But with stability, you also get stagnation. The State being able to crush upstarts to protect their own interests means a lot of those 1 billion people won't challenge the powers that be.
There have been long periods of higher taxes and economic growth. If the private sector can't keep people economically active then the state will step in.
there is a strong correlation between strong government and higher GDP. Weak economies are weak because of corrupt and weak government. So that would be my case for government action - collectively or through a good dictator.
Your logic seems good but is removed from history and reality.
Also, a government suitably subject to democratic controls has a greater incentive to keep the fields level. That's true of both the presently level parts and the parts in serious need of leveling.
I feel like there are reasons the government might want these and other related reforms to activately happen? The more corporate interests surely want max exports 4eva, but the state doesn't want quasi-private institutions to get more powerful and would also like a larger consumer economy to be less reliant on the state of the rest of the globe?
I have come to believe, for better or worse, that you cannot be the leading economical force with those things in place. I think it is needed for that.
The idea from what I gather is that the country is capable of supporting itself, and did for centuries, and shouldn't let industries wither and die for short term profit that would kill off industries that allow that ability of self support.
Perhaps the state should be responsible for the roughness of economic transition, especially for work-affecting phenomena which is global? Such as through polishing the unemployment program.
I think that "no strong governments" is the key. At the very least, manufacturing business needs strong government in order to maintain reasonable stability. It doesn't necessarily have to be a particularly nice government, though a nice government (at least at some minimal level, not trying to be too optimistic here) may be necessary for a robust consumer market.
Exactly. Forcing supply below demand through zoning restrictions does help, but once speculation begins this hurts supply also.
It amazes me on HN where on most other complex behavioural problems if someone came along and shouted "it's because of X" they would be laughed out to cries of "it's more complicated than just one thing".
Yet when it comes to millions of people with varying priorities interacting with government and the banks anyone who comes up with anything more complex than "it's supply and demand" is told "no, I've done econ 101 thank you".
Hacker news can't be bothered with Georgism, they've done econ 101 syllabus (provided by their establishment).
You're right, social mobility and overall standard of living matters as well. Also, how strong the state itself is and how decisively they can put down insurrection...
When you're looking at policy to address lifting up the people struggling at the bottom in various ways the only reasonable course is to define it relative to local conditions. Looking globally ignores local prices and needs for example.
A problem that often gets overlooked are the (geo) political ramifications of differences in economic output. I’m not sure if this is an existing hypothesis, but it seems evident to me.
If one actor grabs the bigger share of economic growth that puts it in a position of power over others. Nation states that can grow their population, resource extraction and have export surplus can use those things to exert political power over others. This means that states have a strong incentive for growth.
Likewise, if a population is dependent on money for their necessities, and there exists a limited stock of it, those who command a large fraction of it have defacto leverage over those with little.
reply