You can’t have bread and circuses to turn people degenerate if you bill them fully up front.
You cannot have a Ponzi like retirement without earning it (thou shalt not steal) unless you can bill their unborn children.*
Molech takes a personal interest in finance because it kills babies too. Blood for the blood god. Even chemical abortifacients like the Pill are Satanic. Even ‘Catholics’ take those.
*If you speak to Marxist Boomers who “fucking love” immigration, they only do so because they fully expect it to buy their retirement. 1. That’s slavery. Living off another’s labour. 2. it isn’t principled unless you count avarice and venality as principles. This is also the reason many gave for aborting their children, because immigration would ‘pick up the slack’ – I have heard this, in person. They had zero shame. Shameless and oddly proud, like it was common sense. That is the face of evil.
“I can sacrifice my kids to Molech so the few stragglers can be raped by invaders I invited who agreed to bribe me into silence”. – the reprobate mind, literally
People think Marxist Finance and Satanism are separate entities. The degeneracy is impossible without funny money funding. Think about it.
I would also like to point out many modern people do not have sex. Sex is babymaking, biologically. We are told to accept inferior forms that ‘identify’ as sex, including ‘oral’, which in WW2 was purely the domain of brothels. Now it is taught to schoolchildren. A man buggering a man is not having sex. Sexual intercourse may result in reproduction. The Marxists have eroded the sanctity of the term. A sterile Boomer couple ‘swinging’ at an orgy are not having sex. A man with a vasectomy is not having sex, especially as the ancients recognised it, in terms of the man’s virility.A man was only considered to REALLY be HAVING sex if the woman got pregnant. A couple on contraception is mutually masturbating with one another, if there is zero ‘risk’ of pregnancy (treating it like a disease to be eradicated, over a Christian blessing of God). People are fucking each other like toys (called ‘fuck puppets’), which has all the downsides medically, financially and spiritually, but they sneer at actual plastic because that seems embarrassing and hollow. Well…… yeah. But it’s objectively better than what they’re doing, pretending to be in love when it’s all lust and mind games. They don’t deserve to be happy. They objectify one another like objects of pleasure. The asses of Pleasure Island. The paedophiles have pushed this pleasure and ‘harmless exercise‘ concept because it normalises paedophilia, since children cannot reproduce. Agreeing with the insane Marxist genderless concept of childless fucking is enabling it.
Why has nobody pointed this out?
“I had sex” – NOPE LOL
They have nothing to brag about. They’re wankers with one another’s bodies. They admit this, if you point it out. But the term babymaking angers them because they envy breeders. A glory hole isn’t sex, either. Again, it’s mutual masturbation.This is entirely self-evident once pointed out. It’s a Marxist category error to normalise non-heteros. Intercourse is hetero. By definition. Tab A, slot B.
Sexual intercourse is an exclusive term that refers to ANY possibility of reproduction above 0%.
An act of 0% probability is not actually sex. Like a teenage boy wanking. Conception = Sex.
They are wankers, the slang for bankers.
They deserve what they get. The wages of sin is death. The Boomers are fast learning this. You vote for Marxism all your life, eventually you pay a higher price.
This guy could show Graham Stephan a thing or two. Like putting information over clickbait.
The money won’t disappear. They don’t want it to.
Audit the Fed and then rule it a criminal institution and let it go bankrupt, not America.
Government buying all the private loan debt (Boomer debt) is called Communism. That will also never happen. The only way to jubilee is 1. repudiate odious debt and aside from the above, 2. make it legal for people to declare bankruptcy to discharge ALL such debts. If people want to drop it, they can, they just cannot KEEP the asset/s they haven’t actually paid for, which is fair. A total bail-in bail-out type set-up as he posits would punish all those who didn’t go into massive mortgage, HELOC and CC debts.
Historically, a small slight deflation precedes hyperinflation.
The banks don’t want to cancel debts for the People, why would they? They want everyone to foreclose on every single asset, so they own it all. It’s a huge game of monopoly.
One of the UN definitions of genocide is oppression, because economic oppression (measures) reduce ability to procreate.
Third World rulers, Third World results.
Boris wants to extend emergency powers to force more lockdowns and also push UBI via desperation caused, so you need Fedcoin suddenly. The Green Deal will destroy England, and let’s be honest, only the English work. Scotland, Wales and Ireland parasite from the English worker. Meanwhile, Sunak has married into deep state via a billionaire’s daughter but we’re supposed to think he’s oppressed because his skin is brown.
