I wish people in my country's government were listening to this lecture. As i write everyone in Ghana is eagerly awaiting a loan from IMF s if this will solve our economic problems. Not many years down the line we will be back at IMF with hat in hand looking quick fixes . The lecture was very informative. I intend getting his books to read as well.
Handful of the rich local people will get even more rich and majority of the money will flow to multinational corporations. People of Ghana will be left with the bill.
I am surprisingly satisfied with lectures conducted by professor Ha- Joon Chang because he always has something or someway new to consider talking about several issues. Very useful to expand knowledge and enrich considerations on issues of my interest. Thanks for the videos.
I found it quite fulfilling from a fact-based perspective. This is the first time, I came across a subtle and concrete example with pieces of evidence about the history of Political Economy. Not to forget that lectures as such are not only critical but after all emancipatory from an academic perspective, the best knowledge is the one that is based on sheer truth and particularly attempts to expose the powerful of its wrong deeds and in this case its historical lies, myths, and hypocrisy. Looking forward to more lectures like this.
41:59 "Until 20 years ago, we had this expression called Korean time." I had been listening to Ha-Joon's lecture, and as soon as he said this sentence, it stuck out, because here in New Zealand, we have a significant Polynesian culture, where there is a saying "Island Time", which is often treated as humorous. I recently went to Rarotonga, and had first hand experience of "Island Time." It was strange, but wonderful at the same time. At home, I rely on our bus service to get from A to B, where people get very impatient if the bus is late, and when the bus arrives, passengers and drivers just want everyone to hurry up, get on, get a seat, so we can all get going. While in Rarotonga, I caught a bus from the town center to where my family were staying. Because of so much of my life being run by the clock, I was a bit flustered, asked the driver how much the bus fare was to where I was staying, then started flustering around in my wallet for the cash. I was very conscious of holding the bus up and the other passengers. The driver actually said to me "Calm down Mam. Just take a seat." Back home, everyone just stares at you because you're holding up the line, and everyone has places to be by set times, or their tired and exhausted after a long day at work. To actually be told by a bus driver to calm down was rather strange, but I can laugh at it now. Anyhow, my experience in Rarotonga has me questioning my lifestyle, because it causes a lot of stress, mental health issues, and also physical health issues. My question to myself is: "Is it all worth it?"
IF there was just the time & stress issue, humanity would be fine..!! But when instead of seeking TRUTH, people & society LIE.. i.e. from history books to processed food advertisements to politicians & surgeons, then one must question self & society!!
Convince one group of poor people that they are better than another and they will help you pick everyone's pocket including their own. They'll even step on a few necks.
Wow incredible lecture! The low-quality instiutions makes a lot sense even with the criticism laid against it, as does the fact that unregulated markets serve the interest of the leaders in technological advancements. Great that more economic research is based on empirical experiments instead of meta-analysis
it's insane to believe that a market in currencies can determine any kind of reasonable comparison between the values of individual currencies. People buy dollars (and any other currencies) only because they must, to conduct their business. Forcing this notion on the rest of the world is just another piece of the dollar hegemony. What would the value or price of potatoes be if all humans were obligate potato-eaters?
This was a fantastically informative lecture. Coming from a poor country, these are the things I know intuitively (that free trade wasn't free and FDI didn't work and protectionism worked). But I had no way to back these up except for my lived experience. Thanks to Prof. Ha-Joon for providing a long historical perspective.
Its rather simple, and industry in the early stage can never compete with the full might of a fully builded compagny with a captive market and fans that can influence abroad, for example That goes from cultural icons down the way to crude steel until the top of the chains for aeronef or automobile Free trade is only really needed in the thing a country lack the capability, or its really not that necessary to have it, or the monetary cost farly outweigh the benefits of producing it inside said country (jobs, economic activity, taxes, without talking about the plus-value that transforming bring and make all the supplier not be reliant on foreign politics diplomatic repercusioon or simple weather for crops for example
You call this a great lecture? Jesus, I would have fallen asleep. This guy is worse than Ben steiner. No wonder our kids graduate but still don't know anything.
