Mark Jones wrote:
> Brad De Long wrote:
> >> if twentieth century
> > history shows anything, it shows that countries that have aggressively
> > pursued development strategies that focus on exporting to the industrial
> > core and on importing modern capital goods from the industrial core have
> > done much, much better than those that didn't--compare Italy to Argentina,
> > or South Korea to India, or Mauritius to Cuba...
> It doesn't show any such thing. It shows that if you default on loans
> (USA, 19th C), adopt highly protectionist trade strategies (Germany,
> USA, Japan), close your internal market to high-tech foreign compeition
> (Europe, USA), devalue your currency whenever you desire to defraud your
> trade partners (USA, UK),
When did the US devalue its currency? Do you mean going off the gold standard? Thanks. eric
> then you stand a much better chance of joining
> the imperialist charmed circle than if you are stupid enough to open
> your markets and deregulate. Compare Italy as a developmental state with
> Argentina, from 1970-1940, and which of the two was open, which closed?
> As for Mauritius and Cuba -- I presume this is meant in jest (check out
> Mauritian rain forest if you want to know what 'benefits' derive from
> opening your legs to the world).
> Russia failed to develop because most likely it was too late to adopt
> the general protectionist strategy, and unable tio dusburden utself of
> empire. Nevertheless duting its period of closure from the world market,
> it industrialised.Now its de-industrialised.
> PS Andrew Kliman: I read your stuff, thanks. I'll respond.