Apparently the internet went down for a little bit and now they’re programming the msm news with reports of aliens being possible. We made contact in the 60s, get over it. Tesla called them but by the time they got here, he was gone. I’m sure that isn’t a cover for China testing out their 5G switch as a prelude to potential EMP action, at all. Sure, little green men, not the people who bought the internet connection, okay. Because aliens can attack instagram but not the nuclear plants. That makes sense.
Everyone likes the moneylender until they realise he’s the slaveowner. Neither borrower nor lender be = don’t sell yourself into slavery.
I hope the salt of the earth on fixed incomes are okay. Considering carers are on slave wages one quarter of minimum wage (like <£2 per hour against the legal min. of ~8.50) I don’t know how the Left isn’t up in arms…. oh, wait, they hate white people. So expect white people homeless, immigrants in all the hotels with swimming pools (check our news). When property taxes shoot up, nanna will be kicked out (they once imprisoned an old white lady for not paying 15p council tax*), to be replaced by a brood of incestuous immigrants. What “justice”. At least they didn’t call her racist. That’s the true evil, not an invasion and genocide.
The banks will own everything, so are we self-governing or owned by the private owners of the banks? Invisible slaves, invisible prison.
I hope the Marxists, be they Boomer, Millennial or Zoomer, get what they fucking deserve.
*white people’s assets are seized by the Marxists to pay for their care (TO EACH ACCORDING TO NEED – COMMUNISM), but who is paying for the Marxists, the immigrants AND the prisoners?
SHRUG ATLAS SHRUG
This also prohibits elder whites from sheltering their own kin. It isn’t stupidity, it’s definitely malice. It’s been designed to fail like this over decades. I don’t go on about fixed incomes like pensions for fun, it’s proof positive they planned the destruction. Salt of the earth, old people who remembered WW2 and carers saving the system over 100 BILLION a year. Pity you can’t find money out of the immigrant swimming pool fund to pay them MINIMUM WAGE like human beings. This weakening also prevents those groups from rioting. How convenient. The welfare state including the NHS would’ve collapsed decades ago if carers had the ability to strike – without being charged with murder.
Congress in 08: Boomertown. National debt is fine and Israel is our greatest ally. Banks are too big to fail. The “by the time that happens, I’ll be dead” race traitor.
Find every anti-racist of your acquaintance (but especially the Boomer) and ask them about hyperinflation due to the Marxist spending spree of governments and private banks. Who should pay them back? Either way, make a mental note to never help them. They caused this. Repeal the act of ’65, America. There’s a billion Chinese that can immvade you otherwise.
except China has been buying property IN the West for WHEN we sue them for this bullshit and other, older bullshit.
Boomers think they’ll be bailed out when stocks (inc. property/REITs) collapse. No. Social Security will vanish into that good night. Boomers are now recently outnumbered by younger voters, many non-white imports who owe the Boomers nothing and resent them for being, largely, greedy hippies. They’ll have to pull themselves up by their bootstraps for the first time ever, save for their OWN gibs and make the trimmings to their budget everyone else has been doing for years because of them. The Landlord Piggy in the Middle economy is failing.*
And if Boris could stop shagging Patel long enough to see he might be hunted down for sport once this is over, that’d be great.
Academic Agent should be covering this, but weeb degeneracy is more important. Nobody calls him jealous… and he mentions it more than I do. I haven’t done a livestream as long as a Hollywood film on the subject. Like, 3-5 blog posts. In as many years. But clearly noticing things is only kosher when it’s about black people, because that makes sense.
p.s. someone pay Clarey to talk about the Boomers during hyper inflation. Nobody can buy their shitty house = a pension plot.
Banks fail = Boomers fail. The evil alliance.
*I have asked the Boomers, if the banks have all the credit, why don’t they just buy the housing? They don’t realise it’s a pump and dump. Banks get 1. the house or 2. the mortgage money (rent to the bank), the deposit, a HELOC or four, and eventually the house when boomers foreclose. Banks use Boomers to inflate the credit in the system. PROVE ME WRONG, AMERICA.
Then again you still trust estate agents. So you have Graham “Everyone’s an expert in a bull market” Stephan talking about Muh $8 million in assets when NO, assets are something you 100% personally hold and own. What YOU, 30-year old Boomer meme, have is at least 6 million in DEBT OBLIGATIONS to a BANK. All those years of work, to trust the banks won’t collapse in, oh, fifty years…. Lehman could never happen again, right? Boomerism- Property never goes down, right? Chucklefucks. Assumptions make an ass of u…. and only u. How to tell? He NEVER discusses the wording in his mortgage contracts. He doesn’t understand it. Estate agents never do. It’s a low IQ job. During hyperinflation you cannot pay them in inflated dollars. Read more, asshole. Lynette Zhang has covered this.
even if you pretend it’s UBI to private citizens. Not one person with no financial interest wanted to bail out hotels and airlines. Capitalism means no bailouts. Bailouts are Marxist socialism. The self-fellating of the taxpayer paying the taxpayer – and also the government in ‘admin fees’ for the privilege, is mathematically impossible. They should’ve saved that money like a private citizen would be expected to do, rather than pumping and dumping their stock with buybacks – which ought to be illegal.
