There's a difference between complaining about proponents of more state control when the goal is to avoid MNCs screwing citizens/customers/GDPs, which Stiglitz does, and complaining about corrupt, nepotistic, self-serving governments like you guys here on 'Aqoul do.

It's not like Stiglitz is demanding more bureaucratic obstacles to mundane transactions like buying a car, no matter how expensive it is. It's not like he even oppozes globalization, but only its current, lopsided form where western vacuum cleaners come in to suck everything up and leave little behind. His book coming out next work is not called "against globalization", it's called "Making Globalization Work".

Well, I suppose I should thank you for being a stupid idiot of a Leftist git and illustrating exactly the idiocy of the distinction without a motherfucking difference like an illiterate magical thinking moron.

It's not like Stiglitz is demanding more bureaucratic obstacles to mundane transactions like buying a car, no matter how expensive it is.

No.

Nobody ever fucking thinks they're advocating more rent-vampirism, least of all ivory tower whanking fucks like Stiglitz.

No, they get to utterly abstract away from the realities of motherfucking implementation.

No, it's all about fighing the supposed and largely mythical evisl of "Multinationals" - a fine scare phrase/word - "screwing" the idealised "Global South" citizens.

Entirely fucking mythical as quite fucking frankly the majority of screwing occurs by the vampire state and were Multinationals actually present in force in emerging markets in a meaningful way in the local economies, everyone would be better off.

It's not like he even oppozes globalization, but only its current, lopsided form where western vacuum cleaners come in to suck everything up and leave little behind.

In short, in a magical world that doesn't fucking exist except in the minds of illiterate ignorant slop swilling retards on the Left.

He, in short, opposes Globalisation.

His book coming out next work is not called "against globalization", it's called "Making Globalization Work".

Better entitled given his past writing, "Attacking Strawmen, enganging in entirely magical thinking."

But thanks for illustrating me point. It's a pleasure to not have to whack at the Bolshy Right for once and get back to my natural contempt for the Left.

Funny thing about economists: the thing that always amazed me when I was still an economist-in-training was how convenient the government was for the whole lot of them--if something doesn't work, assume a benevolent government (or, a "social planner" or whatever) that picks up the slack. Either that or, just reactive "all forms of government action are evil and private markets can do anything that government can do better."

Weird addendum about Stiglitz is that I was talking to a colleague about important economists of today some time ago (and both of us are ex-economists), and neither of us could point to any "important" contrbution by Stiglitz--lots of neat little papers that were cutesy mathematical exercises producing unexpected outcomes, but not anything hugely insightful...

Well, my pet peeve is what Keynes' pet peeve was. Keynes, when you boil him down to his essence, was merely observing, commonsensically, that in good times you save into a rainy day fund, which you can then spend in bad times. This got distorted into justifying deficit spending in both good times and bad, which of course justifies huge government intervention in the market regardless of whether times are good or bad, which then makes him look like some sort of light-socialist, which he clearly wasn't, if you actually take the time to read him. (Of course this makes Dubya and the current Republican party into light-socialists as well, but this is giving them too much credit for brains.) There's a story that when he met up with an American economist who was advocating such deficit spending in good times, he looked at him and said, "You're more Keynesian than I am!" Which was true.

Using profanity does not make your point more salient, and neither does bolding it. It's growing old pretty fast.

While I will agree with you that many on the left do look at protectionism as a kind of idyllic paradise, I must say that I am regularly annoyed at the kind of thinking from market-liberators that say "look at the U.S., the realm of free enterprise!" when the major MNCs (American or otherwise) have traditionally grown in protected markets and benefited, then and often now, of massive state subsidies (and espionage support as well). Like for example, one of the reasons that tons of Canadian small and medium businesses have flocked to the U.S. since (NA)FTA is largely due to better state and municipal support for such companies to move over there. There's also been a massive sell-off of Canadian businesses of all sizes to American interests during that period, which is mostly unidirectional.

Now that's my kind of "free trade".

Maybe some might think that Canada is not a good comparison since it's an "industrial" country, but most of its trade growth in recent years has been through expanded oil exports, not unlike Gulf countries. Agriculture is still the greatest source of foreign currency (unless oil has finally passed it, but that would be a recent phenomenon). Another of its large industries is aerospace, namely the construction of regional jets by Bombardier, whose's largest competitor is Embraer from Brazil, hardly an industrial nation itself.

