I am still perplexed by this:
Compared to this, the 71% trade-weighted average tariff rate that India used to have just before the WTO agreement, despite the fact that its per capita income in PPP terms is only about 1/15 that of the US, makes the country look like a champion of free trade.
Compared to this, the 71% trade-weighted average tariff rate
that India used to have just before the WTO agreement, despite the fact that its per
capita income in PPP terms is only about 1/15 that of the US, makes the country look
like a champion of free trade.
This man is one of the most ideological economists I have ever known. A 71% tarriff is relatively so low that it implies free trade? Wow.
I don't think he has given due credit to other economists who have said that United States, with access to British foreign investment, British capital goods, and a British-established justice system, with a geographic position more convenient for Western European business houses who could travel faster by sea, was in a position to industrialise rapidly, even with tarriffs. This is such a selective comparison.
I find personall that Ha Joon Chang is pure politics and confirmation bias. It's no surprise that the most ideological establishment Indians, who seem to deny facts in face of evidence, such as Mani Shankar Aiyar or Amartya Sen, are also from Chang's Cambridge University.
Western Universities are some of the worst in the world because they are so horribly full of it and obsessed with social democracy. We can thank Western Universities for a couple dozen socialist revolutions.
Look at some despotic Third World leaders (democratic or otherwise) and the First World universities that produced them:
University of Pennsylvania produced Kwame Nkrumah. Cambridge produced a Thai strongman and Rajiv Gandhi. French universities produced Mao Tse-Tsung, Deng Xiaoping, Ho Chi Minh, Zhou Enlai, and god knows who else. The French hold a record here.
Remember, Rajiv Gandhi's brother and mother were hardcore eugenicists and his grandfather Jawaharlal Nehru was a friend of G. B. "Better the poor die and people like me repopulate them" Shaw. The entire India between 1950 to 1980 was a Fabian Society experiment.
All of these Third World countries were experimental grounds for crazy ideas of some British, American, or French uni professor or the other.
Excellent points and info, Prateek and Ricky.
Ricky James, are you implying that "Eastern" universities are better?
Political Atheists Blog
Kaju, are you trying to play "gotcha" with how Ricky worded his statement, or do you have something substantial you're getting at regarding the pernicious influence of many western university programs on third world governance?
krazy kaju: Ricky James, are you implying that "Eastern" universities are better? Yes, they are. The University of Beijing is far less politically correct than American Universities, and there are more pro-marketeers than in any American school except for maybe Hillsdale or GMU. And the latter are nowhere near as prestigious or important, relatively speaking, as Beijing U. The former Dean of the Beijing Business School was an Austrian economist who harshly criticized the Chinese central bank. How many Harvard Professors are going to do that? I don't think Americans, even libertarian ones, realize how absolutely brain-dead and self-censoring people in the West are. In fact most libertarians still retain these asinine prejudices, such as populism, republican governance, qausi-egalitarian norms, etc. I sometimes wonder if they realize how obviously nonsensical it all is. Social Democracy is the religion of the West, and it infects even its 'opponents'; just as the left-wing anti-Christians are just a variant of left-wing Christianity so the libertarian is often warped by democratic-republican-egalitarian culture. Thus all the populist crap and 'let's not offend women by talking about genetic differences', etc. Notice that it's not always that they won't admit it - even the mainstream Western media will - it's that they won't follow through on its implications because they're socially trained not to. No sane person ever believed in equality, not Marx or Buddha. But they can train themselves to talk as though they did. It's just like the religion thing, even though plenty of people know it's hysterically incoherent nonsense that deserves less respect than the claim that sun-born leprachauns are stealing your money it is taboo to call people on their nonsense. We're supposed to respect people's religious delusions, whether they be Christian or Egalitarian. Do that enough and you start forgetting what a bunch of BS it is. I will break in the doors of hell and smash the bolts; there will be confusion of people, those above with those from the lower depths. I shall bring up the dead to eat food like the living; and the hosts of dead will outnumber the living. | Post Points: 35
... The U.S has an average tariff rate of about 3%
.....
The former Dean of the Beijing Business School was an Austrian economist who harshly criticized the Chinese central bank.
Suppose why he is the "former" Dean.
He still works there.
These people are better than us. Thank God, because what a bunch of sad sacks the Great European Race is.
https://sites.google.com/site/chinaaustrianeconomicscampc/
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/hawaii-educators-organize-first-china-austrian-economics-camp/123
I'm not surprised. I grew up on Kung Fu/Hong Kong gunfighting movies and that gives you a very different taste of attitude.