Actually, not everyone is on so-called furlough, many vital people in society like carers aren’t.
It’s largely been Communism for the middle-class, proving they are absolutely redundant to the real economy now. They are totally wastes of office space, as well as air.
Most modern workers are now objectively proven to be freeloaders riding coat-tails of the ones doing most of the work and now the companies are wondering how to cull the busywork population, legally.
Usury destroys businesses, as countries. Supranational capitalism always fails, it’s a classic pump and dump like stock markets, pitting one nation against another. You cannot compete fairly with countries that use child slavery. Capitalism is national or the domestic workforce is abused by foreigners. Libertarians are extra-national lampreys, leeching from one country, sucking it dry before “””immigrating””” to another fresh patch of grass.
I disagree with your claim of “they are not going to willingly nuke their own bottom line”. That’s a projection of yourself onto them. The oligarchs at the top don’t care about profits and line going up. They want to have all the money/wealth/power, not just make profits. If they take a bath on profits and lose many big businesses, but in the process eliminate most of the wealth/power/market potential of the working + middle classes, then their end goal of being “Landlord Monarchs” becomes more realized. Remember AA, the people at the top blatantly say what they want… for us to own nothing and have nothing which binds us to the land or our people. Never forget that.
This just shows how many people do useless jobs.
Vast majority of people produce next to zero real value and get paid for it. It’s all a bubble. Everything.
Yep, thank the hippies. Because the West can afford to import millions from Asia and Africa right?
The basic UK position is 113 % public debt to GDP ratio and 342% external debt to GDP ratio, this is not a tenable financial position to be in. The UK chancellor, is not as of yet , taking any real positive steps to reduce the situation. Ireland’s GDP debt Ratios are in an even more appalling state , 100.1% public debt and over 800% to external debt. I think you are correct in that we may have weathered the pandemic thus far, but our long term financials are in a very unstable situation are they not? . Are we not over exposed and in very vulnerable state, and if a 2007/8 loss of confidence were to occur what would be our position?. I am trying to guesstimate how long we have before the chickens come home to roost so to speak. I freely admit that I thought our business loss was higher than you suggest.
Over 90% debt/GDP, profits stall. We’re well over that now. I’ve covered true national debt before, it’s trillions. I believe it was called “we are absolutely fucked”.
There was a Jew Yorker comic, replace planet with West:
Multicultural economy = Empire and they always die.
Totalitarian control. It changes one fact about your money. It isn’t yours, you no longer earned it. You’ve lost the ownership right i.e. to withhold it from the system based on consent of that system to rule you. It’s rented and they can ‘cancel’ your account for any reason, including none. They also want to see where you buy assets and have them sent, to ‘confiscate’ them.
Going cashless = treating every citizen like a terrorist. They monitor all their purchases and need special warrants to do so. Anyone who thinks that won’t end in their death is a fool. Something you do will piss off a bureaucrat you never met at some point. Then you slowly starve to death, or they make you steal food so they can imprison you. Welcome to dictatorship. Sunak looks like exactly the kind of inbred to take the ticket and happily watch while out-groupers starve, probably citing the Imperial Empire in India as moral righteousness. We have imported the enemy. Pedo face if ever I saw one (it’s the big ears, to big nose and beady eyes combination – Epstein had it). Combined with the gormless mouth, vacant expression and triangular head (small skull, gargantuan jaw) it’s definitely a low IQ person taught good fluency like a parrot or a monkey butler. Monkeys frequently flip out and scratch/rip their owner’s face off. Sometimes hands. Trained civility doesn’t last longer than the electricity. Cabalites are obvious as they are repulsive. Try to donate to a church? Sorry, it can’t do that. Try to pay for a wrongthink book? Sorry, it can’t do that. Try to buy a steak? Sorry, you don’t have the carbon credits and it’s over your daily caloric allowance. Try to buy alcohol in a pub? Vice tax, and it contains too much sugar. From Nanny State to Nazi State in one fell swoop. 1% of everyone’s wages garnished as reparations for BLM. You may laugh but – I called it. People think I’m joking, that I’m funny – I’m actually prognostic.
