According to recent reports, Argentina has little economic freedom - in the list of nations is at the level below 138 and above Guinea Vietnam. This should be reason to worry.
Really?
Let's see how other nations are.
According to the list is at position 135, Brazil 113, India, 123. and Russia 143. These four nations are those which form the famous BRIC nations whose economic growth makes them desirable for investment. Three of them these up in Argentina, and one below. But none of them is considered economically free.
Vietnam, which is a little less free than Argentina, has a growing economy.
Instead we see that Ireland is at level 7 - very free and very edge of bankruptcy. United States is at level 9, and can not generate sufficient economic growth to absorb the unemployed, England is level 16, and also has the economy and the monkey.
The correlation between economic freedom and growth does not seem to exist. It could be based on these data, concluded that the correlation is negative, but that is not possible to say, because there are countries with economic freedom and growth, and countries with little or no economic freedom as economy picks up.
there anything I should be clear, economic freedom is a factor, but far from the only .. As an example let us take the case of Saudi Arabia. Your freedom index is higher than many other nations (No. 69) but not why it is considered a desirable place to go. Nobody in their right mind would leave Argentina to go to start a business in Saudi Arabia. Nobody leaves the good wine, going to church, (or not) and sit and watch the beautiful and elegant women in the streets to go for economic freedom where these things do not exist.
In any case the direct correlation between economic freedom and growth indicates that liberal axioms of non-interference in the economy but can not be accepted as divine commandments. In today's world a nation of great economic freedom (USA) is indebted to the neck, and is a nation of limited freedom economy (China) which is its largest creditor. You have to suspect that the ideology of free market (Adam Smith) has continued to Marxism-with complete control of the economy by the state - the dustbin of history. What exists today, the example to follow is that state interference in the economy, with each country experiencing what the best mix of economic freedom and control of the state. There are still safe formulas, not all mixtures are successful. But that's the path.
He could be called the Third Position, if that were not historically a mistake, because this third position is prior to Marxism as a practical model. Is the model based on the theories of Friedrich List, whose work was the creation of the Zollverein, or Customs Union of the German principalities, a union that would lead Bismarck's Germany, which in a few years became a formidable industrial power, so strong two devastating wars did not destroy, and today it expects European economic salvation.
Friedrich List is considered the second most famous economist who produced Germany (the first was Marx). Unlike Marx or Adam Smith, his influence was not in academia, discussing theoretical issues, but in the erection of a flourishing economy. Must emphasize that. Adam Smith wrote when England's economy was already growing - and his council, was found on his last result, the economy weakened. Marx wrote long revolutionary media, they planned, they would do if something utópicamaente ever tomasen power. Friedrich List laid the foundations for Germany's economic expansion.
If others read their books and try to follow is not so much by the reasoning found in them, but by example how to create an industrial powerhouse in a short time. They are not philosophical treatises, not the exposure of an ideology. They are an instruction manual on how to raise a country. Has been read well and his advice has been followed.
is not an author who attracts ideologues, or those who need a philosophy of life. The are attracted to persons of a practical, willing to try at the expense of their own mistakes. An outstanding student, the Irishman Sean Lemass, was expressed well, when he reproached some failures, "The only way I know to avoid mistakes is to do nothing." Without fear of academic demonstrations, or high-sounding declarations of principle, and many others took to experiment, to find the ideal mix of private and state interference, and one blow up industrial economies where none existed.
time is over. The Adam Smith plunges into debt. And meanwhile, List only looking for a way to make Germany rich to give lessons that even today I am in profit.
And Argentina? In Argentina, Jauretche read to List and popularized his theories. And these days, who inspires Jauretche is economic policy. The mixture may not be ideal, may have made mistakes. But given the choice between a mode of acting that has become a debtor nation - the U.S., and one that leads to gather promissory notes of other nations - China, who did not choose to be creditor instead of borrowing?
0 comments:
Post a Comment