Just because they are less politically correct doesn't mean they are better. The best professors still teach at western universities, and if you look at the top schools for each discipline, in practically every case they are almost always western universities.
Eric: Just because they are less politically correct doesn't mean they are better. The best professors still teach at western universities, and if you look at the top schools for each discipline, in practically every case they are almost always western universities. They're less politically correct because they're better. They're smarter, harder working, culturally superior, vastly more civilized and have personal social networks that do not rely on the State and are only rivaled by Jews (who are also better). The best professors still teach at western universities, and if you look at the top schools for each discipline, in practically every case they are almost always western universities. Circular nonsense. Of course the people who do best at left-wing propaganda mills work at the top left-wing propaganda mills. Universities are not education, and they're hardly even a resource for learning except in subjects nobody can spin politically. Even there they suck because of their outmoded and warped incentives, spending money on useless things like giant campuses and Women's Studies instead of imparting information. Economics, crap. Philosophy, crap. Sociology, not even a real science. Anthropology, crap. History, crap. Business, crap. Any kind of 'science' involving 'climate change', crap. What's left? Math and physics. Where do they come from? India and China - even the ones that get their PhDs over here. People who do well in universities are usually smart. The same goes for priesthoods, political office, management and sailing. I will break in the doors of hell and smash the bolts; there will be confusion of people, those above with those from the lower depths. I shall bring up the dead to eat food like the living; and the hosts of dead will outnumber the living. | Post Points: 50
The best professors still teach at western universities, and if you look at the top schools for each discipline, in practically every case they are almost always western universities.
Ricky James Moore II:These people are better than us.
Speak for yourself. I'm pretty awesome. Then again, I am half asian.
They're less politically correct because they're better. They're smarter, harder working, culturally superior, vastly more civilized and have personal social networks that do not rely on the State and are only rivaled by Jews (who are also better).
Are you talking about the school faculty or the population in general? I agree that the general population is most likely harder working. Idk about smarter, and I don't think they are culturally superior (Asian cultures are weird as hell). People in the west also have personal social networks that don't rely on the state. As for vastly more civilized, I don't know. The west is civilized, and it has been for a while.
Circular nonsense. Of course the people who do best at left-wing propaganda mills work at the top left-wing propaganda mills. Universities are not education, and they're hardly even a resource for learning except in subjects nobody can spin politically. Even there they suck because of their outmoded and warped incentives, spending money on useless things like giant campuses and Women's Studies instead of imparting information. Economics, crap. Philosophy, crap. Sociology, not even a real science. Anthropology, crap. History, crap. Business, crap. Any kind of 'science' involving 'climate change', crap. What's left? Math and physics. Where do they come from? India and China - even the ones that get their PhDs over here.
I agree some subjects (I don't even know what people learn in womans studies. It is completely useless) consist of little more than left wing talking points. However, this is not true nearly to the extent that you make it out to be. Economics is not useless as long as you take the right classes. Philosophy is pretty useless but it is decent if you want to go into law from what I hear. Sociology I assume is pretty useless, along with history and anthropology. Business is definitely not useless. I don't know if you are saying that subjects in business colleges such as accounting and finance are useless, or if "business administration" is useless. The former is definitely not true at all. The latter isn't as applicable but still not that bad. Could be worse. Then there is engineering and math, neither of which are useless.
As for the amount of left wing talking points espoused in the classes, it is mostly prominent in the social sciences (with the exception of economics). In business, engineering, math, economics, ect this is not really noticeable. It is also true that the top professors go to the top universities, which happen to be mostly in the west. Professors do not go to MIT or Chicago because they are the best at spreading left wing propaganda.
Eric, I'm saying that what you learn in Econ. and Philo. courses is not Economics or Philosophy and they suck and teaching it anyways.
I have taken econ and philo classes, and I learned econ and philo. My econ teachers were not that good but it didn't matter as I find the subject interesting. My best teacher so far has been a philosophy teacher.
Ricky, you're completely wrong. Western Universities, especially American and British ones, are the best in the world. That's why the top 10 universities in any review is pretty much just American and British schools. American and British economics departments have contributed to the bulk of economic science in the last 100 years. American science departments are the absolute best in the world. These are undisputable facts.
Western Universities, especially American and British ones, are the best in the world. That's why the top 10 universities in any review is pretty much just American and British schools.
How representative are these 10 top American and British Universities of the whole university system in Britain and America?
American and British economics departments have contributed to the bulk of economic science in the last 100 years.
