Using What You Have | The Economics of China Episode 4
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 มิ.ย. 2024
- In Episode 4, Professor Ang explains why conventional linear theories of “growth first,” “good institutions first,” or “fortunate histories first” have all failed to explain how development actually happened, not only in China, but also elsewhere. Development is a three-step coevolutionary process, and the first step, she shows, is “using what you have”--local actors using indigenous resources and local knowledge to kick-start entrepreneurial activities.
Learn more at economicsofchina.org/
Produced by Matthew Kulvicki, Nick Alpha & Kurt Semm
This has been my favorite TH-cam series so far. So informative and I love the in depth perspective of how the Chinese government operates. Thank you so much for all the work you’ve put on this. It’s very well structured and digestible. 🎉
Hehe, same with me. I wait each week for the next episode. Its like watching something on Netflix.
I remember the Freakonomics as well as the Sinica Podcast episodes with Professor Ang. Both were excellent and this series adds to that. Thoroughly enjoying them
Privatisation has been totally disastrous here in Britain
That's why at 12:35 she rubs her hands together to reassure herself that a "highly personalized investment culture" isn't just a euphemism for deals on the golf course cronyism on steroids.
I find these extremely share worthy.
Awaiting for this series.
Fantastic. Thank you Prof Ang
Yuen Yuen Ang is brilliant
Excellent analysis! Bravo!
I like 'Use what you have'! reminds of the 'effectuation' principle proposed by Saras D. Sarasvathy in the book Elements of Entrepreneurial Expertise
I really enjoyed this series, I have been craving a better understanding into the organizing principles of china and maybe you make it seem simple, but it kind of seems like common sense. If anything the current world bank method seems like it was built for people to fail. Which would make sense for a country seeking hegemony to force other countries to adopt measures that would decrease survivability. I feel bad for all the countries that bought into that stuff. btw US is not "democratic", yea we vote for leaders but democracy is predicated on being properly informed, which we are not, on a collective level.Please keep up the material.
Just brilliant! Absolutely brilliant!
Great content. Thanks!
I completely agree
thx!
The world can learn a lot from two Chinese lead countries with miraculous economic achievements - China and Singapore! The key is good leaders and anti corruption. The west currently has the worst leaders and systemic corruption that don't serve its citizens.
The US isn't without corruption, which is obvious with the scotus being had by billionaires. But China ranks at the very bottom of the entire world press freedom index. Just look at what happened to Dr. Li Wenliang in Wuhan when he was only trying to do his job. Not to mention half of all Americans would've disappeared for saying half the stuff they say on social media. China is still an authoritarian police state dictatorship by comparison.
Top Again👏
When World Bank is mentioned in this video, I know this is promoting western hegemony.
Jeffrey Sachs was also the lead Chicago Boy that promoted Shock Doctrine to post-Soviet Russia.
ALL analysis MEANS NOTHING if we dont put human variable inside the equation.
How much IQ they have,
How much they willingly to get out from poverty.
How much they had the stamina.
that comes from education and a positive culture, it is structural
Well, good govermennce did not exist in Japan and Korea to.. one Imperial and the dictatorship, very similar to china, it is almsot that Eugnics and ethnic groups have an essier way to succee..i.e.. IQ..South Afirca are rich nation in the 1980 going to sheet cause of good govermemce [deomcracy and good constitution] is leading it to sheeet...so...here all these thoeries fail...
Try going from your rags to your riches. Because the America good socialism tooth fairy never did show up.
@danmcnerney7886 what are you on about?
Its all about biology/genetics and culture/society/religion, good genetics is the base that results in good governance and that mixed with appropriate culture results in growth; bad genetics results in bad governance but if mixed with good culture results in stagnation; bad genetics results in bad governance and if mixed with bad culture results in degrowth and disintegration of the state into tribalism that by virtue of its small size results in good culture meaning stagnation in a small state; good genetics combined with bad culture results in bad governance and de growth resulting to conflicts/fragmentation and conflicts/fragmentation improves culture and results in growth which results in consolidation which means further growth until culture becomes bad and the cycle repeats.
China had always been on top respective of other nations for most of history, its culture turned bad due to decadence and Marxism, reforms were made and growth resumed; China always had a good base which is its genetics, not something most of the third world have so for them, using what they have is already difficult and results in eventual failure unless they are conquered by great countries and forced to have good culture under the yoke of those with good genetics which will result in some growth, but if they are decolonized then they revert to their baselines.
The US had good genetics and culture initially making growth after decolonization possible, India had bad genetics and culture making real growth impossible after decolonization.
Per ChatGPT, China was never really Marxist. It called itself Marxist, and since people generally don't know what Marxism is, they thought China must be Marxist since it calls itself that. But, as ChatGPT notes, western developed nations are more Marxist than the Soviets or China since Marx never advocated police state fascism where people are disappeared for political dissent. A closer interpretation of actual Marxism is the US New Deal of the 1930s since that was the brainchild of Keynes, and Keynes was a Marxist. As ChatGPT notes, Lenin re-wrote Marx to suit his own purpose, and his version is a significant departure from actual Marxism.
You say so many things but nothing at all. Are you Chinese pro Chinese or pro west ?
You're so terribly small.