The evidence strongly shows that Hong Kong and Singapore benefit from being small island economies on major trade routes, established as entrepots. They are not models for development of tropical agricultural economies such as those in Africa. Switzerland shows that a landlocked country can flourish if it is itself surrounded by rich nations, such as those in Europe, and serves as a long-standing land bridge between them.
Jeffrey Sachs, Scientific American Jan. 2005 p.14
This quote is relevant because many libertarians decry aid to developing nations, saying Hong Kong is the libertarian-like example that should be followed. One responded to Sachs' article on development with this argument, and Sachs responded.
Of course there are MANY other reasons why the countries libertarians claim are models are not libertarian. For example, almost all property is owned by the Hong Kong government, and public housing accounts for roughly half the population.
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Adam Smith's Soft Side
Adam Smith's Soft Side
US Congressman Sherrod Brown points out that Adam Smith was not the one-dimensional "classical liberal" portrayed by libertarian historical revisionists.
The whole "classical liberal" term is a propaganda ploy (unhappily adopted by some innocent academics) designed to convince us of authority and historicity of modern libertarian dogma. It's as if libertarianism needed papal succession to justify authority descended from Peter (Adam Smith) to modern popes (Hayek, Mises, Rand, etc.)
And like Catholic dogmas, it's full of gross historical inaccuracies and conveniently overlooks other contemporaneous Christian (liberal) sects.
Added to the Libertarian Revisionist History page.
US Congressman Sherrod Brown points out that Adam Smith was not the one-dimensional "classical liberal" portrayed by libertarian historical revisionists.
The whole "classical liberal" term is a propaganda ploy (unhappily adopted by some innocent academics) designed to convince us of authority and historicity of modern libertarian dogma. It's as if libertarianism needed papal succession to justify authority descended from Peter (Adam Smith) to modern popes (Hayek, Mises, Rand, etc.)
And like Catholic dogmas, it's full of gross historical inaccuracies and conveniently overlooks other contemporaneous Christian (liberal) sects.
Added to the Libertarian Revisionist History page.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)