White people suffer from a terminal condition I call Firing Squad Logic. I always wondered with horror why white people, and only white people, could rely on an orderly queue to politely walk to the firing squad, stand in place and just take it. They obey because they’re cowards. They obey because they think it would be a waste of their former cowardice not to this one last time. Maybe if they’re very nice, the tyrant will have a magical Hollywood change of heart and not shoot them in the face. It doesn’t work. Hollywood has made men cowards. If you just comply a little harder, the rapists will stop attacking your wife and daughters! This begins with the Pavlovian bell conditioning in schools. I’d often walk to my class long before the bell so it didn’t dictate my actions. The other kids called me the weirdo.
When Jesus said turn the other cheek, he did not mean your arse.
LONDON (Reuters) – Britain is set to secure an exemption for financial services from a new global tax system which was agreed by the Group of Seven economies to squeeze more money out of multinationals like Google, the Financial Times said on Wednesday.
Reuters had reported earlier this month that British finance minister Rishi Sunak was pushing for financial service firms to be exempt to help protect the City of London’s largest banks from paying more tax.
BANKS ARE PRIVATE BUSINESSES.
A corrupt Indian, imagine my shock.
The FT said the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which is leading the reform of the global tax rules for companies, had accepted Britain’s case on a carve-out.
The new global tax rules are designed to make companies pay more tax in countries where they operate. Banks do typically pay taxes locally on profits made in different jurisdictions, the OECD said in a paper in 2020.
City of London is its own country.
And they don’t make profits, tax revenue. Their business model is usury, making debt.
As part of the new deal, Britain will also remove its digital services tax. The FT said this was likely to happen in a staggered process. A spokesperson for Britain’s Treasury declined to comment.
Yet more financial genocide. Screw the People, feed the Beast.
Duh? Nothing to do with women, who always worked. That was a false flag by Peterson, who curiously didn’t show any data (because that data does not exist). Women always worked, even in pre-industry, except the royalty and certain aristocrats. That is nowhere near most women, let alone all. Contrary to Peterson’s nagging, Western incomes are still high internationally, so what would explain the 60s-00s replacement of the working class, but globalisation broadly and international competition from mass immigration locally? Naturally his lefty politics won’t allow him to finger the true culprit because that raises uncomfortable questions for his age group.
Missionaries violated the Bible by giving gibs to heathens, as in ‘those who will not work, shall not eat’. https://www.worlddata.info/average-income.php But y’know, that’s just actually looking for the DATA. UK average income $42k. Meanwhile places with an intact culture (relatively) and plausibly more K-family units (read: high marriage rates) have super low incomes and larger families as the norm still. e.g. Poland $15.2k Croatia $14.9k Russia $11.2k Serbia $16.1k Hungary $7k since you all have such a hard-on for the EE nations
so it’s a blatant FALLACY to conflate income with family formation in white people
with ONGOING data to prove it decisively (no muh 21st century is different)
losers: “it’s all about the money! that’s why women don’t want me!” sure
and population has gone up steadily e.g. Russia. https://www.worlddata.info/europe/russia/populationgrowth.php The data is out there but the fake redpill refuse to admit immigration is the problem and always has been (because literally most of them are immigrants, Magic Dirt men playing hello fellow white man). They wish to foment mutual white hatred (r-select impulse, the spiteful mutant) and what are the two biggest demographics in any race? Men v. women. Men stop protecting the women, women are easy prey. Divide, conquer. Cowardly but dysgenic.
The rise of the East has killed the West and the traditional breeding stock of the working class. Globalisation kills. Blaming the in-group is what the Globalists want, it produces further sterility and prevents you from questioning them (political triangulation), see: SJWs salivating over causing a gender war and larping as white women when they aren’t (religiously).
Did women get the vote in 1995, ya morons?
example of this all with EE nations again:
Poland has one of the lowest birth rates in the EU (as covered before, the r-women don’t want kids when asked) but even their population has been holding steady despite emigration and low incomes. https://www.worlddata.info/europe/poland/populationgrowth.php Blaming ‘women’ for working is plain ignorant of history! Did they think their grandmothers all twiddled their thumbs? What would they prefer? Living on welfare? Starving? Working until their eggs are all gone? Those are the only options, all demographic death. Women cannot fix this and shouldn’t be blamed for it. At some point they need to man up and admit men need to correct the ‘mistakes’ of their forefathers i.e. globalisation, immigration, multiculturalism.
