Overall, ROK leans toward an anti-Socialist, anti-globalization, and
anti-equal position. We can add pro-Western, although there is no consensus
on the extent to which traditional culture is preferred in modern or vice
versa.
As I see it, it is essential to distinguish the constructive elements of
destruction, whether traditional or not, and including protectionism
against free trade. Moreover, it is of major importance to update things in
the current situation, stick to almost perpetual principles if some have
proven worthy and stood the test of time.
These positions do not come from nowhere, based on whim and sentiment, but
based on facts, logic and historical realities. However, a significant
proportion of academics seem to distort reality rather than explain & #
8211; or at least that describe selective parts of it, while ignoring what
does not fit into their ideological framework & # 8211; but some have
managed to accurately describe how things are made and connected.
The British economist Budapest-born Péter Tamás Bauer (1915-2002) is one
such figure, which throughout its years of activity has swallowed the red
pill and decided to explain the economic and material realities beyond the
philantrophic positivity, wishful thinking and irrational fears of the
future.
In his work Equality, the Third World, and Economic Delusion (1981), many
of its basic ideas related to egalitarianism, economic freedom and growth,
the policies of foreign aid and trade are discussed depth. While some, many
are partly true again now outdated and I focused on those who still adhere
to the real world. However, I finished a few areas that have been developed
since Bauer's work was written, associated for example with developmental
psychology and personality, as well as the economy.
1. Egalitarianism is based on false assumptions
The reason is egalitarianism a bad starting point is the company that is
based on false assumptions. The ability to create wealth is largely related
to the ability and work ethic. Bauer understood and stressed that these are
some of the main factors underpinning economic success, whether at the
individual or collective level.
People differ in economic ability as in artistic, intellectual, musical and
sports. In particular, they are distinguished by their ability to perceive
and utilize economic opportunities. Ready to seize economic opportunities
is of great importance to explain the economic differences in open
societies.
eminent psychologists like Arthur Jensen, not least in his book The G
Factor (1998) have shown that economic success is highly correlated with
IQ, but features such as consciousness and Machiavellianism are indeed also
critical factors in matter of taking advantage of opportunities.
Donald Trump is an example of how this industrious person and cunning has
managed to be a successful entrepreneur. Or Ingvar Kamprad, the Swede who
founded IKEA, for that matter.
But the fact that many left-leaning liberals and globalists have
assimilated with equal fairness is problematic, according to Bauer. After
all, because of the differences mentioned above equal opportunities often
create uneven results, materially and economically, but is it really unfair
that some people earn more than others?
Decades after publication of Bauer's book, a discursive focus in the left
increased opportunities compared to equity, the idea that people born in
poor countries tend to miss opportunities and will therefore unequity
inevitably suffer.
It is indeed a real obstacle to any universalist, but becomes quite
misguiding when the left is looking at the issue. The Chinese are not happy
in the pure communist rule, and it was only until Deng Xiaoping's reforms
in the 1970s and the end before that improved things for them. Ironically
leftist social engineering has never been particularly effective in the
treatment of inequalities and create better societies, as Bauer shows.
Failed states like Venezuela and North Korea can not be, at least partially
cured by stable economic policies such as the market economy, made possible
by a relatively incorruptible ruling class.
That said, one wonders whether it is fair that the US super-rich
entrepreneurs, whatever their merits, earning as much as they do. But we
say s Scandinavian social democratic model is not an option if we try to
correct it, because it is essentially anti-business, creates problems
wellness dysgenic, and can even lead to more inequality economic because of
imported new lower class.
2. The big daddy government treats people like children
Another important aspect is that Bauer discusses the state of management,
or whatever you prefer to call it, treats adults like children. Bauer found
a striking resemblance between income after taxes and spending money:
old age, disease, the development of children and the interruption of
earnings, these are contingencies of life to pay to get out of a s income,
for which adults can expect to be provided by savings or insurance. In many
Western countries provision for these contingencies came to be supported
largely by the state. Given that the provision can not be adapted to the
very different circumstances of individuals and families, it is likely to
be both expensive and unsatisfactory. This provision is necessarily
financed by taxes. As a result, many people's after-tax income becomes like
spending money that is not needed for major necessities and dangers of life
because they are paid by taxes largely imposed on them- same. This
redistribution of responsibilities involved in the operation of the welfare
state means reducing the status of adults than children.
Since people differ in skill, they make even regarding the ability to make
appropriate decisions, but if the state & # 8221 deprives; the well-being,
they are forced to take responsibility and act like adults.
It is not always easy and some will be treated unfair balance in ways that
are not the results of individual faults, but if one also considers the
fact that taxes are high while the actual quality of social security does
not match the tax rates, it is reasonable to significantly reduce the size
of the welfare state.
3. The fear of population growth has been misdirected
Bauer points out, with examples from both the West and parts of Asia, the
population growth was a false fear. In fact, many nations have flourished
in conjunction with population growth. The Malthusian trap of having too
many mouths to feed and too much body away, was solved by agrarian and
industrial techniques, improved communications and science. It is actually
sparsely populated nations that have suffered the most, mainly because of
poor communication and inefficient storage facilities.
However, the living conditions for the largest share of people in places
such as Nigeria, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia and Brazil are pretty bad
and food shortages are or could be a real obstacle for them . Especially if
one takes the link between wealth and IQ into account. If modern
development is part of the equation, these problems can escalate.
Therefore, family planning, somewhat similar to that of China, perhaps a
good thing in some national contexts. If the state could create incentives
for the small proportion of educated people to have more children, while
simultaneously creating incentives for the lower classes to have fewer
children, it could be beneficial for these countries in their entireties .
In addition, Bauer neglects the welfare of animals, such as extreme
anthropocentrism unfettered led to the extinction of animal species as a
result of economic development. It is likely that this trend will continue
until the improvement of techniques may allow less harmful to the growth
patterns of the environment.
As for unemployment, I think it is difficult to make even tentative
suggestions for the future, but the robots that replace part or mostly
human labor are of course part of the equation.
4. Assistance to the Third World is largely based on false assumptions
Another important subject that deals Bauer is the third world aid, and
equal as the concept is based on false assumptions. When economists Wishful
Thinking and doing good ISTS make plans for the Third World, it is based on
extrapolation models which implies that as long as rich countries give a
certain proportion of their total GDP every year, while countries poor
prosper.
The problem is that extrapolations should be based on reality, and each not
met outside the philanthropic matrix. Infrastructure must be developed in
fact, bridges are to be built, violence must be treated and so on, and that
far from being reached in most countries in sub-Saharan Africa.
Instead of many nations of the first world that sponsored the Ghanaian
economist George Ayittey called black neo-colonialism, namely cleptocratic
African leaders who fill their own pockets rather than building their
postcolonial nations. For example, my home country, Sweden, has supported
dictatorships like Uganda.
5. The West has made the rest of the prosperous world rather than the other
One of the most absurd notions of the left, including academics, is that
the Western world is rich at the expense of various developing countries.
Things are not black and white and there is some empirical support for the
theory of Immanuel Wallerstein world-systems, but Bauer, Michael Chisholm,
Niall Ferguson, Charles Murray, among others have shown that, overall, it
is Indeed not.
In fact, just need to know a few basic contemporary East Asian history to
realize that countries like South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan are high in
large part because of the West, the United States in particular, rather
than the opposite.
While the work of Bauer may seem dated, it gave us a lot of
thought-provoking conclusions on how we can deal with our modern problems.
More: 3 lessons political economist Alberto Alesina
No comments:
Post a Comment