Great video! It's really nice to review common economics topics with good info and new approaches (and old forgotten ones as well lol) My only complain would be the lack of discussion about institutions in 39:57. AFAIK institutionalists have really strong arguments and explanations about economic development, it would be nice to see a video with a critical analysis about them. Again, great video series! Keep it up! 😄
Yes exactly. I felt the same way. He was criticizing that "low-quality institutions" could not predict the rise of China, however in the book it says that the growth of China is possible, economies can grow under "extractive institutions", but they are "not sustainable"
Jefferson’s opposition to Hamilton’s ideas of industrialization was probably more due to self-interest than free-market ideology, he was a farmer and did run a plantation. This was in many ways a north south divide and part of ideas that lead to the civil war. The drawings of the Hamilton duel have different hats and coats, probably none of the artists was present at the event.
Double Landlock isn't always bad 😉 Anyone with Quakers on their side wins, except if you have slave merchants on your side but you eventually loose to the slave merchants anyway.
@@kgbkgb7616 they dont. 1) race is a bad and delegitimate way of classifying any human being 2) even if it wasnt, iq tests are only good at exhibiting one answer: how good someone is at an iq test!
@@lucqq3792 race is an excellent way of classifying human beings. A tremendous amount of generalization can be deduced just by knowing ones race. And if all iq tests are good for is iq, the military wouldnt make you take one (in the form of asvab) for entry and job placement (obviously)
@@kgbkgb7616 you can généralise based on freckles by your logic? Why choose race? I can généralise that someone with freckles has freckles, is that what you mean? Because that’s all you’re getting. Real markers of distinction are educational and social variables such as how many parents you had, your level of schooling, how much money was in your household, etc Also, this is funny to read to me, the asvab isn’t an iq test 😂😂😂😂 jn fact, the asvab is based on educational capital in determining scores, something which directly contradicts what you said before. You just hate black people, don’t try and sound smart about it, you’re an idiot (obviously)
Well he didn't notice that it was really easy to lift up Singapore a small place in strategic point on map and established English judiciary system and no similar competition except maybe HongKong. You could compare it partially with Estonia in Europe - cold climate, not politically safe zone, divided population but consequent leadership by engineers focusing on high-tech, digital economy. But lifting a bigger country is a completely different story. The more people and density the greater spread between top and bottom and older much harder to build democratic, social trust & cooperation, unity to back up one consequent strategy until fruition.
well, you kinda have to be good at english if you want to teach at Cambridge University. "After graduating from Seoul National University's Department of Economics, he studied at the University of Cambridge, earning an MPhil and a PhD for his thesis entitled The Political Economy of Industrial Policy - Reflections on the Role of State Intervention in 1991."
colonialism and imperialism are the answers. poor countries developed the rich countries. rich countries have plundered colonized country's wealth. multilateral institutions are not neutral, imf, wb , un, wto, impose a world order where rich countries continue to oppress and exploit by the means of debt.
Rich countries have brought modern technology to poor countries. How come the barbary slave trade didn't show similar results? It was worse than any European slave trade. Besides, you do know Europe was way ahead before any colonization?
@@ebrelus7687 No, the truth is most european colonies cost them money or brought very little profit at all, it was more an action of strategy and status in those times. Africa is not poor because of colonization, and most of the european nations, atleast those which history i have studied, did not get rich from colonization at all,. To believe that is simply bad faith, exposing that you haven't looked at the historical context and the environmental differences. There are numerous reasons Africa is behind, and was behind before any colonization. The colonization itself was not the deciding factor. Not saying colonization is a good thing, but it's certainly not what people make it out to be.
During the whole 45 min., they didn't use any (!) maps. That's zero (!!) maps in a video, which "explains" economical differences between countries (through) history. 0!!!
Around 40 minutes the issue of keeping time is interesting. The United States and Germany after unification undergoes the Second Industrial Revolution. As the American railroads spread across a continent this gives rise to time keeping and time zones as the trains are synchronised. The interconnections of rail, telegraph and later on from flight keeps the development of a time system for industrial societies and mass production and transport of items.
I think this is one of the most clear lectures I have watched on why poor countries are underdeveloped. It is very unbiased and educational. And it opened my eyes to how poor countries can proceed and escape poverty.
No mention here on the role of the harnessing of the energy of fossil fuels . Both Britain and the US were early adopters which gave them an early advantage
Wow, this is more or less like the strategy of victoria 2. When as a nation you industrialize, micromanagement and state capitalist policies are the goal as your industries are vulnerable and simple. As your industries develop you move towards more hands off, free trade as your economy is so large that it would be a pain to micromanage it all.