There was data going round, mentioned by Academic Agent, that if only women voted in the UK since WW2, no left wing government would’ve ever gotten into power since. I’d like a video on that. Shan’t hold my breath but if enough people pester him he could trigger some broflakes because the sloth of r-men votes socialism due to lower T, r-women want to work. Americans need to look at data before complaining. Why are no major MGTOW/MRA channels removed from youtube? The plan is anti-white family, duh.
Besides, adopting pure r, we physically could not outnumber them by over-breeding, they’re generations ahead of us. The baby cult cannot flatten r-numbers.
“The global fertility rate fell from 5.25 children per woman in 1900, to 2.44 children per woman in 2018. The steepest drop in this shift happened in a single decade, from 1970 to 1980.” When Boomers gave the Pill to unmarried couplesand factories moved overseas.
“The overall decline in fertility rates isn’t expected to end anytime soon, and it’s even expected to fall past 2.1 children per woman, which is known as the “replacement rate”. Any fertility below this rate signals fewer new babies than parents, leading to an eventual population decline. Experts predict that world fertility will further drop from 2.5 to 1.9 children per woman by 2100. This means that global population growth will slow down or possibly even go negative.” All socialist/Marx models rely on rising population, that’s why all their policies e.g. Sex Ed, single parent gibs, no criminal punishment for adultery, all have the same outcome. They’re breeding chattel for their pension pot. Socialists oversee the breeding of their own slaves. Dark, huh?
As Darwin suggested, evolution is a race for life, and until the overseas threats are dealt with, local solutions are null and void. The ship is sinking, stop your enemies from blowing more holes in the boat. K-selection requires a fair i.e. closed system for operation. Globalists hate this because one such system would easily outcompete them. R-types pouring into the same territory exploiting shared resources will starve all Ks.
Going by the historical definition, nations such as Finland, Sweden, Ireland, and Switzerland were Third World countries. Based on today’s definition, these would not be considered Third World countries. Instead, what many now interpret “Third World” to mean encompasses economically poor and non-industrialized countries, as well as newly industrialized countries.
The international economic order has changed in the last 40 years and will no doubt go on changing, as leading economist, Angus Maddison, explains.*
In 1962, we usually divided the world into three regions. The advanced capitalist group was then known as the developed world. The second was the “Sino-Soviet bloc”. Countries “in course of development” were the third world. The China-USSR split occurred in the early 1960s; most of the communist regimes collapsed around 1990, and the hostility of the cold war has largely faded away. The income gap between the former communist countries and the advanced capitalist group has become very much wider than it was. For this reason, a tripartite division of the world economy is no longer appropriate.
For rough comparisons, it is now useful to divide the world in two and compare developments in the advanced capitalist group with the aggregate for lower-income countries – designated as the “West” and the “Rest” in our tables. On average, the West increased its income per head fourfold from 1950 to 2001 – a growth rate of 2.8% a year. In the rest of the world there was a threefold increase – a growth rate of 2.2%. In both cases this was much better than earlier performance. From 1820 to 1950, income grew 1.3% a year in the West and 0.6% in the Rest. Though the gap in income level was still increasing, the acceleration in performance was bigger in the Rest.
Population of the West rose by half from 1950 to 2001 (0.8% a year), about the same pace as in 1820-1950. In the Rest, the situation was very different. Population grew by 2.0%, compared with 0.6% in the earlier period. This reflected a major improvement in welfare as mortality declined and life expectation rose from 44 to 65 years in 2001 – much faster than in the West. In the past two decades birth rates have fallen rapidly – a demographic transition which happened earlier in the West.
The West is now a relatively homogeneous group in terms of living standards, growth performance, economic institutions and modes of governance. Over the past five decades there has also been significant convergence in most of these respects. This is not true of the Rest. There are more than 180 countries in this group. They have nearly all increased their income levels significantly since 1950, but the degree of success has varied enormously. Most of Asia is experiencing fast per capita income growth. Most African countries are fairly stagnant. Most Latin American countries found it very difficult to keep a steady trajectory of advance in the 1980s and 1990s. Population growth is fastest in Africa, a good deal slower in Latin America and slower still in Asia. Life expectation and levels of education are lowest in Africa, better in Latin America, and better still in Asia.
Between 1950 and 2001, the Asian group increased per capita income fivefold and narrowed the relative gap between their incomes and the West. In other regions there was no convergence. Latin American income rose more than twofold, in the former command economies of Eastern Europe and the USSR less than twofold and in Africa about two thirds.
