Industry & Service: Government v. Private

[Xellos-_^]

another point to add

all those country are small, both size and pop.

it is a lot easier to run a small country then a big one. The bigger the country the bigger the logistic problem

[ashesatdusk]

another point to add

all those country are small, both size and pop.

it is a lot easier to run a small country then a big one. The bigger the country the bigger the logistic problem

__________________


China isn't in terms of size or Pop, though its still developing a 30 year sustained average annual growth rate of 9.5% is nothing to scoff at. Economy is doubling in size every 8 years.

Japan is not in terms of population. Its precisely why Japan is the 2nd largest economy in the world.

There is a development model all those countries have used. However, there is some draw backs. They are proxy economies, essentially you can give a very strong argument, that all of those countries are part of the U.S. Economy. Their success depends on U.S consumption of the imports. Their biggest trading partner for final goods by far is the U.S. They export intermediated goods (goods used to produce other goods) among them selves. They are proxy economies, with less internal demand.

They are also very vunerable to financial crisises, due to their governments close relationships with their private sector, poor acountibility. There is a lack of institutions for dealing with liberalizing their capital markets. Lack of monitoring institutions. South Korea, Japan, Malaysia. They also have given up some level of monetary autonomy during development for maintaining an undervalued currency. China's banking industry is long been considered it weak point. Unfortunately those countries are under immense pressure to allow foriegn investment flows (meaning U.S.). The U.S. has a good reason though, their current acount deficit is exploitave if U.S is maintaining a laizafarre regime while they are not.

[ZephyrLeanne]

Singapore does not have trial by Jury or free speech, despite being a democracy. It also has the highest execution rate per capita as a result.

Singapore had a case where the jury was unable to offer a united verdict, and the verdict was also pretty wrong in the fact that the case was of a "new kind of prison" where the "inmates" were transported to an offshore island and would do whatever they wanted, under the watch of a warden, and few guards. Somehow they started an uprising and killed the warden and guards. They jury was not able to reach verdict and therefore, in '69 the jury was abolished. It's not necessary anyway. Singapore is doing well without following the West fully.

[Malaysia] is not part of East Asia in my definition. Currently going through economic miracle. Government has considerable autonomy. Handling of East Asian Financial crisis demonstrates this. Also they have an elected monarchy. I'm not sure if I'm willing to call that democracy.

Hmmm... but Singapore is? WTF. The elected monarchy only has power over Muslims in Malaysia. The others need not care about the monarchy, really.

[ashesatdusk]

singapore is one of the 4 asian tigers. Malaysia is not.

My definition of East Asia, from an economic perspective is the 4 Asian Tigers, China and Japan. The 4 tigers are Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore. This is a very common definition of East Asia. Particularly in Academic literature regarding the East Asian Economic miracle.

Singapore had a case where the jury was unable to offer a united verdict, and the verdict was also pretty wrong in the fact that the case was of a "new kind of prison" where the "inmates" were transported to an offshore island and would do whatever they wanted, under the watch of a warden, and few guards. Somehow they started an uprising and killed the warden and guards. They jury was not able to reach verdict and therefore, in '69 the jury was abolished. It's not necessary anyway. Singapore is doing well without following the West fully.

Singapore is doing well with out the west? Thats a nice Oxymoron. Yes its true they don't have western form of government. East Asia can't do well with out the West. Most of their economies are based on western consumption of final goods and services from East Asia. The only other exporting they do is mostly between themselves which is usually transfering intermediate goods used to manufacture final goods (which are sold to the west).

[ZephyrLeanne]

Originally Posted by ashesatdusk

singapore is one of the 4 asian tigers. Malaysia is not.

My definition of East Asia, from an economic perspective is the 4 Asian Tigers, China and Japan. The 4 tigers are Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore. This is a very common definition of East Asia. Particularly in Academic literature regarding the East Asian Economic miracle.