Canada's (Ontario's, to be more particular) recent successes at attracting real FDI (i.e., greenfield investment, not corporate takeovers such as the Inco battle) are almost exclusively centered in the auto industry, which were achieved by massive state investment, as long as better labour costs (state-funded healthcare saves automakers something like $1000-2000 per car; educated profesionals received massively state-supported education/training)

I could also mention other countries where succesful market liberalization has heavily depended on the state, not in a rentier fashion but in a managerial and regulatory fashion...

So before going off on the "idiocy of ... the celebration of state", it might be useful to actually look at the role of the state in creating favourable environments for businesses to grow and prosper. This is not to say that market liberalization is bad, but looking at the IMF-liberalization experience (I would love to hear an account that gives a different perspective than Stiglitz' on the Russian, Argentinian, Bolivian and other IMF-busts that demonstrates that these countries have gained more than lost in the process), one is tempted to take a pause and look at "the realities of implementation".

Oops, I dropped the "motherfucking" in there. Let me rephrase:

I'm sick of these motherfucking state-bashers in this motherfucking blog!

The problem is, over-regulating in countries that already have obscene amounts of useless regs designed solely to extract money only makes it more difficult to do simple things like start a business, get a loan, etc.

Comparing Canada to a developing country in, say, Africa where governments largely function as giant graft operations and starting a legitimate business can take years (as opposed to weeks), doesn't really make sense. Canadian provinces are in direct competition with US states to attract investment, so there is strong pressure for the government to create a business-friendly environment. Not just by subsidizing, but by reducing the amount of bureaucracy/taxation associated with starting and operating a business, securing loans, etc.

Rather than being concerned about MNCs, one might be more concerned about the dev states themselves, trying to squeeze every last drop out of citizens and offering little in return (which leads to citizens dodging taxes/regs and operating in the black market - creates a nasty downward spiral).

The reality is that rentier governments do not operate as "benevolent regulators" the way they theoretically do in Canada, so working to create an even more business-unfriendly environment by cockblocking MNCs does not actually help people.

The reality is that rentier governments do not operate as "benevolent regulators" the way they theoretically do in Canada, so working to create an even more business-unfriendly environment by cockblocking MNCs does not actually help people.

Precisely. Also, that is why development aid works like hell. Nearly all of it is lost in graft and big Mercedes cars. Actually feeding the corruption and bolstering the state.

Also, that is why development aid works like hell. Nearly all of it is lost in graft and big Mercedes cars. Actually feeding the corruption and bolstering the state.

I hate to sound cynical (well not really) but that outcome seems to be the rule rather than the exception. Wholly corrupt governments self-report magic numbers while handing aid money to friends and cronies. And aid orgs are compelled to keep giving because people are starving to death in the meantime.

I recall one example in Kenya after the government set up an organization to identify and prosecute incidents of corruption (the IMF cut aid entirely because of widespread graft). One of the first convictions (~48 months jailtime, iirc) was conveniently overturned by a presidential pardon.

And course the local politicians dodge accountability by painting the IMF as an imperialist postcolonial org interfering in local affairs. Rather sickening, and I'm not even a fan of the IMF.

I also find it entirely wrong (to put it nicely) to frame this as a left-right conflict. Corruption, which is the main problem, is not an unavoidable component of a strong state, nor is a strong state necessarily leftwing. Rather like 'secular dictators' of MENA, it is a misleading description of a problem that suggests the wrong solutions.

I have a strong attachment to the welfare state, since growing up in Scandinavia has taught me a 60% tax rate is A Good Thing. But Scandinavians generally put up with paying so much tax because they are upright and trusting of the state. It's not so much that the state is our friend, it is us. We pay to ourselves. So the real issue is trust and distrust. In a country where people are entirely disloyal to the state, nation and community, even a 10% tax rate is dodged enthusiastically. Inversely, a state that distrusts the people will put up bureaucratic barriers to eliminate supposed corruption, which then becomes necessary to circumvent the bureaucracy in order to get anything done at all, feeding the loop, and also fucking up personal initiative.

In such a case, which is most of the time, limiting the power of the state is A Good Thing.

Also, things are done correctly and fairly in Scandanavian countries and (far more important) "everyone knows it," whether it's entirely true or not. If you were in, say, Russia, "everyone knows" somebody is stealing something and lying, whether it's true or not. Sure, there's good deal of truth behind both--but belief does sustain the game, ultimately, as you can't have Swedish welfare state without the trust in authority, and nobody would trust an authority without reputation for uprightness. How do you get upright authority, of course, is the problem, and that's probably how US of A will never be a modern welfare state, I'll wager.