The divergence was even more striking in 1990-2001. In this period the Western group increased their income by a fifth, the Asian group by half, Latin America by a sixth, Africa stagnated and in the former communist countries per capita income fell by a quarter. [DS: WHYYYYYYY]
American policy since 1973 has been much more successful than that of Western Europe and Japan in realising potential for income growth. The incidence of unemployment is now about half of that in Western Europe, whereas in 1950–1973 it was usually double the European rate. Labour force participation increased, with employment expanding from 41% of the population in 1973 to 49% in 1998, compared with an average European rise from 42 to 44%. The percentage drop in working hours per person was half of that in Western Europe. These high levels of activity were achieved with a rate of inflation which was generally more modest than in Western Europe.
US policymakers have been less inhibited in operating at high levels of demand than their European counterparts. Having the world’s major reserve currency, and long used to freedom of international capital movements, they generally treated exchange rate fluctuations with benign neglect. The Reagan administration made major tax cuts, and carried out significant measures of deregulation in the expectation that they would provoke a positive supply response that would outweigh potential inflationary consequences. The US operated with more flexible labour markets. Its capital market was better equipped to supply venture funds to innovators. Its economy was as big as Western Europe but much more closely integrated. Demand buoyancy was sustained by a stock market boom in the 1990s.
The United States was a major gainer from the globalisation of international capital markets. In the postwar period until 1988, US foreign assets always exceeded liabilities, but thereafter its net foreign asset position moved from around zero to minus $1.5 trillion (more than 20% of GDP). Thus the rest of the world helped to sustain the long American boom and financed the large US payments deficit.
The table provides a quantification of growth performance of eight major regions of the world economy and some very tentative projections for development up to the year 2015.
The demographic projections are those of the United Nations Population Division, and indicate a continuing decline in the rate of population growth in virtually all parts of the world. Nevertheless there will still be a very striking difference between the advanced capitalist group and Africa. At 0.33% a year it would take 210 years to double population in the first group. In Africa it is likely to happen within 32 years. [forcing all white people to marry would not work]
In making per capita GDP projections, I assumed a continuance of 1990-2001 rates of performance in Western Europe and Japan and a mild slowdown in the USA, where the information technology bubble of the 1990s has burst, and where the capital inflow which financed its trade deficit seems likely to slacken substantially. Aggregate per capita growth in the “West” seems unlikely to slow down very significantly, but combined with the demographic slowdown, it means that aggregate GDP growth would be about 2% a year. This pace would be similar to that in 1913-1950. Growth momentum transmitted by the “West” is likely to be more modest than in 1870-1913 and 1973-2001.
Asia (excluding Japan)
The most buoyant part of the world economy since the early 1970s has been Asia (excluding Japan). These economies have grown faster than those of the West and their buoyancy has been sustained in great part by their own policies. Their weight in the world economy is much larger than any other non-Western region. I assumed that their per capita growth 2001-2015 will be at the same pace as in 1990-2001.
These economies are catching up with the West and are still at a level of development where “opportunities of backwardness” are unlikely to erode. The combination of high investment rates and rapid GDP growth means that their physical capital stock has been growing more rapidly than in other parts of the world. The East Asian economies also have a high ratio of employment to population. This is due to falling fertility and a rising share of population of working age, but also reflects the traditionally high labour mobilisation of multi-cropping rice economies. In all cases which are documented they had high rates of improvement in education and the quality of human capital. Equally striking were the rapid growth of exports, the high ratio of exports to GDP, and a willingness to attract foreign direct investment as a vehicle for assimilation of foreign technology. These characteristics of China, South Korea and Chinese-Taipei have made for super-growth, but there is a second tier of countries whose growth is accelerating rapidly. The most notable case is India which has the potential to join the super-growth club. There are other economies where prospects are more problematic, but these are only a sixth of the Asian total. The projections assume no substantial change in their performance.
Latin America is the second largest non-Western region with about 8% of world product and a slightly bigger share of world population. Until the 1970s, economic policy was different from that in the advanced capitalist group. Most countries never seriously tried to observe the fixed rate discipline of Bretton Woods. National currencies were repeatedly devalued, IMF advocacy of fiscal and monetary rectitude was frequently rebuffed, high rates of inflation became endemic. Most countries reacted with insouciance to the worldwide explosion of prices, and governments felt that they could accommodate high rates of inflation. They were able to borrow on a large scale at negative real interest rates to cover external deficits incurred as a result of expansionary policies.