And seeing the state of mainstream economics a harsher condemnation could scarcely be imagined.
Strangely, being the "top" university in the world didn't stop Harvard from publishing, "...a eulogy of the Soviet Union".
justinx0r: Ricky, you're completely wrong. Western Universities, especially American and British ones, are the best in the world. That's why the top 10 universities in any review is pretty much just American and British schools. American and British economics departments have contributed to the bulk of economic science in the last 100 years. American science departments are the absolute best in the world. These are undisputable facts. You can keep making assertions based on a system I think is a product of a failed left-wing Priesthood. Do American Universities attract smart people? Yeah. So did the SS. Neither one of them is an educational system. Especially the Ivy Leagues. Science and math is better, but pretty much everything in America is tainted by this god awful Social Democratic Enlightenment culture. I will break in the doors of hell and smash the bolts; there will be confusion of people, those above with those from the lower depths. I shall bring up the dead to eat food like the living; and the hosts of dead will outnumber the living. | Post Points: 5
Caley McKibbin, really? I couldn't find it, though.
Krazy Kaju, much of New Delhi's universities are importers of ideas exported from Cambridge and other British universities. Amarta Sen, a student of Joan Robinson, accepted without question that it's a good thing if a public sector company loses money, because profits are evil. This was recounted sarcastically by Subramanian Swamy, a fellow colleague at Delhi School of Economics. Swamy himself was a student of Paul Samuelson and his formed Janata Party contains a pretty much Samuelsonian plan for reform. So no, in the local sense, local universities are not better. They are really second-hand dealers in western ideas.
However, two things I like about fellow New Delhi-ites (actually, I am in a Delhi suburb called Gurgaon) - they are extremely apolitical, and they will be pleasantly surprised when they hear about new ideas. It's not that northern Indians are hardcore and angry believers in social democratic orthodoxy. It's just that many of us are raised knowing one perspective and are shocked to know there are others. And then we gladly listen. Political passions and anger are very little among Indians, except among a very tiny group of Jawaharlal Nehru University Professors.
South Asian people, being novices to this whole industrial world with angry partisan politics and competing ideologies, are like innocent lamb thrust into a butcher's game. They are quite innocent in accepting radical foreign ideas without knowing how dangerous they are, and quite innocent and unassuming in also hearing entirely contradictory ideas. Then they say, "I see" and go back to enjoying kebabs.
Ricky James Moore II:Circular nonsense. Of course the people who do best at left-wing propaganda mills work at the top left-wing propaganda mills.
qft
"Asian cultures are weird as hell"
It's one thing to say that a culture is less conducive to economic or scientific achievement. But the very word "weird" is so completely and obviously based on the speaker's given cultural norms, that your statement is basically circular.
"As for vastly more civilized, I don't know. The west is civilized, and it has been for a while."
You've made absolutely no argument here. The question is whether it is more or less civilized.
Economics is not useless as long as you take the right classes.
Economics in America is worse than useless unless you happen to be part of the handful of people who have been innoculated by prior extensive experience with Clark-Wicksteedian or Austrian economics.
The latter isn't as applicable but still not that bad. Could be worse.
Could be worse? Is this really the kind of defense you're marshalling for your contention that American professors and universities are of the highest quality in most disciplines?
It is also true that the top professors go to the top universities, which happen to be mostly in the west.
Why do you keep resorting to a circularity that has already been laid bare?
Better version of addressing this circularity.
In Poland, they used to make American-style westerns. Some Polish directors worked really hard at refining the Polish western and were probably good craftsmen with cinema. The question is, did anybody want Polish westerns?
Similarly, Black, Scholes, and Merton were very good at mathematical models. The question is, do you want to buy those models when they led to the bust of Long Term Capital Management? There is no point in finding the best financial market algorithms when such algorithms are the last thing you would want in the first place, be them the best or the worst.
As someone who has actually attended multiple educational institutions in both the West and in China, I can say with relative certainty that generally speaking, the gap between the two is less than generally imagined, or in some cases, nonexistent.
Does China have biases? Of course; substantial criticism of Mao or serious historical revisionism in general will never occur......but then, neither will criticism of FDR or Lincoln in the U.S.
Perhaps the only difference I can see in favour of the West is that speaking out against 'common knowledge' will generally only get you ridiculed in America, while doing so in China (assuming you touch on the wrong topic) can result in more serious measures taken by authorities.
In general, the Chinese system of education is awful, don't let anyone tell you otherwise. But the question is, is the Western system all that great?