-You play Victoria II, one of the best strategy games ever. -You watch Ha Joon Chang lessons. -You synthesized a really complex topic in 4 lines. Let me send you a virtual hug hahaha
Wrong. The later stage capitalist, free-trade policies that have been adopted in the past have only worked because there were undeveloped countries to exploit for there cheap labor, undeveloped local economies and resources. That it is an unsustainable, ultimately self-defeating and immoral economic model is the whole point of this lecture. Basing anything on the artificial scenarios of board games is at its least laughably juvenile, at its worst in practical reality when applied to human society, it is dangerously destructive and delusional. Yet somehow you can't see that...wow indeed.
a lot of these corrupt african leaders are like this because they are in the pockets of western leaders who know that if african nations elected real leaders, the west would be unable to exploit africas rich natural resources. Also look at the vast history of democracy in africa and how europeans have eityher overthrown or assasinated democratically elected leaders.
Educate yourself first before pulling together an uneducated guess on the situation of countries you know nothing about. Ask yourself, who is it that seems to continually put these puppets in power? While sanctioning these nations. You don't even make an effort in hiding your racism. My god.
His lecture was quite interesting, bur he failed to probe your question which seems to be the most essential question when it comes to the prosperity of severely underdeveloped countries. I am of the opinion that outside countries can't provide that which sparks development, in that the desire for development must come from within the underdeveloped society itself. Admittedly I could be wrong, so it will be interesting to see how Chinese projects started in parts of Africa work out.
In answer to your question it was down to the fact that they did not protect patents until the early 20th century. Below are some excerpts from Professor Chang’s brilliant book Bad Samaritans (which I couldn’t recommend enough if you enjoyed this lecture) on the topic: The Netherlands introduced a patent law in 1817, but abolished it in 1869 and did not re-introduce it until 1912. Switzerland had no patent law of any kind until 1888, and that law accorded protection only to ‘inventions that can be represented by mechanical models’. The clause automatically (and intentionally) excluded chemical inventions - at the time, the Swiss were ‘borrowing’ a lot of chemical and pharmaceutical technologies from Germany, the then world leader in those fields. Only in 1907, under the threat of trade sanctions by Germany, did the Swiss decide to extend patent protection to chemical inventions. However, even the new patent law did not protect chemical technologies to the degree expected in today’s TRIPS system. Like many other countries at the time, the Swiss refused to grant patents for chemical substances (as opposed to chemical processes). The reasoning was that those substances, unlike mechanical inventions, already existed in nature and, therefore, the ‘inventor’ had merely found a way to isolate them, rather than inventing the substance itself. Chemical substances remained unpatentable in Switzerland until 1978. When the Dutch abolished the law (in 1869), they were in no small measure influenced by the anti-patent movement mentioned above - they were convinced that patent, as artificially created monopoly, went against their free-trade principle. Exploiting the absence of a patent law, the Dutch electronics company, Phillips, a household name today, started out in 1891 as a producer of lightbulbs based on the patents ‘borrowed’ from the American inventor, Thomas Edison.
@@TTYounga Swan's lightbulbs were more reliable and cheaper to produce than Edison's. So in UK, they made an accommodation, and our lightbulbs were Swan's, but had the name "Swan-Edison" or "Ediswan" on the box.
@@TTYounga This is such a useful, illustrative example of how a developed country (Netherlands) built a successful tech company (Phillips) by "borrowing" foreign patents from a more-developed country (Germany)! It was also fun to compare the timeline of the Netherlands and Switzerland instating, abolishing, and then re-instating their patent laws against Otto von Bismarck's term in office (1871-1890, I think). Looks like I'm reading Bad Samaritans.
Poverty is a choice by I secure selfish leaders who don't want their people to produce what they need locally and control all the currency and price by controlling factories and labs for solutions
A deeper analysis is required on how the wealth looted from the New World set in motion the colonial enterprises of the Dutch and the British. Consider the following: - The Iberians had to spend the wealth somewhere. They used it to buy products from their neighbours which created the demand for factories in Europe and new entrepreneurial classes wanting to capture a piece of the business - The Iberians spent the money on wars in the Low Countries enriching mercenaries and businessmen who eventually revolted. William of Orange, founder of the present Dutch Royals, was a petty businessman propped up by the guilds - Dutch and English shipbuilding technology accelerated in order to embark on pirate expeditions that sought to capture and loot gold shipments returning from Iberian colonies
The images, graphics, and clips really helped his presentation, and he could've used more. I am sure it is better reading his scholarly findings, than listening to them.