However, the basic parameters had changed by the early 1980s. By then, the OECD countries were pushing anti–inflationary policy very vigorously. The change to restrictive monetary policy initiated by the US Federal Reserve pushed up interest rates suddenly and sharply. Between 1973 and 1982, external debt increased sevenfold and the credit worthiness of Latin America as a whole was grievously damaged by Mexico’s debt delinquency in 1982. The flow of voluntary private lending stopped abruptly, and created a massive need for retrenchment in economies teetering on the edge of hyperinflation and fiscal crisis. In most countries resource allocation was distorted by subsidies, controls, widespread commitments to government enterprise and detailed interventionism. Most of them also had serious social tension, and several had unsavoury political regimes.
In the 1930s, most Latin American countries resorted to debt default, but it was not a very attractive option in the 1980s. World trade had not collapsed, international private lending continued on a large scale. The IMF and World Bank had substantial facilities to mitigate the situation, and leverage to pressure Western banks to make involuntary loans and legitimate a substantial degree of delinquency.
In the 1980s, the attempts to resolve these problems brought major changes in economic policy. But in most countries, changes were made reluctantly. After experiments with heterodox policy options in Argentina and Brazil, most countries eventually embraced the neoliberal policy mix pioneered by Chile. They moved towards greater openness to international markets, reduced government intervention, trade liberalisation, less distorted exchange rates, better fiscal equilibrium and establishment of more democratic political systems.
The cost of this transition was a decade of falling per capita income in the 1980s. After 1990, economic growth revived substantially but the process was interrupted by contagious episodes of capital flight.
My projections for Latin America assume some modest improvement in per capita performance in 2001-2015.
Africa has nearly 13% of world population, but only 3% of world GDP. It is the world’s poorest region. Its population is growing seven times as fast as in Western Europe. Per capita income in 2001 was below its 1980 peak. African economies are more volatile than most others because export earnings are concentrated on a few primary commodities, and extremes of weather (droughts and floods) are more severe and have a heavy impact.
As a result of rapid growth, little more than half the population is of working age. Almost half are illiterate. They have had a high incidence of infectious and parasitic disease (malaria, sleeping sickness, hookworm, river blindness, yellow fever). Over two thirds of HIV-infected people live in Africa. As a result the quantity and quality of labour input per head of population is much lower than in other parts of the world.
European powers became interested in grabbing Africa in the 1880s. Twenty-two countries eventually emerged from French colonisation, 21 from British, 5 from Portuguese, 3 from Belgian, 2 from Spanish. Germany lost its colonies after the First World War, Italy after the Second. The colonialists created boundaries to suit their own convenience, with little regard to local traditions or ethnicity. European law and property rights were introduced with little regard to traditional forms of land allocation. Hence European colonists often got the best land and most of the benefits from exploitation of mineral rights and plantation agriculture. African incomes were kept low by forced labour or apartheid practices. Little was done to build a transport infrastructure or to cater for popular education.
Colonisation ended between 1956 and 1974. In South Africa, the mass of the population did not get political rights until 1994. Independence brought many serious challenges. The political leadership had to try to create elements of national solidarity and stability more or less from scratch. The new national entities were in most cases a creation of colonial rule. There was great ethnic diversity with no tradition or indigenous institutions of nationhood. The linguistic vehicle of administration and education was generally French, English or Portuguese rather than the languages most used by the mass of the population. Africa became a focus of international rivalry during the cold war. China, the USSR, Cuba and East European countries supplied economic and military aid to new countries viewed as proxies in a worldwide conflict of interest. Western countries, Israel and Chinese-Taipei were more generous in supplying aid and less fastidious in its allocation than they might otherwise have been. As a result, Africa accumulated large external debts which had a meagre developmental pay-off.
There was a great scarcity of people with education or administrative experience. Suddenly these countries had to create a political elite, staff a national bureaucracy, establish a judiciary, create a police force and armed forces, send out dozens of diplomats. The first big wave of job opportunities strengthened the role of patronage and rent-seeking, and reduced the attractions of entrepreneurship. The existing stock of graduates was too thin to meet the demands and there was heavy dependence on foreign personnel.
The process of state creation involved armed struggle in many cases. Many countries have suffered from civil wars and bloody dictators. These wars were a major impediment to development.
In many African states, rulers have sought to keep their positions for life. In most states, rulers relied for support on a narrow group who shared the spoils of office. Corruption became widespread, property rights insecure, business decisions risky.
A major factor in the slowdown since 1980 has been external debt. As the cold war faded from the mid-1980s, foreign aid levelled off, and net lending to Africa fell. Although the flow of foreign direct investment has risen it has not offset the fall in other financial flows
The challenges to development in Africa are greater than in any other continent, the deficiencies in health, education and nutrition the most extreme. It is the continent with the greatest need for financial aid and technical assistance. The per capita GDP projections assume that these kinds of aid will be increased and that per capita growth will be positive. However, it is unlikely that African countries will, by 2015, be able to establish a trajectory of rapid catch-up such as Asian economies have achieved.