Neodoxy: ... The U.S has an average tariff rate of about 3% .....
The US has tariff barriers that have an average rate of ~5 percent; and, if you count non-trade barriers that tariff rate increases to 21.5 percent.
World Bank: "Estimating Trade Restrictiveness Indices".
"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree." -James Madison
"If government were efficient, it would cease to exist."
It's from some Mises book where he complains about not being able to get a job in the U.S. due to the schools being dens of communists.
Daniel James Sanchez:Kaju, are you trying to play "gotcha" with how Ricky worded his statement, or do you have something substantial you're getting at regarding the pernicious influence of many western university programs on third world governance?
Uhmm, I'm engaging in the kind of conversation that normally takes place on this forum and others? Are you looking to micromanage the content of every post now?
Ricky James:Yes, they are. The University of Beijing is far less politically correct than American Universities, and there are more pro-marketeers than in any American school except for maybe Hillsdale or GMU. And the latter are nowhere near as prestigious or important, relatively speaking, as Beijing U.
So there's one Austrian economist at Beijing U? What about the others? What about the economists at other universities in China and the third world? Just off the top of my head, in the US we have GMU, Hillsdale, Grove City College, Loyola New Orleans, Loyola Maryland, and Auburn University as colleges/universities with a large percentage of free market economists. Jeffrey Miron is the Director of Undergraduate Studies at Harvard, and he's pretty libertarian. The University of Chicago is pretty libertarian too, at least in the neoclassical way. Most other "freshwater" schools are probably similar.
The way you make it seem, the intellectual world in the third world is dominated by atheists, anarchists, and Austrians while in the "West" it's dominated by socialists and despotic, altruistic Christians. You're setting up a comical dichotomy of almost Randian proportions ("It's all the Kantians' fault!").
The way I see it, Western universities are the center of intellectual and academic thought for the entire world. There's a reason why the wealthy from third world and developing countries often send their kids to American and European universities.
Though many third world strongmen might've been educated in the West (btw, Prateek forgot to mention Pol Pot), it certainly doesn't make Western institutions "the worst." If anything, it shows how the developing/undeveloped world trails behind the thought of the West.
krazy kaju:Are you looking to micromanage the content of every post now?
How is challenging your post "micromanaging"?
Do they have any illiterate students in high schools?
Look at some despotic Third World leaders (democratic or otherwise) and the First World universities that produced them: University of Pennsylvania produced Kwame Nkrumah. Cambridge produced a Thai strongman and Rajiv Gandhi. French universities produced Mao Tse-Tsung, Deng Xiaoping, Ho Chi Minh, Zhou Enlai, and god knows who else. The French hold a record here. Remember, Rajiv Gandhi's brother and mother were hardcore eugenicists and his grandfather Jawaharlal Nehru was a friend of G. B. "Better the poor die and people like me repopulate them" Shaw. The entire India between 1950 to 1980 was a Fabian Society experiment. All of these Third World countries were experimental grounds for crazy ideas of some British, American, or French uni professor or the other.
Of course the Soviet Union educated an enormous number of Africans between 1957 and 1991. Where are their Socialist dictators? (BTW, Augustino Neto was educated in Lisabon, and Mikhail Saakashvili is a Colombia man.)
Well which culture is "superior" is really just one opinion against the other anyways.
I said I didn't know which one was more civilized (Even though I would most likely lean to the West). Also, did you notice that the person who made the initial assertion did not provide an argument?
How so?
There is really no need to "marshal a defense" in the face of an argument that consists of "Business Uselss. Economics Useless. Philosophy Useless. ect" What I said with regards to business administration was true. It is a decent major. To say that it is useless means you are equating it with something like womens studies, and this is an unfair comparison.
I was restating my assertion without making an argument. Go ahead and search for the top schools for any program, or even search for a list of the top countries for university study. You will find that the West is superior. You can also look at the resume of the professors at the top universities.
Remember that no argument has been made for the claim that the professors at the top universities are simply people who are best at spreading left wing talking points. Also recall that that was the initial assertion.
If "Eastern universities" are more "free market" than Western universities (which is already arguable), it's not because Eastern people are "culturally superior", but because they are reacting to the fact that their countries have been heavily regulated, oftentimes socialized, third world countries. They are reacting to different economic events. The West came out of a time of "plenty", so to speak, and so could afford itself the mistake of socializing, and that's what we're seeing today.
Daniel James Sanchez: krazy kaju:Are you looking to micromanage the content of every post now? How is challenging your post "micromanaging"?