Uh. Mine is ASEAN+3. Which means:
* the 10 current members of ASEAN
o Indonesia
o Malaysia
o Philippines
o Singapore
o Thailand
o Brunei
o Vietnam
o Laos
o Burma
o Cambodia

* plus the three additional East Asian nations
o People's Republic of China
o Japan
o South Korea

Singapore is doing well with out the west? Thats a nice Oxymoron. Yes its true they don't have western form of government. East Asia can't do well with out the West. Most of their economies are based on western consumption of final goods and services from East Asia. The only other exporting they do is mostly between themselves which is usually transfering intermediate goods used to manufacture final goods (which are sold to the west).

Seems I'm prone to typos. What I meant was that Singapore need not take the Western system of GOVERNMENT wholesale, as if it was Xeroxing the system. It takes what it needs and no more, and takes other ideas from elsewhere. I doidn't mean Singapore can do without the West at all, I meant wholesale copying.

[Shadow Kira01]

From an economic perspective, my definition of East Asia would be:

Japan
South Korea
China

As for the definition of Asia itself, it would include Southeast Asia and possibly US + Russia. Part of Russia is in the Asian continent, while Hawaii is also located in Asia which is an actual American state. Australia in the recent years along with New Zealand can also be considered as part of Asia. India and Pakistan should also be considered as part of Asia. Not sure about the Middle East, since it have grew more significant.

[ZephyrLeanne]

Originally Posted by Shadow Minato

From an economic perspective, my definition of East Asia would be:

Japan
South Korea
China

As for the definition of Asia itself, it would include Southeast Asia and possibly US + Russia. Part of Russia is in the Asian continent, while Hawaii is also located in Asia which is an actual American state. Australia in the recent years along with New Zealand can also be considered as part of Asia. India and Pakistan should also be considered as part of Asia. Not sure about the Middle East, since it have grew more significant.

The problem lies here. I see it from not a purely economic view but a socio-economic view. Most people from ASEAN + 3 are either bascially Malay or Chinese, and some Indians.

Main races:

Singapore, Malaysia: Chinese, Malay, Indian

Indonesia, Brunei: Malay

Phillipines: Taiwanese aborigines' descendants, according to wiki

Thailand, Laos, Burma, Cambodia, Vietnam: Originally from Yunnan, according to wiki

Japanese: Technically, they are Chinese, but long periods of seperation made them what they are today.

Koreans: From Mongolians. But even so, the Qing dynasty was Mongolian too.

Chinese: Must I even explain??

So, in a socio-economic view, ASEAN+3+India should be more accurate.

[ashesatdusk]

Uh. Mine is ASEAN+3. Which means:

So your saying your definition of East Asia is South East Asia+ East Asia?

(ASEAN =Association of South East Asian nations). You could use that definition, its used in regards to the East Asian Financial Crisis. However, its rarely used to refer to the East Asian economic miracle. My whole argument is refering to miracle countries.

Seems I'm prone to typos. What I meant was that Singapore need not take the Western system of GOVERNMENT wholesale, as if it was Xeroxing the system. It takes what it needs and no more, and takes other ideas from elsewhere. I doidn't mean Singapore can do without the West at all, I meant wholesale copying.

I'm was messing with you. I know what you meant. Its sort of irrelevant again my point is that you just need political autonomy inorder to do the kind of interventions east asia has done. Government policy has to be dynamic. The western notions of democracy does not allow for dynamic policy making. Democracy is heavily politicized, and also people want a voice in everything (our democracy actually does give people a greater voice because of its level of poltiicization). Authoritarian also doesn't = to lack of civil liberties at least in the long term. It can, if governments are corrupt.

Lastly its important to realize East Asia is relying on the market, they use soft intervention i.e. nudge particular industries. Capital controls, and under valued exchange rates. Its not really direct management of the economy. Though the economy had close relations with government.

[ZephyrLeanne]

So your saying your definition of East Asia is South East Asia+ East Asia?

(ASEAN =Association of South East Asian nations). You could use that definition, its used in regards to the East Asian Financial Crisis.

Well, I grew up with THAT definition. So well. That's why, huh?

[Slice of Life]

Originally Posted by ashesatdusk

Singapore does not have trial by Jury or free speech, despite being a democracy. It also has the highest execution rate per capita as a result.

Originally Posted by ShimatheKat

[I]n '69 the jury was abolished. It's not necessary anyway. Singapore is doing well without following the West fully.