Kao, oh yes, that's the heart of the problem. In the worst places in Africa, people don't have a problem with insanely corrupt governments. They don't mind really. Heck, they'd do it themselves if they had the chance. The corruption that thrives in Denmark is that which is tacitly accepted, namely skilled workers moonlighting. Everything else is frowned upon, and hence dealt with.

First, saying "people don't have a problem with insanely corrupt governments" is idiotic.

No one on the recieving end of bribe extraction is ever all that pleased, and having done business in sub-Saharan Africa and with Africans, I find your assertion stupid.

As for the Left-Right issue, well, yes, if you want to rip the bloody conversation from its bloody context, of course there are Right Statist, esp. Continental traditions. Something I rarely fail to note when discussing such, but that was harldy the point as the Canadian idiot was clearly coming from Left Anti-Globos perspective.

Further, regarldess of the politics of the Statists in government, the rhetoric to cover their continued policies - their faux solidarity - is generally Arab Leftist/Nationalist.

As to the little Lefty git:

Using profanity does not make your point more salient, and neither does bolding it. It's growing old pretty fast.

Who the fuck cares?

If you don't like it, fuck off you little namby pamby git.

The purpose, like everything here, has nothing to do with "making more salient."

While I will agree with you that many on the left do look at protectionism as a kind of idyllic paradise, I must say that I am regularly annoyed at the kind of thinking from market-liberators that say "look at the U.S., the realm of free enterprise!" when the major MNCs (American or otherwise) have traditionally grown in protected markets and benefited, then and often now, of massive state subsidies (and espionage support as well).

Mythology of the Left.

Multinationals are beside the point, but "traditionally" means fuck all. Some large firms have benefited from protection - which again has fuck all to do with my original point - and mercantilist policy, some have not.

Large firms extracting value from governmental intervention, of course, is utterly besides the point, insofar as the note was with respect to costs imposed by ill-conceived governmental regulation – which is most regulation in emerging markets.

Like for example, one of the reasons that tons of Canadian small and medium businesses have flocked to the U.S. since (NA)FTA is largely due to better state and municipal support for such companies to move over there.

So you assert.

One would rather expect that the main decision driver is market size and wanting to make more money, being an actual businessman myself.

There's also been a massive sell-off of Canadian businesses of all sizes to American interests during that period, which is mostly unidirectional.

And so the fuck what?

Besides hurt illiterate nationalist sentiments, this has fucking nothing do with the subject matter of my post, in broad or in the narrow.

Above all as Canada is not an emerging market.

Now that's my kind of "free trade".

No need for the scare quotes.

Free trade is about, well, free trade: that the richer market with more money to mobilise is attractive, and on the other hand foreign capital has flowed into Canada is entirely expected.

Whinging on about American firms buying Canadian firms is merely pointless ignorant nationalist whanking.

Maybe some might think that Canada is not a good comparison since it's an "industrial" country, but most of its trade growth in recent years has been through expanded oil exports, not unlike Gulf countries.

It's a wealthy, developed country.

End of story.

Just because export growth numbers have been boosted by hydrocarbon price increases doesn't change that, or render it any more comparable from institutional or market structure points of view to the Gulf, whatever your utterly idiotic Left nationalist whinging on and hurt feelings would have.

This is a nice illustration of your impoverished understanding at once of trade issues and economics more generally.

Agriculture is still the greatest source of foreign currency (unless oil has finally passed it, but that would be a recent phenomenon).

And?

Presuming this is true -and from an illiterate such as yourself I'll wait for figures before giving credence to any of your assertions (that's regardless of whether I find them plausible or agree or not), it's also true that it's modern industrial export oriented agriculture with large historical capital inputs backed by extensive export-oriented world-class infrastructure.

Nothing of the same league as emerging markets.

Your pretension of any relevant comparison highlights your ignorance.

Another of its large industries is aerospace, namely the construction of regional jets by Bombardier, whose's largest competitor is Embraer from Brazil, hardly an industrial nation itself.

Brasil is actually an emerging industrial producer, but this factiod is irrelevant, except to illustrate some emerging markets are moving up in the world in terms of export niches.

Which is a very good thing.

Canada's (Ontario's, to be more particular) recent successes at attracting real FDI (i.e., greenfield investment, not corporate takeovers such as the Inco battle) are almost exclusively centered in the auto industry, which were achieved by massive state investment, as long as better labour costs (state-funded healthcare saves automakers something like $1000-2000 per car; educated profesionals received massively state-supported education/training)

Your fetishizing greenfield investment over takeovers is, again, illiterate.

And more generally, your assertions, well, again, see above re my lack of any respect for your knowledge in this area. That hasn't anything to do with agreeing or not, you simply write like an ignorant semi-informed idiot.

