tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post5543963064264028716..comments2024-03-06T06:34:42.881-05:00Comments on EconoSpeak: The ARAMCO IPO Stumbles Out The DoorUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-73207871346118561582019-11-09T11:17:52.127-05:002019-11-09T11:17:52.127-05:00Absurdly, the Gini coefficints of US, Russia, HK, ...Absurdly, the Gini coefficints of US, Russia, HK, and China are not that far apart, in the low 40s, seriously unequal. Taiwan is much lower.<br /><br />Fascinating and important.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-12035929120186368592019-11-08T20:47:05.898-05:002019-11-08T20:47:05.898-05:00A.,
Thank yuo for your appreciative remarks.
...A.,<br /><br />Thank yuo for your appreciative remarks. <br /><br /> A further matter involves income distribution. Of the the three current Chinas, two have massive income inequality, Gini coefficients over 40, and one is way below that. Taiwan is the latter. As it is, laissez faire Honk Kong has massive inequalirt, a major input to the big demos there. And, the PRC also has massive inequaliuty, in contrast with the super egalitarian Maoist past. Absurdley, the Gini coefficints of US, Russia, HK, and China are not that far apart, in the low 40s, seriously unequal. Taiwan is much lower.rosserjb@jmu.eduhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09300046915843554101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-62908444153367035222019-11-08T13:30:17.877-05:002019-11-08T13:30:17.877-05:00Thank you so much for the superb response. I alwa...Thank you so much for the superb response. I always learn so much from you and am so grateful since I struggle so in learning about other peoples and what they have accomplished economically. You are a wonderful teacher.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-18307182793645246402019-11-08T07:55:48.459-05:002019-11-08T07:55:48.459-05:00BTW, Anonymous, Taiwan in 1949 had about the same ...BTW, Anonymous, Taiwan in 1949 had about the same real per capit income as PRC did, but has a far higher one today than PRC, while also having a functioning democracy that does not persecute minority gropus, in contrast to the dictatoship that runs PRC and is severely prsecuting the Uighur minority. Should not somebody in Taiwan get an econ Nobel before somebody in PRC?rosserjb@jmu.eduhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09300046915843554101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-35593385724905607042019-11-07T22:23:54.958-05:002019-11-07T22:23:54.958-05:00A.,
We have been through this before. Nobels are...A.,<br /><br />We have been through this before. Nobels are not given out for policies. They are given out for new ideas. What is or are the nww idea(s) and who is respoibie for it or them to receive the prize?rosserjb@jmu.eduhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09300046915843554101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-76437689712814224342019-11-07T16:42:21.412-05:002019-11-07T16:42:21.412-05:00How curious that China starting from being among t...How curious that China starting from being among the poorest of countries, far poorer than India in 1980, and having a population that is now 1.4 billion could have raised hundreds of millions to middle class well-being, could have raised hundreds of millions from poverty and coming ever closer to ending severe poverty in 2020, would have no economist worth a Nobel prize for work on poverty. To me, this is a travesty of awarding the Nobel Prize for work on poverty to 3 Massachusetts economists.<br /><br />Distressing that the astonishing and wonderful progress China has made against poverty should be given no attention and credit by the Nobel Prize folks or by the Western articles about the prize that I have so far read. This tells me that the Massachusetts work on poverty and evaluation of the work is highly problematic, which I already knew from reading the work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-86965879147097442302019-11-07T16:41:57.707-05:002019-11-07T16:41:57.707-05:00https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/devel...https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/development-economics-nobel-open-secret-by-yao-yang-2019-10<br /><br />October 22, 2019<br /><br />The Open Secret of Development Economics<br />To many in China, this year's Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences seems to have shone a spotlight on one area of development economics at the expense of another. While randomized controlled trials might be useful for creating or improving welfare programs, they can't tell poor countries how to achieve and sustain rapid growth.<br />By YAO YANG<br /><br /><br />Yao Yang is a professor at the China Center for Economic Research and Dean of the National School of Development at Peking University.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-15636989831713086332019-11-07T16:41:01.799-05:002019-11-07T16:41:01.799-05:00Aside:
https://twitter.com/rodrikdani/status/1186...Aside:<br /><br />https://twitter.com/rodrikdani/status/1186742394605187072<br /><br />Dani Rodrik @rodrikdani<br /><br />Important point here, but applies more broadly than randomized control trials. Remarkable how little today’s development economics has to say about the most impressive poverty reduction in history ever.<br /><br />Project Syndicate @ProSyn<br /><br />By recognizing work on randomized controlled trials in development economics, Yao Yang of Peking University believes the @NobelPrize has once again overlooked the most obvious and consequential development story of the past half-century: China<br /><br />http://bit.ly/32yTIfT<br /><br />1:33 PM - 22 Oct 2019Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com