tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21959228.post114541130015207045..comments2024-03-28T09:14:52.110+00:00Comments on Sinclair's Musings: Stiglitz demeans the Nobel PrizeMatthew Sinclairhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05948452770723874618noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21959228.post-1173230186493569742007-03-07T01:16:00.000+00:002007-03-07T01:16:00.000+00:00To be fair Matthew you could use the chinese expe...To be fair Matthew you could use the chinese expence as patridge has to beat the Washington consensus for not being free market enough...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21959228.post-1145606990466730132006-04-21T09:09:00.000+01:002006-04-21T09:09:00.000+01:00Haha, "kakistocracy". Anon is right, in fact most ...Haha, "kakistocracy". Anon is right, in fact most of the Asian countries which didn't listen to the cries of "rip up your economies for us to 'invest' it all up" <BR/>did much better other that did listen...Sanemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739725841140593733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21959228.post-1145567278186255482006-04-20T22:07:00.000+01:002006-04-20T22:07:00.000+01:00Russia's problems aren't in economic policy; they ...Russia's problems aren't in economic policy; they are in its government's failure to defend property rights and allow democratic dissent. This is a lesson in how difficult emerging from tyranny is rather than offering any insight into the effectiveness of liberal economic policy.<BR/><BR/>The most liberalised parts of the Chinese economy have been the most successful. Equally they have grown more successful as they have grown more liberal. A poor stick with which to beat the Washington Consensus.Matthew Sinclairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05948452770723874618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21959228.post-1145555848036764492006-04-20T18:57:00.000+01:002006-04-20T18:57:00.000+01:00I think what those who hold China up as a paradigm...I think what those who hold China up as a paradigm of either mixed economy/reformed communist/gradual reform/non WC policies economics ignore is that given real Chinese GDP is 15% of US GDP we would be expected 11-12% growth rates at least rather than the 8-9% growth rates produced using (very dodgy) internal statistics.<BR/><BR/>Under liberal economics snd with a similar position China grew at 13-14% in the 1930s. It is therefore plausible that the end of communism and state planning produced high growth but the semi-reformed nature of the Chinese economy has meant that the PRC is growing at around half its potential relative to its growth rate.<BR/><BR/>So its possible that China could (for a short while) keep its high growth rates while pursuing some poor policies (such as environmentalism & partial state ownership) --> thus creating an illusory link between the two policies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21959228.post-1145462077623219522006-04-19T16:54:00.000+01:002006-04-19T16:54:00.000+01:00I agree that Stiglitz, whilst being a brilliant th...I agree that Stiglitz, whilst being a brilliant theoretical economist, is much less good in a real-world environment. I also agree that much that he says about state control in the Chinese case is rubbish.<BR/><BR/>However, you'd have to agree that the Chinese leadership did reject the Washington Consensus of liberalising all markets simultaneously and early. <BR/><BR/>Growth has been largely based on tinkling with rural production incentives (the dual-track pricing mechanism) and clever use of the carrot of a massive internal market to ramp up technology transfer linked with FDI. This isn't state control, but it's not the Washington Consensus either. <BR/><BR/>The comparable situation in Russia, who did follow nearly all the prescriptions of the WC and went rapidly downhill to a gangster kakistocracy, is indicative.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com