In Eastern Europe, the economic system was similar to that in the USSR from 1948 to the end of the 1980s, and so was economic performance. In 1950-1973, per capita growth more or less kept pace with that of Western Europe, but faltered badly as the economic and political system began to crumble. From 1973-1990, it grew at 0.5% a year compared with 1.9% in Western Europe.
The transition from a command to a market economy was difficult in all of the countries. The easiest part was freeing prices and opening of trade with the West. This ended shortages and queuing, improved the quality of goods and services and increased consumer welfare. However, much of the old capital stock became junk; the labour force needed to acquire new skills and work habits; the legal and administrative systems and the tax/social benefit structure had to be transformed; the distributive and banking networks to be rebuilt from scratch. The travails of transition led to a fall in average per capita income for the group from 1990 to 1993, but it rose by over 3% a year from then to 2001. My projection assumes that this pace of advance can be maintained at least until 2015. In fact, these countries can probably do better than this if they can be integrated into the European Union with better access to its goods, labour, and capital markets, its regional and other subsidies, than they have thus far enjoyed. Present real income levels are only a third of those in Western Europe. Wages are also much lower, but the disparity in skills is much less. The Eastern economies are therefore capable of mounting a catch-up dynamic similar to that of Asia if the integration takes place.
Successor states of former USSR
Fifteen successor states emerged from the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. In all of them, there was already a very marked deceleration of economic growth in 1973-1990. There was colossal inefficiency in resource allocation, a very heavy burden of military expenditure and associated spending, depletion and destruction of natural resources.
Capital/output ratios were higher than in capitalist countries. Materials were used wastefully. Shortages created a chronic tendency to hoard inventories. The steel consumption/GDP ratio was four times as high as in the US. The average industrial firm had 814 workers in 1987 compared with 30 in Germany and the UK. Transfer of technology from the West was hindered by trade restrictions, lack of foreign direct investment and very restricted access to foreign technicians and scholars. Work incentives were meagre, malingering on the job was commonplace. [but UBI and pensions will make it better /s]
The quality of consumer goods was poor. Retail outlets and service industries were few. Prices bore little relation to cost. Consumers wasted time queuing, bartering or sometimes bribing their way to the goods and services they wanted. There was an active black market, and special shops for the nomenklatura. There was increasing cynicism, frustration, growing alcoholism and a decline in life expectation. [so like America now?]
Soviet spending on its military and space effort was around 15% of GDP in the 1970s and 1980s, nearly three times the US ratio and five times as high as in Western Europe. There were significant associated commitments to Afghanistan, Cuba, Mongolia, North Korea, Vietnam and Soviet client states in Africa.
In the 1950s a good deal of agricultural expansion was in virgin soil areas, whose fertility was quickly exhausted. Most of the Aral sea was transformed into a salty desert. Exploitation of mineral and energy resources in Siberia and Central Asia required bigger infrastructure costs than in European Russia. The Chernobyl nuclear accident had a disastrously polluting effect on a large area of the Ukraine.
In 1985-1991 Gorbachev established a remarkable degree of political freedom and liberated Eastern Europe but had no coherent economic policy. From then to end 1999, Yeltsin broke up the Soviet Union, destroyed its economic and political system and moved towards a “market” economy. The economic outcome was a downward spiral of real income for the mass of the population. On average, GDP was nearly 30% lower in 2002 in the 15 republics than in 1990. Fixed investment and military spending fell dramatically, so the drop in private consumption was milder. There were very big changes in income distribution. Under the old system, basic necessities (bread, housing, education, health, crèches and social services) had been highly subsidised by the government or provided free by state enterprises to their workers. These all became relatively more expensive, the real value of wages and pensions was reduced by hyperinflation, and the value of popular savings was destroyed. There were major gains in the income of a new oligarchy. [i.e. cancelling Marxism cannot be overnight]
The new “market” economy is grossly inefficient and unfair in allocating resources. There has been legislation to establish Western style property rights, but in practice accountancy is opaque and government interpretation of property rights is arbitrary. Many businesses are subject to criminal pressure. Property owners such as shareholders or investors are uncertain whether their rights will be honoured. Workers are not sure their wages will be paid.
*This article is an adapted extract from Angus Maddison’s chapter, “The West and the Rest in the International Economic Order”, in Development is Back, OECD Development Centre, 2002.