A real world opinion as to why Trump-Trade is spot on!

[justoffal]

The Path to Growth Is Industrialization, Not Exports

The Path to Growth Is Industrialization, Not Exports

On the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Dani Rodrik posed a controversial question: “Is Export Led Growth Passé?” Writing on September 11, 2008, this famous Harvard professor argued that advanced economies were unlikely to run large current account deficits and import as they did in the past. Export markets would shrink and long-term success for developing countries would depend “on what happens at home rather than abroad.”

In 2016, Rodrik gave a key lectureat the University of Sussex in the UK developing this argument further. He argued that the “East Asia style growth miracles are less likely in the future.” Furthermore, if growth miracles happen, they would no longer be based on exports alone. Rodrik also made the case that growth in emerging markets has been unsustainably high in the last decade and will come down by a couple of percentage points.

In this day and age, it is common sense for most economists to hold a notion of convergence. As per this idea, Third World countries can grow fast and achieve standards of living similar to advanced economies in a matter of decades or less. As latecomers, these countries, also referred to as developing economies or emerging markets, have access to the latest thinking, new technologies, First World capital and global markets. This access should allow these poorer countries to converge with richer ones in a matter of decades or less.

Rodrik distinguishes between conditional and unconditional convergence. Most development economists hold the view that convergence is not inevitable but conditional. To achieve it, poorer countries must build up their economic and political institutions, develop human and physical capital, and employ sound economic stabilization policies that rein in fiscal deficits and curb inflation. These conditions are akin to the “Washington consensus” first coined by British economist John Williamson. Since 1989, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have faithfully preached this sermon to poorer countries ad infinitum.
......

There's more in the link...

Jo

 

[Toronado3800]

The Path to Growth Is Industrialization, Not Exports

The Path to Growth Is Industrialization, Not Exports

On the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Dani Rodrik posed a controversial question: “Is Export Led Growth Passé?” Writing on September 11, 2008, this famous Harvard professor argued that advanced economies were unlikely to run large current account deficits and import as they did in the past. Export markets would shrink and long-term success for developing countries would depend “on what happens at home rather than abroad.”

In 2016, Rodrik gave a key lectureat the University of Sussex in the UK developing this argument further. He argued that the “East Asia style growth miracles are less likely in the future.” Furthermore, if growth miracles happen, they would no longer be based on exports alone. Rodrik also made the case that growth in emerging markets has been unsustainably high in the last decade and will come down by a couple of percentage points.

In this day and age, it is common sense for most economists to hold a notion of convergence. As per this idea, Third World countries can grow fast and achieve standards of living similar to advanced economies in a matter of decades or less. As latecomers, these countries, also referred to as developing economies or emerging markets, have access to the latest thinking, new technologies, First World capital and global markets. This access should allow these poorer countries to converge with richer ones in a matter of decades or less.

Rodrik distinguishes between conditional and unconditional convergence. Most development economists hold the view that convergence is not inevitable but conditional. To achieve it, poorer countries must build up their economic and political institutions, develop human and physical capital, and employ sound economic stabilization policies that rein in fiscal deficits and curb inflation. These conditions are akin to the “Washington consensus” first coined by British economist John Williamson. Since 1989, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have faithfully preached this sermon to poorer countries ad infinitum.
......

There's more in the link...

Jo

Forgive me for not clicking around.

I think in the long term future East Asia style growth due to exports will be more difficult to pull off assuming man kind avoids more economic disasters like WWII, the internet spreads education, drug abuse doesn't idle large portions of the population and we have some strange merit based socialism threat to keep the capitalist from running amuck.

Near term, imagine some organized Muslims with patience set loose in Africa. The could take over a region and have an "East Asia Style Growth Miracle". I mention Muslims because their religion is about due for an cultural growth spurt. When Christianity was a millennium and a half old they came out of the dark ages and almost conquered the world economically.

 

[badger2]

There are merit-based anti-socialists, too. These are the ones that already know why socialism is impossible. Capitalism doesn't require socialism's madness in any form, because there's no chance of capitalism going mad. Muslim stupidity fronting as intelligence will get precisely the reality all stupidities deserve, with plenty more mouths to feed to boot, recalling one anti-drug Chinese emperor who defrocked a quarter-million Buddhist nuns and monks, returning them to lay life because they were depleting state granaries. Thus this emperor won the concurrence of the Chinese people for a long time after. IMF Breath should be informed that the Chinese word, 'duh,' is used to denote astronomical units of measure.