If you want a country to become richer, then yes - you typically want protectionism to avoid the wealth flowing out of the country. This forces the country to become more self-reliant as well, since it is more expensive to rely on someone external. That said, you still need free markets within the country to produce this wealth in the first place. Bad policies and over-regulation that make it difficult to create and maintain companies are still a big reason why some countries remain poorer than their neighbors, and experience a lot of corruption.
if you have watched the video you must understand that the corrupt institution was set mainly by colonial powers, over-protectionism here means "socialist policies" IMF and WTO are notoriously known for establishing free market trade around the globe after colonization with the help of CIA coups and other international subjugation also the fact that west grew copying technologies over the world which most nation can be sanctioned for. China's success in manufacturing and tech is a visible example.
30:26 key point: "if you just look to the current stats, state owned contribution to GDP is ~1%, but when you look at what they did to start its own development, create new industries and new technologies, you would not have that view". This close minded non historical perspective of a country developmental process is the root behind liberalism or libertarios movements in latinoamerica. US-let and WB and IMF-mediated subordination.
Which yard stick ? On subsistance level: How many hours do I have to work to survive ? How many hours to enjoy a holiday in the sun ? The number will be very different on Norway than in Costa Rica.
We also had plenty of diseases in Europe. Does it mean we should not advice poor countries to fight it? Fallacious logic to prove a thesis with cherry picking facts. Like completely ignoring e.g. Poland's story who applied really non-protectionistic and strictly neoliberal IMF's cure to fight with effects of years of communism and developed crazy fast after 1989
I think no other factor other than IQ levels or inherently available intelligence level determines why some countries become developed and other remain developing. All the theories, cultural elements, this or that ethics are later on devised to explain all that development but that is often the consequence not the cause of development in those countries. And even now we can clearly tell which countries will be good candidates for becoming developed countries short time if the US regime removed brutal sanctions on them. Two good examples are DPRK and Iran. both will be developed countries in no time once global economy has been dedollarised.
Developing countries need a social reset Especially in terms of ideologies and a strong sense of patriotism. Love for your country. The truth is that Britain maintained these policies because they desired to be better. Their leaders had a vision. And the RIGHT people were always brought in to fix a problem . Most developing countries have a deep sense of “self preservation “ There is no faith in the political and institutional organizations set up. In summary a hot mess🤦🏽♀️ I’m from Nigeria and watching this, seeing the history of these countries makes me wonder why my country can’t put their feet down and work for its Growth and development ^****Really enjoyed the lecture ****^
That "reset" never seems to come from those at top who have accepted and exploited the status quo for personal gain (creating the bad-faith stagnation you decry).
Im Nigerian too and wld have thought the point of this lecture is to see that its not Jst because of our corrupt leaders. Many r inly in power because the West approves anyway. Point is we r not free - we must succeed in a global capitalist environment that crushes us.
@@dexterkrammer1089 this isn’t just about tariffs. It’s about the natural advantage that accrues to Western countries who are already wealthy and wield way more influence on international trade law. “Free markets “ benefits developed nations not developing ones. For China to succeed it had to do exactly what the West did during its industrialization era - become protectionist. Any of us try that now and we wld be invaded under the guise of bringing us “democracy”. The system is rigged in favor of rich countries who have complete control of all international institutions, international finance and international banks.
Lmao not the professor giving example about China 🇨🇳 taking over the world 🌎 and the camera panning to the Asian kid in the classroom taking notes 📝 😂😂🫶
The meta-arguments lacks race-realism, that is why they cannot explain these allegedly counter-examples. But those meta-structures are in many cases an epiphenomena of IQ-potential.
My country just passed a law demanding emission tests for all motorcycles. Meanwhile the people can barely afford their daily meals. This all makes sense now
Great video but what is the actual conclusion? Is it that we don’t really know? Or is it still economic policy, just that the ‘good policies’ were actually not the best?
