Hacker News Reader

Comment by beedeebeedee | Hacker News Reader

That is not accurate again. Not only did North America have much more available and abundant natural resources than Central America and South America, the immigration to North America was much higher, so there was a more able labor force to cultivate and exploit the land. Your reductionist stance about free markets is misleading. A free market is only one component of why these places prospered, and may be the least important. Civil liberties and political stability, in addition to the natural abundance already mentioned, were probably much more responsible for the prosperity of North America. Likewise, with post-war Asia you miss the mark. For example, you overlook Japan's pre-war industrial development as well as their embrace of defeat after the war to development their economy and civil society. I'm not arguing for planned economies (quite the opposite), but the lack of nuance in your argument means that you miss the mark.

View on HN

Do you really believe that lack of resources in S America meant lack of prosperity? It's still composed of third world countries.

> and may be the least important

It's the only common thread. I provided numerous examples that refute the requirements you listed.

> Japan

Japan's pre-war industrial economy was not an economic powerhouse. Their soldiers were very lightly equipped. They built a handful of capital ships, and when those where sunk they couldn't be replaced. Curtis LeMay resorted to area bombing of Japan because their heavy industry was a collection of homes with drill presses (LeMays' characterization) so there weren't concentrated industrial targets.

What's the excuse for S Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong?

Have you noticed that when China gave up on collectivism and turned to free markets, suddenly they became a very prosperous world power?

Yes, people preferred to immigrate to the US. Why would that be? Because it is free market and hence a land of opportunity, unlike any place else at the time.

China has an enormous population, but did not become prosperous until, again, free markets.

Hi, you are a long way off from your initial comment that there were no workers revolts in the US in the 19th century. That claim is easily disproven unless you then claim strikes are not workers revolts (which makes discussion with you unproductive if you redefine terms instead of accepting reality-based nuance). Strikes are worker revolts, even if they were not always trying to overturn the whole economy. They could become incredibly violent, especially in the 19th century, when the authorities repressed them. Regardless, these strikes improved the lives and working conditions of countless people and we owe all of their participants gratitude for what they did for us.

Likewise, your claim that China's economy is practically synonomous with free markets is laughable. Yes, they have capital markets and allow entrepeneurship, but it is still one of the most heavily planned economies with the most government intervention in the world.

Drop the "free market" sloganeering and you might touch on reality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com