I could also mention other countries where succesful market liberalization has heavily depended on the state, not in a rentier fashion but in a managerial and regulatory fashion...

I have no idea what this paragraph is on about, as quite clearly good policy, well-executed investment in real public goods such as logistics supporting infrastructure, etc. is w/o any question a key component of growing an economy.

That hasn't much to do with making protection and idiot ham-handed regulation a good thing.

Nor supporting your naïve idiocies regarding the comparability of a wealthy state with strong institutions with the issues of emerging markets with weak institutions.

So before going off on the "idiocy of ... the celebration of state", it might be useful to actually look at the role of the state in creating favourable environments for businesses to grow and prosper.

Before you go and ramble on in a half literate whinging Lefty moon-bat moron-git fashion, you might try learning a bit of proper economics as well as paying attention to what is actually said.

Not running out with your idiotic neo-Mercantalist whinging on in typical moron Left fashion; a simple review of my past commentary amply illustrates my appreciation for the proper role of government in helping create an environment for growth, as well as and most importantly, the differences in capacity between an emerging market and a developed market to leverage some of these advantages, versus the perverse incentives engendered.

Simple minded waving of Stiglitz and his magical thinking aside.

This is not to say that market liberalization is bad, but looking at the IMF-liberalization experience (I would love to hear an account that gives a different perspective than Stiglitz' on the Russian, Argentinian, Bolivian and other IMF-busts that demonstrates that these countries have gained more than lost in the process), one is tempted to take a pause and look at "the realities of implementation".

You're not only an ignorant moron, you're a parrot: "IMF Liberalisation" indeed.

Of course, you would not “love” to hear an account that gives a different perspective than Stiglitz as (i) you’re merely parroting slogans without any understanding, (ii) there are plenty of accounts that question Stiglitz’s analysis and coherence with respect to the currency crisis – of course these have fuck all to do with the subject matter at hand insofar as IMF doesn’t deal in domestic regulation.

I am not in the mood, nor do I have time to educate you on the meaning of currency crises – but it is utterly moronic to call any of the above IMF busts, as the countries went bust all on their own. Indeed they were broke, vis-a-vis their foreign obligations.

That's reality.

I'm sick of these motherfucking state-bashers in this motherfucking blog!

Then fuck off, stupid lefty ignoramus. You neither understand what you’re on about nor seem capable of learning.

Oh bollocks, a fine informed critique of the Stiglitz worship: http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/faculty/sebastian.edwards/Stiglitz.pdf

I find your assertion stupid.

Gross uninformed generalisations are my specialty. I still can't find a better reason for bureaucracy and corruption than the dynamics between the mindsets of the lawgivers and the lawgiven.

Left-right, yeah, well. Wasn't shooting at you really. It's the Stiglitzes and neo-marxists that frame this as a left-right thing, in the old socialist vein of anti-capitalism. They have to grab hold of something now the working class has mostly disappeared in Westernized countries (after having voted Thatcher into power - ha!). Many lefties simply assume the wealth of Western Europe is based on exploiting Asia. Twenty years ago they said Africa. They don't care, any third worlder will do.

I'm actually a member of the Social Democrats in Denmark, but I'll be damned if I'm going to wave a red flag. Pink, maybe. With some blue.

(wholly off-topic)

Klaus: I'm actually a member of the Social Democrats in Denmark, but I'll be damned if I'm going to wave a red flag. Pink, maybe. With some blue.

Well, then shouldn't you simply join the Radikale instead?

Nah, I'm nowhere near Radikale's pro-immigration stance. They are simply too idealistic about that, and consistently refuse to admit its problems, habitually blaming the anti-immigration discourse for those there undeniably are. They are old-school anti-racists, and that ideology, though infinitely sympathetic, has been and continues to be in denial about these problems.

Other things too. They constantly strike me as counter-pragmatic, people more interested in being good rather than doing good.

(completely, utterly off-topic)

So, are you going to have a right-wing government in Sweden now? I understand the economy has been the main focus this time.

Liking being subject to corruption and engaging in it are not the same thing.

It is possible, and I see it frequently actually, to be indignant about having to pay 300 USD for some papers to move forward, and expect a side payment oneself. Because the family needs you to send them some money, because.... because....

Actually the very social networks that are celebrated by the Crunchy Left types are also the social networks that get exploited to further corruption.

A great irony.

And I am pleased to tell you with a bit of oil of wheels I am now the proud owner of a shiny piece of German steel, merely worth 100 times the local yearly wage. I shall drive it cautiously.