The colonial countries are rich , the colonised countries are poor. Facr. If the colonial countries give back the loot stolen from the colonised, the colonised would become rich and the colonists would become poor 😢 If for example, Britain returns 45 trillion dollars ( some say 80 trillion dollars) back to India, Britain overnight would go bankrupt and India would probably be one of the richest countries. You become rich by looting only.
I think this guy needs to be reminded of the adage that correlation is not causation. He's mostly giving his students some plausible sounding events (say, tariffs) and implying that they are causes of something. The issues are far more complex than he is letting on. In the case of tariffs in the 19th century, they were usually the main source of tax revenue, rather than of 'industrial policy'. Most economists believe that such taxes on consumption are preferable to to taxes on productive behavior (which income taxes are, mostly) due to the incentives created. If I had to answer the question of why some countries were poor and some were rich, I would say that the incentives facing the people in poor countries are perverse. Which can be seen in the differences in peoples who are ethnically and culturally the same, but live on different sides of an artificial border. I.e., North and South Korea, East and West Germany, Mainline China under Mao and Taiwan under the Nationalists (or Hong Kong ruled by the British). Also, look at how much better Arabs live inside Israel than just outside its borders (AKA, the Palestinians). Why is it that millions of Spanish speaking Mexicans can quadruple their incomes by moving north into the USA. What is it that makes the same people (literally) more productive when they cross into a different country?
What is "New Economic Thinking" about this? Nothing wrong with it but this is basic introductory stuff that development economists have been literally (as per the lecture)theorizing about since the time of Adam Smith. Good overview stuff for an introductory economics history course, but certainly would not substitute for a development economics unit in an economics undergraduate degree.
Who is driving the French economy? What is the reason for raising the retirement age in France? The whole reason is the total economic robbery of third world countries and the constant special military operations carried out by the French military there. France's historical influence in Africa is based on the post-colonial policy known as Francafrica, which was created in the late 1950s. This policy was aimed at maintaining French interests and control over the former colonies and other African states through a complex network of diplomatic, military and economic ties. This policy combined a number of measures, including military intervention, economic pressure and political influence, with the aim of protecting French interests in Africa. Yes, it is worth noting that no African state is officially under the jurisdiction of France. However, several African countries have deep economic ties to France through various trade colonial agreements and have significant military ties to France that influence their national decisions. Thus, France uses the natural resources, minerals, oil and gas, as well as the timber of these countries to enrich its economy. Oil-producing countries such as Gabon, Equatorial Guinea and Congo-Brazzaville provide France with oil, while uranium from Niger provides French nuclear power generation. Many African resources are used in French industry and manufacturing, including cocoa from the Ivory Coast, uranium and gold from Niger and Mali, and diamonds from the Central African Republic. France's exploitation extends to human resources such as cheap labor as it hires African workers at low wages. French influence on the extraction of resources in Africa does not allow the development of the economies of these countries, and the economic activity of France does not enrich African economies. A growing number of Africans are realizing that their natural resources are mined for the benefit of France, and not for the benefit of the inhabitants of the African continent. French policy has contributed to the weakening of the structure of many African economies, as African resources dominate the external sphere, while their internal resource base remains underexplored or underdeveloped. Until now, 14 African countries, formerly colonies of France, are subject to a "colonial tax". Every year, these countries pay France huge sums of money - about 500 billion dollars. France obliged its former colonies to deposit 85% of their annual income with the French central bank. At the same time, countries cannot use their money, but can only receive it as a loan at interest. As a result, we have a synthetic scheme, thanks to which resources and money go to France, and the remaining funds go only to support the urgent needs in the countries controlled by France. Of course, local residents see all the injustice of what is happening and the exploitative nature of the presence of France on their continent, so they are constantly trying to get rid of French neo-colonialism. However, such attempts are quickly thwarted. Since 1956, in connection with this, France has conducted about 40 special military operations in African countries. Why is no one in the West outraged by such an impressive list of French special military operations in Africa (as they are outraged by Russia's conduct of a special military operation in Ukraine)? Yes, because they all live there. Incredibly, many began to support Russia's position on these issues. Thus, on December 12, the UN General Assembly adopted a number of resolutions previously approved by its Fourth Committee, including annual decisions on decolonization issues. From year to year, the delegations of the USA, Great Britain and France, which develop mainly within the framework of