decrease the need for money. More economic freedoms increase the need for money.
Thanks for the insight, aervew!
Commodities are not created, just moved to locations where stuff is created, and then the “owners” of the commodities get paid in the stuff that is actually produced by man. What does Norway, Canada, Australia and Arab oil countries create?
You lost me at “free market hallmarks like Ireland and Iceland”.
maybe meant “medieval” ? Just sayin…
WTF is a “resource-based economy”?
WTF is a “resource-based economy”?
An economy different from one, say, not based on any resources, I suppose.
Can you explain why this is so with logical consistency? If not, then you’re hardly doing science at all.
Take any country you want, it would be more successful with a free market.