you said that merchantilism is an old idea that prevailed in 16 and 17 century but what i see the USA has again adopted the policy of merchantilism as it put 10 percent taxes on chinese imports .Therefore , can we say the world is moving towards the merchantilism ?
Current US policy (not the trend globally) is toward greater economic nationalism. Both Economic Nationalism and Mercantilism share the assumption that we should think of trade and economic growth in terms of relative gains (who is benefiting more). This is not an unrealistic thing to focus on but Economic Nationalism accepts that economic growth exists and a state should try to capture a disproportionate share. Mercantilism originally assumed that there is no growth in the global economy and the number of possible export markets is fixed. So the only way to gain is to take from someone else (zero sum). I would also add, that for Mercantilists the goal of economic policy is to build up piles of gold in the treasury. The nearly 1 trillion dollar a year budget deficits in the United States would not make any sense to a Mercantilist. For an Economic Nationalist you could try to argue that running deficits to finance corporate tax cuts helps provide an advantage to a state.
What I don't understand is that the Washington Consensus states that countries are more prone to spend their ressources on infrastructure, education and healthcare rather than military expenses. However the US is the country that spends the most on the military and war and has one of the worst educational opportunities (in the sense that it is highly expensive) as well as the worst healthcare system in the developed world. Do you maybe have an explanation for that ? Would it be because the US wants to keep its hegemonic position in the world ? But if so why not invest in long term solutions rather than short term ?
So there are a couple things to unpack here. First, the Washington Consensus as a policy agenda is generally aimed at developing countries that are seeking to enter the global economy rather than developed countries. As for the US spending on the military relative to education and health care there are some important points to draw out. The US spends only about 4% of GDP on its military (and war fighting). This is more than many European countries or Japan but it is not an unrealistic amount to spend. Because the US is a large economy the overall spending number is large but it is not unsustainable. When it comes to health care spending (and to a lesser extent education) the US spends more as a percent of GDP than most other developed countries. If anything the US is over-investing in health care. (And over-investing to a level that could easily pay for all of US military spending!) Yet, even with this spending the US has, as you note, terrible health care outcomes. The reason for this has little to do with international relations and is a function of American politics. Policy makers in the United States chose to create an inefficient social welfare system that fails to serve the needs of the public.
Never thought I would defend Trump. But I'm sure as you put it the idea does not follow that exact chain. Similar though. The wealth and poverty of nations points out this thinking with Spain. The world works for Spain. They can just create money and pay the world. Look how long they remained a global leader. Nothing creates value like business that actually creates value. Like manufacturing. That being said we should work with China. Not try to hold them back. But every country has to play a bit nationalist or mercantilist or they will be at a disadvantage. One more funny thing is how everything was trumps trade war. Now Biden revs the "trump trade war" to new levels. Seems to me we should stop picking ideas to support based on whose president. It's Americas and China's trade war. Screw the dem/rep, sides.
I'll take PIR beside English that really i learn before in undergraduate, university of Oxford perhaps, don't you know that i'm the best dreamer ! 🌐🇬🇧♥️
The slides are not online for download, but videos for all the slides in my course are on TH-cam. The Playlist is here: th-cam.com/play/PLxzz0tls2X9B6iUlbn9KZJqlU9zWD_b5C.html
Thank you for helping me catch up (in 15 minutes) on the 20 hours of IPE lectures I missed.
You just helped me to learn what I missed in the first classes! thank you, professor!!!
You have my deepest thanks 🙏
I have an exam in a few hours 😭 this just basically summed up the 5 months theories in just 15 minutes
Kindly make more videos on IPE
5:40 “money printer go brrrrrrrrrrr.”
Ahhh a man of intelligence
you said that merchantilism is an old idea that prevailed in 16 and 17 century but what i see the USA has again adopted the policy of merchantilism as it put 10 percent taxes on chinese imports .Therefore , can we say the world is moving towards the merchantilism ?
Current US policy (not the trend globally) is toward greater economic nationalism. Both Economic Nationalism and Mercantilism share the assumption that we should think of trade and economic growth in terms of relative gains (who is benefiting more). This is not an unrealistic thing to focus on but Economic Nationalism accepts that economic growth exists and a state should try to capture a disproportionate share. Mercantilism originally assumed that there is no growth in the global economy and the number of possible export markets is fixed. So the only way to gain is to take from someone else (zero sum). I would also add, that for Mercantilists the goal of economic policy is to build up piles of gold in the treasury. The nearly 1 trillion dollar a year budget deficits in the United States would not make any sense to a Mercantilist. For an Economic Nationalist you could try to argue that running deficits to finance corporate tax cuts helps provide an advantage to a state.
What I don't understand is that the Washington Consensus states that countries are more prone to spend their ressources on infrastructure, education and healthcare rather than military expenses. However the US is the country that spends the most on the military and war and has one of the worst educational opportunities (in the sense that it is highly expensive) as well as the worst healthcare system in the developed world. Do you maybe have an explanation for that ? Would it be because the US wants to keep its hegemonic position in the world ? But if so why not invest in long term solutions rather than short term ?
So there are a couple things to unpack here. First, the Washington Consensus as a policy agenda is generally aimed at developing countries that are seeking to enter the global economy rather than developed countries.
As for the US spending on the military relative to education and health care there are some important points to draw out. The US spends only about 4% of GDP on its military (and war fighting). This is more than many European countries or Japan but it is not an unrealistic amount to spend. Because the US is a large economy the overall spending number is large but it is not unsustainable. When it comes to health care spending (and to a lesser extent education) the US spends more as a percent of GDP than most other developed countries. If anything the US is over-investing in health care. (And over-investing to a level that could easily pay for all of US military spending!)
Yet, even with this spending the US has, as you note, terrible health care outcomes. The reason for this has little to do with international relations and is a function of American politics. Policy makers in the United States chose to create an inefficient social welfare system that fails to serve the needs of the public.
Never thought I would defend Trump. But I'm sure as you put it the idea does not follow that exact chain. Similar though. The wealth and poverty of nations points out this thinking with Spain. The world works for Spain. They can just create money and pay the world. Look how long they remained a global leader. Nothing creates value like business that actually creates value. Like manufacturing. That being said we should work with China. Not try to hold them back. But every country has to play a bit nationalist or mercantilist or they will be at a disadvantage. One more funny thing is how everything was trumps trade war. Now Biden revs the "trump trade war" to new levels. Seems to me we should stop picking ideas to support based on whose president. It's Americas and China's trade war. Screw the dem/rep, sides.
Danke
Bitte
I'll take PIR beside English that really i learn before in undergraduate, university of Oxford perhaps, don't you know that i'm the best dreamer ! 🌐🇬🇧♥️
Where i can download the slides?
The slides are not online for download, but videos for all the slides in my course are on TH-cam. The Playlist is here: th-cam.com/play/PLxzz0tls2X9B6iUlbn9KZJqlU9zWD_b5C.html
I have a test in 30 minutes and I’m out here tryna figure out this sh*t