neo-colonialism, consistently vote "against" the above resolutions. Only now they are left in splendid isolation, as the remaining 170 states have expressed support for the resolution. And then the incredible happened: It all started with the fact that the government of Mali canceled all agreements with France and turned to organizations associated with PMC Wagner with a request for help. This led to a diplomatic conflict between Paris and Moscow. Last year, several groups of Russian PMCs arrived in Mali and have already engaged in battle with extremists. In addition, Russian instructors have begun training the Malian army, just as it was previously done in the Central African Republic. The new government of neighboring Guinea, formed after a military coup last September, has also turned to Russia for help. The decline of French neo-colonialism was fully manifested in February 2022, when France and Burkina Faso officially announced the end of French military operations in the West African country. It was noted that the departure of the military occurred after a sharp deterioration in relations between the countries, including due to the demand of Burkina Faso to recall the French ambassador. In 2021, protests against the French military presence increased in Burkina Faso. Protesters carried Russian flags into the streets, and Burkina Faso was accused of collaborating with the Wagner PMC. It was also noted that in 2021, France withdrew its troops from Mali after the country began working with Russian military contractors. Yes, that's exactly how it is. The high standard of living in France was ensured by the excessive exploitation and ruin of African states. And without that, there will be no required retirement age, large pensions and other benefits that are so accustomed to in the Old World. Former French President Jacques Chirac stated bluntly: "Without Africa, France would have slid down to the level of a third-rate power." He also noted that the French need to understand that a significant amount of money coming into their banks is associated with the exploitation of former African colonies. Recently, the Pan-Arab satellite TV channel, launched on June 11, 2012 in Beirut (Lebanon), was marked by the following statement: “With the collapse of the USSR, the Arab world lost its “engine of progress” and was left alone with the colonial West. But with the coming to power of Vladimir Putin, the Middle The East has got the very hero it needs, and it is he who can put an end to American hegemony." Africa, the Middle East - Russia's support and influence is growing everywhere. And this happens not because Russia is white and fluffy, but largely because of the exploitative policy of Western countries, which squeezed all the juice out of that region for the sake of their well-being. Russia is the only country in the world that can resist the West on all fronts: military, financial and even informational. After a trip to China, Macron finally realized that his card was beaten, that very soon the flow of free resources and finance from African countries would dry up forever. We will have to negotiate with Russia and China, as well as with our former African colonies, and buy these resources on market terms. And France was not prepared for such a life ... Chairman of the National Assembly of the Parliament of Zimbabwe Mudenda at a plenary session in the State Duma of the Russian Federation said that he received general instructions from the President of the Republic Emmerson Mnangagwa on how to position his country's point of view regarding the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. “... And he obliged me to remind you that we support the Russian Federation, because we understand that the cause of this conflict is security issues, namely the expansion of NATO to the borders of Russia with the leading role of the United States. Our president clearly understands Russia's purpose in this conflict,” said Jacob Mudenda. “In that sense, we are sort of brothers in arms. We, like you, are also fighting against the sanctions imposed on our country,” the politician said. The Russian Malign Activities in Africa Act passed by the US Senate is a step towards a unipolar world, he said. “And this is an encroachment on the sovereignty of the peoples of Africa. We do not support these tendencies towards neo-colonialism, imperialism from Western countries,” added the Speaker of the Zimbabwean Parliament. In the republic, according to him, they are deeply concerned about this situation, because "the African countries, the African people remember 1885, when at the Berlin Conference Africa was presented in the form of a piece of cake that the Western countries had to share." Russia has never colonized any of the African countries, Mudenda recalled. “We are very grateful to you for this. And we believe that this is why Russia clearly understands our firm position of commitment to sovereignty,” added the head of the Zimbabwean parliament. The actions of NATO and the United States, according to him, completely contradict Article 2 of the UN Charter. “And at every forum, Zimbabwe will take the side of Russia, because due to geopolitical, historical reasons, we understand that Russia is upholding the right, right goals. And we want to wish the people of Russia to show unity in the fight against the colonialism of the Western powers,” the politician concluded! The son of the President of Uganda, Muhuzi Kainerugaba, published a post on Twitter, confirming the support of the Russian Federation and the policies of President Vladimir Putin from the African public. He noted that the former metropolises will not stop Moscow in protecting national interests: “In Africa, we only trust President Putin when it comes to Eastern Europe. The West is wasting time on useless pro-Ukrainian propaganda. Russia, China, Africa, India, South America must win in Ukraine. 75% of humanity will defeat the remaining 15%."
