A regular theme of these columns is that the economy is not a fixed pie. If Person A becomes rich, that doesn’t mean less income for Persons B and C.
Indeed, the evidence is very strong that successful entrepreneurs only capture a tiny fraction of the wealth they create.
And there’s also lots of data showing how average incomes can rise over time and how all segments of society tend to rise together.
My reason for revisiting this topic is a story in the Economist about the possibility of an “grossly uneven” recovery, as illustrated by this chart.
My knee-jerk reaction to this chart is that nobody should pay attention to economic forecasters for the simple reason that they have a terrible track record.
And IMF economists seems to be among the worst of the worst when they make predictions.
This may be because economists at the IMF have a mistaken Keynesian view of the economy.
Or it may simply reflect the fact that it’s basically impossible to make such predictions (if any economists actually had that ability, they would be billionaires).
But today’s topic isn’t the foibles of the economics profession.
Instead, I want to focus on this issue of whether rich countries should be blamed for being richer than poor countries.
Here’s some of what the Economist wrote.
Over the longer term, the economic recovery is projected to remain grossly uneven. That, the fund argues, reflects…variations in fiscal largesse. In 2020 rich and poor countries alike loosened the purse-strings to protect households and businesses from the impact of lockdowns.
This year fiscal support in the rich world is projected to remain broadly as generous as it was last year, allowing time for the private sector to get back on its feet (and, some economists would argue, even leading to some overheating in America). Emerging markets, by contrast, have shrunk their budget deficits (adjusted for the economic cycle, and before interest payments). The result will be a two-speed global economy. Output in the rich world is expected to return to its pre-pandemic trend by next year, and then to rise slightly above it. For the rest of the world, however, gdp is expected to remain well below trend at least until 2025.
As you can see from the excerpt, the IMF is wedded to the Keynesian view that government spending supposedly is good for growth – notwithstanding all the real-world evidence to the contrary.
But I’m more interested in the two points that aren’t mentioned, both of which revolve around the strong link between economic liberty and national prosperity.
- First, rich countries tend to be rich because they have (or had) good economic policy.
- Second, poor countries fail to converge because they tend to have bad economic policy.
For what it’s worth, the IMF’s failure to grasp these two points may help to explain why the bureaucracy advises poor countries to make bad choices.
The bottom line is that the global economy is not a fixed pie. If there are “grossly uneven” growth rates in the world, the reason is that some nations don’t follow the prudent recipe for prosperity.
[…] P.P.S. Just as one person’s success does not mean another person’s failure, the same is true for nations. […]
[…] P.P.S. Just as one person’s success does not mean another person’s failure, the same is true for nations. […]
[…] P.P.S. Just as poor people aren’t poor because of rich people (at least the ones that get rich by markets rather than cronyism), poor nations aren’t poor because of rich nations. […]
[…] P.P.S. Just as poor people aren’t poor because of rich people (at least the ones that get rich by markets rather than cronyism), poor nations aren’t poor because of rich nations. […]
[…] P.P.S. It’s also worth noting that poor nations aren’t poor because rich nations are rich. […]
Dictators in poor countries are never poor. Bad government and bad policies that take away incentive to better oneself certainly keeps poor countries poor.
One doesn’t need to do a lot of econometric analysis to know that the advanced countries will recover much faster than the poorer ones.
It would be a surprise if they didn’t.
A poorer individual or society has lower reserves to draw on during a calamity
While the poorer societies wouldn’t have been poor if they followed better economic policies in the past, a lesson that Mitchell emphasizes ad infinitum , the poor countries will not benefit from that lesson today. That is THE proper long term answer NO DOUBT. BUT THE POOR ARE more concerned about survival today.
BUT THIS DOES NOT IN ANY WAY ABSOLVE THE INTERNATIONAL AID AGENCIES.
THEIR BIGGEST CRIME IS TO SUGGEST WELFARE STATE AND GOVERNMENT ACTION TO THE POOR.
Government sponsored welfare will reduce the growth but as long as private investment ensures minimum maintenance and replacement the NORDIC model is viable in a rich country. Venezuela is the result of restricting private investment too severely.
Thankfully, atleast a majority in the advanced countries have learnt from the lessons of Atlee and Lenin that “Government control of investment will fail. It will lead to economic failure rather than an egalitarian society”
ABOLISHING INTERNATIONAL AID AGENCIES WILL BE MORE BENEFICIAL TO THE POOR COUNTRIES (OTHER THAN THE FEW CITIZENS FROM THOSE COUNTRIES WHO GET JOBS IN THOSE ORGANISATIONS. )
[…] Are Poor Countries Poor Because Rich Countries Are Rich? […]
The “poor” countries have used the same strategy that Democrats in the U.S. use: blame someone else for any failures.
As usual, it’s not that politicians don’t understand economics. The problem is that they are far more interested in personal welfare.
Bad policy will never be changed, because mistakes can never be admitted.
To get votes, they must blame the biggest producers, the rich.
To get money, either for their own pockets, their campaign, or a future job; they must cow-tow to those who write big checks.
Why do we listen to IMF economists (or other members of the international bureaucracy) on economic policies, like taxing, public programs, and budgeting, while perched on their political, and bureaucratically insulated jobs, and pay no taxes? Isn’t it obvious that they judgements are suspect, and compromised?