Found in 7 comments
htormey · 2018-07-01 · Original thread
I’d also make the argument that restricting migration out of a country can be of benefit to that countries economy. This was the case with South Korea after its civil war:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_South_Korea

“Following the Korean War, South Korea remained one of the poorest countries in the world for over a decade. In 1960 its gross domestic product per capita was $79,[57] lower than that of some sub-Saharan countries.[58] The growth of the industrial sector was the principal stimulus to economic development. In 1986, manufacturing industries accounted for approximately 30 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) and 25 percent of the work force. Benefiting from strong domestic encouragement and foreign aid, Seoul's industrialists introduced modern technologies into outmoded or newly built facilities at a rapid pace, increased the production of commodities—especially those for sale in foreign markets—and plowed the proceeds back into further industrial expansion. As a result, industry altered the country's landscape, drawing millions of laborers to urban manufacturing centers.”

A good book that talks about this economic transformation and how it was achieved is bad Samaritan’s:

https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capital...

The books author is a Korean economist who grew up during this period. One point that he makes which is very interesting is that South Korea had very strict laws preventing its academics from migrating to other countries. Those that did travel abroad to study were forced to return and participate in the economic development of the country. He attributes this as part of the reason for South Korea’s turn around.

China is another economic success story that restricts its citizens movements. Not saying that I agree with either of these policies. Just bringing them up as eastern counterpoints to the notion that unlimited free trade and free movement are the optimal states for economic development.

oldsklgdfth · 2018-06-19 · Original thread
I believe that is the way that S.Korea developed it's economy. Specifically, they raise tariffs on automobiles to boast their own automotive industry.

I think this book explains that: https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capital...

filiwickers · 2017-08-03 · Original thread
Ha-Joon Chang has very approachable books about capitalism and economics.

* Twenty-Three Things They Don't Tell You about Capitalism [1]

* Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism [2]

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Things-They-Dont-About-Capitalism/dp/...

[2] https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capital...

eritansa · 2017-03-05 · Original thread
It's unfortunate you're being downvoted. I highly recommend the book, Bad Samaritans [1] as it shows that all developed countries followed a similar pattern of IP theft and protectionism.

1. https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capital...

MollyR · 2015-02-26 · Original thread
This is really interesting not just from the security angle. I read http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitali... this book recently. It talks about how South Korea became an technological powerhouse so quickly compared to their neighbors. China could be using the security fears, and protectionism to create their own version of silicon valley. It wouldn't really surprise me, as some US cities like Boston are trying to create their own silicon valley styled area's http://www.technologyreview.com/view/516586/crowding-into-bi....
njs12345 · 2014-08-22 · Original thread
4) and 7) were certainly factors in Korea becoming a developed nation too - lots of detail about this style of development in 'Bad Samaritans' by Ha-Joon Chang: http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitali...
wazoox · 2011-01-06 · Original thread
There is a very telling story in the great book "Bad samaritans" ( http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitali... ). Among other things -- the author explains how in the 1850s, American travellers in Japan were surprised by the Japanese laziness and inefficiency, so much to make it almost proverbial. Doesn't it sound funny? In the 1850s, Japan was terribly underdeveloped, and in an underdeveloped environment you simply cannot do much to innovate, undertake new projects. So people everywhere in underdeveloped countries just seems lazy to people from the industrialized world, that was true of Japan in the 1850s, Korea in the 1950s, and many African countries nowadays.

The impetus later came from the central government, and in 1905 Japan was not a negligible country anymore. The moral of the story is that free-market bullshit and Ayn Rand books are just make-believe stories without any solid backing.

View on Amazon
Fresh finds delivered to your inbox every Thursday.   Preview