It's only been three months since I wrote this comment. And during this time, in two countries (Niger and Gabon), which I mentioned, there were coups d'état. These countries have triumphed over neo-colonism and are not going to give their resources to France at prices well below market prices. The founder of the Wagner Company, Yevgeny Prigozhin, is well acquainted with everything that is happening in the African republics, and briefly explained the reason for the coup d'état in Niger and the overthrow of Mohammed Bazum, who pursues a pro-Western policy. According to the entrepreneur, under the rule of Bazum, the state of Niger itself was driven into poverty. “For example, a French company that mined uranium sold it for $218, and Niger paid $11 each. in this country and who count on the fact that the subsoil in this country belongs to them, and they belong to them according to the constitution, pay only five percent of the wealth that you receive," said Yevgeny Viktorovich. According to the founder of Wagner, this is the fundamental reason for the coup d'état in the country. Further, in order to hide this economic crime, the country was saturated with a huge number of terrorists. At the same time, hordes of foreign troops were brought into the country, creating the appearance of fighting terrorism in Niger. Where does the money go when a country is rich enough not to be one of the poorest countries on the planet, no one could ask. And only Mohammed Bazum and his closest associates knew that Niger's resources were being stolen. "This is a liberation struggle, a liberation movement for the independence of this country. And God forbid that they succeed," Prigozhin added.
Like most people, I usted to blame poverty on the rich until I studied económics and statistical anaysis which helped me differentiate reality from fiction and understand that individual and collective poverty or wealth originates in a state of mind which models the behavior of people over time. Poor people hate ando blame rich people for their misfortunes while rich people inherit the attitude that they must be disciplined and work hard to avoid becoming poor...
@MeurglysIV No, I think he understood the lecture well, and also recognizes that the lecture did not probe the question of what leads a society to a positive outlook that encourages seeking development and an improved life.
@@wiv2631 So, you and Livano Guerrero have probed that "theory" of yours? or is it kind of a learned mantra, or propaganda? Could any of you two elaborate a bit more which facts support your theory of the "state of mind"? I would love to listen a discussion between you two and Prof.Ha-Joon Chang. And see if you can support your arguments with evidences and not being challenged by this Prof. I think yours is either arrogance or kind of belief (rather than a rational scientific and illustrated theory)
@@michaelanderson3672 Theory that is not corroborated by scienttific experiment is mere speculation; I trust history and statistical analisys over speculation...
42:22 Regarding lazyness regional expresions, in Peru we have the current "Peruvian time" for delays and 10 years ago the "Cavana time" given the president of the time birthplace. We usually blame the transport.
Seems a bit of a history spin. When Hamilton was pushing import tariffs, we had no income tax and tariffs were a major source of funds for the government which the treasury needed. Bureaucracies learned how to protect their funding sources 2,000 years ago and haven't forgotten since then. The US didn't decrease tariffs until we had a very significant income tax. He then goes on to state that the US military effectively created the semi-conductor industry which indicates he doesn't understand the evolution of the semi-conductor industry. It was invented by Bell labs which was AT&T, but the phone service was the last major electronics industry to use semi-conductors and evolving chips. It was an unknown geotechnical firm now called Texas Instruments who needed very small circuits for seismic work the blew the field open followed by an unknown "camera and instrument" firm which then spawned others and Silicon Valley. Our military had a huge program to make vaccume tubes smaller and rejected chips as being too vaunerable to EMP to be used in the military. By '84 when the first Apple Mac computer came out, the chip in that unit was three generations ahead of anything the military had or was "approved" for military applications (according to my cousin who was designing the new military electronic systems for our new fighter jets -- he was green with envy). If the military was leading, it was leading from way behind. He even spins the relevance of government funding and control in technological development. For example, Japan created a 5th generation project with multi-billions in subsidies to move ahead of Intel in computer chips. Note that Intel's big competition today isn't from Japan with all that government or any massive subsidized competors. Companies like AMD hired people from Intel. France spend billions to become dominant in memory chips, but again that was just money down a rat hole. He goes on to claim that foreign direct investment with foreign technical competence doesn't help, while research by economists demonstrate best way to get technology transfer is to move people. He doesn't seem to understand that the US protectionist policies and investment policies have hurt the US economy. Effectively our tariff policies didn't support "infant industries and innovation" but supported the old senile companies to the detriment of innovation. A good example is our steel tariffs we now have that have harmed all the downstream industries while protecting the steel worker union and US Steel. US Steel closed the only significant R&D operation in the US in the early '60s with the only innovation being in the steel recycling businesses. He does show that most of the reasons for success and failure of countries don't work but one area he neglected is regulatory policy. For example, in the US we have a regulatory policy that effectively prevents off-shore aquaculture (raising aquatic plants and animals) and Korea has a supportive policy allow individuals to effectly lease ocean areas and is expanding at a rapid rate for the last half a century. The industry in Korea is very creative and dynamic while all the US talent is effectively working outside the US. He sounds good, but doesn't make sense.