Trial by jury is an Anglo-Saxon concept, not a Western in gereral. Most Western countries don't use juries or only in a limited fashion. At an execution rate of exactly zero.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

An ongoing debate throughout much of the world, especially the U.S., is about who does a better job at controlling industry and service: government or private hands? Or where should the line be drawn between the two? When is it appropriate for government to intervene in the economy? Who is held more accountable? Does the invisible hand of the market really sort everything out?

It's not really that hard to differentiate whether a particular industry is better off in private or public care. An economy's purpose is to serve the community - if said community is better served by an industry where the profit motive and efficiency are ideal (and whether a privatized system is truly efficient), then it would be better handled by private organizations. If the industry in question fails the above test, or if it's a natural monopoly where a consumer cannot make a educated choice as to what's in his best interests, then that particular industry is better under government jurisdiction.

In addition to that, there are also certain industries where it's probably beneficial for private and government organizations to compete with one another. A prime example of this is television where a purely private system may not provide what the public needs, and a public broadcaster can fill in any gaps.

[ashesatdusk]

It's not really that hard to differentiate whether a particular industry is better off in private or public care. An economy's purpose is to serve the community - if said community is better served by an industry where the profit motive and efficiency are ideal (and whether a privatized system is truly efficient), then it would be better handled by private organizations. If the industry in question fails the above test, or if it's a natural monopoly where a consumer cannot make a educated choice as to what's in his best interests, then that particular industry is better under government jurisdiction.

No one who is really important, is really advocating governemnt management of private sector industries. Sure you can argue we've nationalized the banks for the momeny.

Just so people realize theres actually very little real talk going on at G20 summits, about government management of businesses or private enterprises. No one supports that, or advocating that. Whats really up for discussion is should we have financial regulation. Particularly things like returning to capital controls, and control capital movements. Even that isn't direct management of actual corporations, rather they are imposing restricting certain types of activity.

Trial by jury is an Anglo-Saxon concept, not a Western in gereral. Most Western countries don't use juries or only in a limited fashion. At an execution rate of exactly zero.

'

Well again its irrelavant to what I'm getting at. My point is that every economic miracle discussed in East Asia is a country with considerable autonomy either via beauracracy, or authoritarian regimes during their development. This is more or less an established fact, if you study political economy of these regions its one of the distinctive. There can be some debate on whether semi-auhtoritarian regime
is needed to follow the so called east asian economic model. I would argue its a condition that helps because it gives political autonomy. It harder for interest groups to lobby government, and the people making the decisions don't have the same incentive to listen to the whims of general population. Which may favor an out come in the short run, thats worse for them in the long run. (Example Medicare and Medicaid is a program that most people favor, that is almost universally agreed upon by most political scientists, and economics a financial disaster, 7% growth rate which implies its doubling in size every 10 years, it already is near the military spending size for americans.

[iLney]

Originally Posted by tripperazn

Pure Market Economy and Pure Command Economy are both colossal failures when implemented in the past (Soviet Russia, Gilded Age US [~1890], etc).

Hah, that's what they want us to believe

Such thing as "pure market economy" has never existed. But its couterpart did, and, like you put it, failed miserably.

[Thingle]

Private> Government.

[case]

My two cents on government-vs-private:

Most governments are elected democratically or elect themselves via monarchy or one-party decision making. Because of the exclusive nature of these systems and the sort of criteria upon which officials are selected/elected, I believe countries with these types of governments that attempt to have 100% planned economies will always experience catastrophic failure.

In a country with a government that is a meritocracy - where the leaders are selected based primarily or solely upon their level of expert knowledge - a planned economy might work, maybe. But I'm not aware of any government in the work that actually functions this way, probably due to other drawbacks one could foresee with the system.

Outside of that situation, governments are probably best at running any service that requires physical infrastructure and/or is essential for 100% of its citizens to have literally beyond a shadow of a doubt*: Roads/transportation, wired telecommunications, water, electricity, law enforcement and health care.

*Beyond a shadow of a doubt: If you took a poll, there are probably a lot of people who have never owned an HDTV who would be all for the government buying them HDTVs on the public nickel. Myself included! For this reason I think any government needs to be pretty strictly principled about what it defines as "essential needs" of its citizens.