You can't "challenge" a question.
Prateek: Krazy Kaju, much of New Delhi's universities are importers of ideas exported from Cambridge and other British universities. Amarta Sen, a student of Joan Robinson, accepted without question that it's a good thing if a public sector company loses money, because profits are evil. This was recounted sarcastically by Subramanian Swamy, a fellow colleague at Delhi School of Economics. Swamy himself was a student of Paul Samuelson and his formed Janata Party contains a pretty much Samuelsonian plan for reform. So no, in the local sense, local universities are not better. They are really second-hand dealers in western ideas. However, two things I like about fellow New Delhi-ites (actually, I am in a Delhi suburb called Gurgaon) - they are extremely apolitical, and they will be pleasantly surprised when they hear about new ideas. It's not that northern Indians are hardcore and angry believers in social democratic orthodoxy. It's just that many of us are raised knowing one perspective and are shocked to know there are others. And then we gladly listen. Political passions and anger are very little among Indians, except among a very tiny group of Jawaharlal Nehru University Professors. South Asian people, being novices to this whole industrial world with angry partisan politics and competing ideologies, are like innocent lamb thrust into a butcher's game. They are quite innocent in accepting radical foreign ideas without knowing how dangerous they are, and quite innocent and unassuming in also hearing entirely contradictory ideas. Then they say, "I see" and go back to enjoying kebabs.
That's interesting. From my personal experience (perhaps others can comment), "Western" economics professors aren't particularly ideological. Of course, everyone has their own ideological beliefs, but econ profs are generally willing to listen to and accept other arguments.
Seph: As someone who has actually attended multiple educational institutions in both the West and in China, I can say with relative certainty that generally speaking, the gap between the two is less than generally imagined, or in some cases, nonexistent. Does China have biases? Of course; substantial criticism of Mao or serious historical revisionism in general will never occur......but then, neither will criticism of FDR or Lincoln in the U.S. Perhaps the only difference I can see in favour of the West is that speaking out against 'common knowledge' will generally only get you ridiculed in America, while doing so in China (assuming you touch on the wrong topic) can result in more serious measures taken by authorities. In general, the Chinese system of education is awful, don't let anyone tell you otherwise. But the question is, is the Western system all that great?
There we have it. A verdict on how "Eastern" schools compare to "Western" ones from someone who has actually attended an "Eastern" school.
I am an economics student at what is considered to be "the best" university in Bulgaria. As you know the State here used to be communistic, which changed since 1991. The only change the university undergone then was its name. Before it was called "Karl Marx", now it is not. But the professors and their assistants are all marxists of some sort. They are clueless State favourists who do not know economics and occupy their time brainwashing students and trying to come up with the next "workable" socialist-based pension, health-care or other system. What do you think about these quotes:
"We need the government to plan our transition from centralised economy to market economy."
"Taxes are not involuntary, they are obligatory." (neither the first part is true, nor the second)
I am an economics student at what is considered to be "the best" university in Bulgaria. As you know the State here used to be communistic, which changed since 1991. The only change the university undergone then was its name. Before it was called "Karl Marx", now it is not. But the professors and their assistants are all marxists of some sort. They are clueless State favourists who do not know economics and occupy their time brainwashing students and trying to come up with the next "workable" socialist-based pension, health-care or other system. What do you think about these quotes: "We need the government to plan our transition from centralised economy to market economy." "Taxes are not involuntary, they are obligatory." (neither the first part is true, nor the second)
So what does that mean, is Bulgaria Western or Oriental?
I am not sure what exactly you mean with "Western or Oriental". The Bulgarian State is now social-democratic. It has been planning the so-called transition period for 2 decades now. How ironic, huh? To plan not to plan. Till the year 2000 approximately 90 percent of the capital stock in Bulgaria was still State owned... Economists here do not know what the price mechanism is, how it functions and what role it plays in the allocation of resources. The Acadamia here is very poor. It is like a 19th century fan base of Marx.
Edit: There is one Bulgarian economist who I respect. His name is Krassimir Petrov. I believe he got some articles for Mises.org. He frequently writes for financialsense.com.
krazy kaju: Daniel James Sanchez: krazy kaju:Are you looking to micromanage the content of every post now? How is challenging your post "micromanaging"? You can't "challenge" a question.
Obviously there are senses in which you can challenge a question (challenge its perceived underlying assumptions, relevance to the subject, usefulness etc). So again, how is challenging your post "micromanaging"?