
Economists understand little about the causes of growth - intrasight
https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21740403-first-series-columns-professions-shortcomings-economists
======
intrasight
"Robert Lucas, a Nobel Prize winning economist, once wrote that after you
think about the gap between poor and rich countries, it is hard to think about
anything else."

In The Economist "Free Exchange" \- the first in a series of the economists
professions shortcomings

The article suggests that the profession's focus on quantitative models had
meant that studies which ask the important question of why some countries grow
are failing to get much attention.

------
zircon1
This is among the worst things I have ever seen written by a modern media
publication. Complete, utter nonsense. The fact it is coming from a magazine
calling itself “The Economist” makes it much worse.

I used to think the Economist was an intelligently written magazine containing
deep insights etc.

After reading it for a couple years, I realize it is actually something people
read on an airplane to gain the slightest aftertaste of wisdom which, when
combined with the appropriate Dunning-Kruger effects, is meant to make one
feel worldly and self justified without actually having to do any real work or
real personal study.

I do not like this article because it pretends that the principals which are
universally known to work have not been discovered: Free market, freedom to
choose, freedom for market participants to determine prices, minimal
government interference.

It dismissed these principals because “they can’t be measured.”

Imagine being asked to produce a measurement that freedom of speech or freedom
of religion as valuable principals. What an utterly moronic attempt to
substitute mathematics for philosophy and humanity. There are no measurements
to justify these because it can’t be done.

One of the most powerful case studies I have ever seen is the differences
between India and Japan post WWII. Both countries were subject to colonial
forces and released around similar time periods.

Japan took a hands off approach and wound up with sophisticated automated loom
technology while India insisted on using government regulations to install
burdensome regulations which kept their weaving industry entirely hand
operated, preventing the creative destruction of inefficient jobs necessary to
grow the economy for the betterment of all.

The underlying Liberal bias in the economist has become so overt it is hard to
take them seriously. They want to pretend that free market economics,
individual freedom, freedom of speech and minimal government interference are
not known to be the things that lead to tremendous economic growth.

People feel impressed by China currently, but their fundamentally totalitarian
nature and attempts to nationalize every industry and tinker ruthlessly with
their finances and banking sector are going to cause an irreversible
implosion, especially when combined with their decision to ensconce their
political leaders in permanent government positions of power.

Freedom is going to win. A good example of how China is holding itself back is
in how the government has effectively decided to promote WeChat (their
universaLly promoted chat app which is basically a feed of your private
information directly to the government) and social credit scoring. These
measures will result in people fleeing China to innovate ultimately when their
highly corrupt political and economic financing systems inevitably fail (see:
China shadow banking).

I believe we will soon find that Chinese success is illusory, you can only
fake an economy for so long.

The United States is not perfect, but it is closer to these ideals than China
ever will be on their current trajectory.