[Slice of Life]

Originally Posted by iLney

Such thing as "pure market economy" has never existed.

Well, we hear the same being said about communism again and again. Which is one more similarity between the systems.

The truth is neither pure market economy nor pure command economy ever existed. Nor can they exist on this imperfect planet full of imperfect people. (especially imperfect from the viewpoint of the ideologies that promote such systems). And saying "it works, you just have to do it right" is thus a statement that can't be disproved in priniciple - and therefore worthless. One can however study the failures of approximations to these systems and draw one's conclusions.

I really wonder where this believe in the simple, extreme solutions in economy comes from. Look at the modern constitutional democracies. They're awfully complex in order to keep the thing working. Or look at the big companies how they organize themselves internally.

[Vexx]

The trick in any system is to have enough brakes, eyeballs awatching, and procedures to prevent steamrolling or coups or "democracy dies with applause" moments.

The bad time to have all those things in place is when imminent catastrophe like planetary heat death or When Frogs Attack....

I really wonder where this believe in the simple, extreme solutions in economy comes from...

Simple people like simple black'n'white ideas, I don't care what f*cking diplomas or resumes they have. When they promulgate extreme one-size-fits-all versions of their bullshit they're either lying with an agenda or they're stupid. Choose one.

[iLney]

Originally Posted by Slice of Life

Well, we hear the same being said about communism again and again.

uhm.... not really. For a pure command economy to succeed, the prerequisite is enormous while it's "almost" minimal for a pure a market one. BUT the former, in its "imperfect" existance, did meet one trademark requirement: total governmental control. (the former USSR). Of course, those supporters of a pure command economy would then require a "perfect government" and "perfect people" to run it, which is absurd.

A pure market economy ,on the other hand, requires "nothing." Ironically, "nothing" is even harder to achieve than "everything" (aka, total control). But well, in fact, there were short periods of time where "nothing" was granted. People tend to look at those times and say that pure market economy "failed." However, they refuse to see the obvious consequences of the previous "harmless" governmental interventions. Blah.....

To do absolutely nothing is probably the hardest thing a government could possibly achieve. Funny.

I really wonder where this believe in the simple, extreme solutions in economy comes from. Look at the modern constitutional democracies. They're awfully complex in order to keep the thing working. Or look at the big companies how they organize themselves internally.

You know what. Things on a marcro level could be extremely simple while on the micro counterpart, it was ultra complicated. But people tend to think that a complicated micro economy MUST have an equivalent marco management. I can't judge if it is right but why do we have to believe that it's THAT complicated?

Economy = supply + demand and that's it. However, in reality it works like this:
_Supply + demand => bigger economy. "Somehow" economy =/= supply +demand. Then

Economy = supply + demand + tax => Bigger economy.
Then

Economy = supply + demand + tax + subsidy!
....
Economy = supply + demand +tax + subsidy + "fair trade"
.....
Economy = supply + demand +tax +subsidy + "fair trade" + FED
.....
Economy = supply + demand +tax +subsidy + "fair trade" + FED +social security!
.........
Economy = supply + demand +tax +subsidy + "fair trade" + FED +social security+ medicare+ bailout + ect...

Oh NOES!!!! IN the end, our equation is still not correct!!! LET'S ADD SOME MORE STUFFS!

In the end:

Economy =? This is not an economy! This is madness! This is SPARTA!!!!!

[Vexx]

And yet.... people seem to miss the natural inclination of powerful interests to manipulate a "free market" so that the same end result (monopoly, economic warlords, robber barons, price-fixing, shut-out deals, etc) occurs. A *regulated* free market with lots of eyeballs, transparency, and the same set of rules -- yeah that might work. Hasn't often been tried though... :P

[Anh_Minh]

How does a "pure free market" deal with false advertising? For, say, deadly diseases medicines? Whether it's snake oil or a miracle cure, the seller will say it's the latter and its competitors will say it's the former. You'll be swamped by countless "witnesses" saying whatever the hell they're paid to say. And as long as it's at least marginally better than rat poison, it ought to sell.