Lol...where is the empirical/theoretical evidence of depreciation not being linear? The assumption here is second tractor will depreciate same way as first tractor....that's unreasonable?
Lol...the theory is not a 3 country show. The example is. Just look up the data...cross sectional study, when countries were relatively poor vs growth rate when they became rich.
@@emmanuelameyaw9735 To understand the economic growth of Japan and Germany after the war, you must also understand the economic policies they had with the United States. It is extremely simplistic to say that China's economic growth is solely due to capitalist institutions. An interesting thing is that many countries that are strong today built up internal trade first with the help of protectionism such as the USA and Japan. Countries have also enjoyed very high growth without capitalist institutions such as the Soviet Union. Many countries in developing countries that have followed all the recommendations of the World Bank, WTO and the IMF have very low growth and other countries that have acted in other ways have had better growth. Why are so many countries not getting their economic growth started as they should according to these economic models and this way of reasoning? Many countries that have been bombed have continued to have low growth and have not recovered at all in the way one would as the model here suggests, countries that have not been bombed and that have already been developed have also been able to continue to have high growth. The relationship between savings and investments must also be questioned as presented in this model. It is clear that there may be things that a model highlights in very large and simplified terms. Another big problem is that much of the debate in economic policy is based on these greatly simplified assumptions about reality, which have no basis whatsoever in what it claims to explain. Namely, reality.
With just those three countries, I can already make sense of what the professor is talking about. To simplify this, I looked at it like Marginal Output. Countries at the first phase of production will always have increasing output. A thought: after the death of Mao Tsetung, can we say that because of the fundamental changes in china including more capitalist industries, better savings rate (as they slackened on communism), and opening of the economy, this is also why the economy grew? I would generally conclude that private savings in communist countries back then was very low therefore little room to grow. Further, by opening up the economy, the capital stock of a country with little stock would grow faster compared to if it were just domestic capital growth.
Its growth is diminishing as the solow model would predict. Per capita income of a chinese person and american person will show how far China needs to still grow until we stop condescending
There is no better explanation on TH-cam than yours! Amazing! I love all your videos.
Please do a video on Harrod Domar model too.
Easily the best explained video on steady state
sir, thank you that was perfect!
Wonderful explaination ...🎉🎉
Very well explained ...Thank you soo much sir🙏🙏🙏😊👌👌👍
Good explanation
thank you for this!! very helpful
What is the theory or empirical evidence that depreciation is linear?
Lol...where is the empirical/theoretical evidence of depreciation not being linear? The assumption here is second tractor will depreciate same way as first tractor....that's unreasonable?
Thank you. This is helpful
I am trying to find about salary and interest, but I cant find, I am saying in the solow model discrete
Thank you so much! It helped me a lot :)
How can I have a e-copy of this book? 🙏🏼😍
Thank you for the video!
Hi
thank you soooooooooooo much
🐐
bombed by another country but saving rate remained unchanged that was the reason.
You can draw no conclusions out of 3 countries without understanding the relationship between the US, Germany and Japan after the war.
Lol...the theory is not a 3 country show. The example is. Just look up the data...cross sectional study, when countries were relatively poor vs growth rate when they became rich.
@@emmanuelameyaw9735 To understand the economic growth of Japan and Germany after the war, you must also understand the economic policies they had with the United States.
It is extremely simplistic to say that China's economic growth is solely due to capitalist institutions.
An interesting thing is that many countries that are strong today built up internal trade first with the help of protectionism such as the USA and Japan.
Countries have also enjoyed very high growth without capitalist institutions such as the Soviet Union.
Many countries in developing countries that have followed all the recommendations of the World Bank, WTO and the IMF have very low growth and other countries that have acted in other ways have had better growth.
Why are so many countries not getting their economic growth started as they should according to these economic models and this way of reasoning?
Many countries that have been bombed have continued to have low growth and have not recovered at all in the way one would as the model here suggests, countries that have not been bombed and that have already been developed have also been able to continue to have high growth.
The relationship between savings and investments must also be questioned as presented in this model.
It is clear that there may be things that a model highlights in very large and simplified terms.
Another big problem is that much of the debate in economic policy is based on these greatly simplified assumptions about reality, which have no basis whatsoever in what it claims to explain. Namely, reality.
With just those three countries, I can already make sense of what the professor is talking about. To simplify this, I looked at it like Marginal Output. Countries at the first phase of production will always have increasing output.
A thought: after the death of Mao Tsetung, can we say that because of the fundamental changes in china including more capitalist industries, better savings rate (as they slackened on communism), and opening of the economy, this is also why the economy grew? I would generally conclude that private savings in communist countries back then was very low therefore little room to grow. Further, by opening up the economy, the capital stock of a country with little stock would grow faster compared to if it were just domestic capital growth.
Well China is no more adding it's "first tractors" and yet it's growth rate is quite high. I feel Americans should be a bit less condescending :/
Its growth is diminishing as the solow model would predict. Per capita income of a chinese person and american person will show how far China needs to still grow until we stop condescending
Growth diminishes is common sense, yeah? Because unbounded growth is not common sense...resources are not unlimited.
Wrong