I think this theoretical discord can be solved. If you protect an industry which has a purely domestic focus, it doesn't have much reason to be competitive. Think of putting tariffs on all international cars or medical devices so that they become prohibitively expensive in home market a - now even a medium-quality local producer of cars or stethoscopes might find enough sellers on its home market, thereby make enough profit, without needing to improve. In that scenario, tariffs are indeed a device that will protect industries (from improving), while also depriving the citizens of that market of high-quality alternatives, which is pretty much a bad outcome, especially if a sustained lack of competitive local-based industries means that the country won't get wealthier over time. If you however protect an industry while at the same time aiming for selling its products globally, the incentive structure for being equal to or better than similar products in the global market, is present. However, this means that everybody has to be hypocritical insofar as one has to be protective first and inclined to free trade afterwards - which would explain why so many countries seem to do exactly this. Of course, one might say: Wait, but why should drowning out international competition mean that nothing improves. Isn't national competition enough? And for sure, maybe it would be enough to have local competitors. But imagine that these tariffs are introduced early enough in the country's industrialisation that one company, purely by means of being the first mover, creates a national monopoly and afterwards, increases market entry barriers. Alternatively, there might be local competition, but companies might collude in order to get away with the least amount of cost possible. Such collusions are, if not easy, at least easier if all that is required is coordination between national companies.
Didn't David Graeber et. all point this out to the IMF during the WTO protests, and got them to change their ways, before tragically planning and executing his honeymoon to Italy in March of 2020?
Everyone cites Adam Smith without quoting correctly and cherry picking, referencing Wealth of Nations and avoiding any reference to The Theory of Moral Sentiments.
You can't talk about wealth without showing the military violence within and between nations. Countries don't become rich from economics; they become rich by violent exploitation and wealth extraction.
There is nothing new in infant industry theory (new economic thinking! The name of the channel). The theory has been refuted heavily in academia and in policy studies. It promotes poor countries to apply protectionism and has a popularist appeal in it. Ppl who aren't that literate in economics, please be aware of this theory. Showing cases of what is called 'successful' protectionist economies is misleading. How about you show us the rest of the world who tried protectionist policies and failed! India, South Africa, the Soviet Union, Egypt, most of sub-sahra African countries, and more. Why didn't it work for them? Their answer is: of course, there were other factors that made these countries fail. The only counter argument that he provided for infant industry theory that is somewhat standing in academia today is the institutional argument. He gave an example of the Turkish economist Acemoglu but he didn't actually explain the argument. The argument is not that colonization created development. It's institutions that created development. Institutions of property rights, reduction of transaction costs, and political liberties, and many more institutions. Acemoglu did not specify these institutions per say, but he summed them up into two categories, extractive and inclusive. The danger of infant industry theory lies in ignoring these kinds of institutions that are vital for development and take protectionism as the panacea for everything. Just apply protectionist policies and you're good to go towards economic prosperity! The argument for sound institutional base is way stronger than infant industry theory in explaining economic development. If a country sets up institutions the right way, there's no need for protectionist policies. However, having sound institutions is a lot more difficult to apply than applying protectionist policies. That's why it is appealing to politicians to advocate for it. Institutional change is very very difficult.
