#1,005 in Business & money books
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product

Reddit mentions of Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism

Sentiment score: 2
Reddit mentions: 5

We found 5 Reddit mentions of Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism. Here are the top ones.

Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism
Buying options
View on Amazon.com
or
    Features:
  • Innovative self contained cycling trailer with personal off the ground sleeping quarters
  • 120-liters of storage makes a multiple day trip a breeze
  • Trailer frame made of lightweight aluminum covered with 600-denier rip stop nylon
  • Polyurethane coated for water resistance
Specs:
Release dateAugust 2010

idea-bulb Interested in what Redditors like? Check out our Shuffle feature

Shuffle: random products popular on Reddit

Found 5 comments on Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism:

u/Vio_ · 31 pointsr/worldnews

This is 100% how South Korea became the economic powerhouse it is today. Several decades ago, they'd bring in new technology- VCRs, cassette tapes, whatever the hot new tech thing was of the time. Then they'd break the machines apart, reverse engineer everything, and started selling cheap versions of it, and then export it to the US and wherever. They deliberately and gleefully did this so they could start building up their economy based on the tech industry.

Bad Samaritans

u/intermu · 8 pointsr/indonesia

Ha Joon Chang, a Korean economist does an excellent book about this.

All those myths about how free market capitalism is the greatest is fucking bullshit.

https://www.amazon.com/Kicking-Away-Ladder-Development-Perspective/dp/1843310279

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003Z9L4NA/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i1

IMF and the World Bank have essentially become enforcers of the current capitalist regime and basically shame countries who try to adopt self-sufficient policies that can be better for them in the long-run.

1 excellent example he gave in the books is the steel & shipbuilding industry in Korea. 50 years ago the free market wouldn't have thought of investing in them as Korea was a poor country with no resources with super risky projects. The government took the matter into their own hands and it laid the groundwork for the economic miracle that they experienced.

Countries going into debt to invest in their long-term capabilities really made sense to me, just like how you pay for your college & post-graduate fees to better your human capital. If countries always spend within their means, huge infrastructure projects will never get off the ground.

Likewise, if Indonesia's government do not invest in long-term profitable projects, we will never really become developed. The main driver of the economy will be the private market that really don't give a fuck about infrastructure and the likes if it doesn't benefit them (e.g. RGE in Riau having their own ports and electric generators for their paper mills, Lippo having their malls/hospitals/housing relatively well-connected to each other).

One can make an argument that if the government incur debts and use it inefficiently they may well make the economy worse off, but as long as the money stays within the country, it's better than not doing it at all. The book mentions the example of Suharto vs Mobutu Sese Seko who remitted most of the money to Swiss.

But I agree, Indonesia should invest more in projects like this. Debts aren't always bad. Gimana beli rumah kalo ga ada KPR? Gimana mulai bisnis kalo ga ada pinjeman bank?

u/overtOVR · 2 pointsr/Economics

His whole Bad Samaritans book based around his thesis on the application of protectionism for developing economies. We used the book as a supplemental text in an International Political Economy class that I took.

I found the theory interesting. He lays out a number of examples of how protectionism allowed countries we now consider economic superpowers to grow industry until they could compete on the world stage, and then develops examples of how this theory could be applied to currently struggling economies.

u/myrrhbeast · 2 pointsr/SandersForPresident

Don't equate "free" trade with climate change. They're not even close in terms of definitions, context, and in terms of "agreement" or consensus by scientists. Portraying criticisms of "free" trade as it is practiced in the world within political systems as being similar to climate deniers is simply wrong.

One quick search shows a prominent economist, Paul Krugman, critiquing Mankiw and his support for the TPP which Mankiw uses the spectre of "economists' belief that free trade is a good thing" to bolster: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/26/this-is-not-a-trade-agreement/

Here's Dean Baker, a macroeconomist, on the same article:
https://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/correction-to-mankiw-economists-actually-agree-just-because-you-call-something-free-trade-doesn-t-make-it-free-trade

Joseph Stiglitz, another prominent economist, on the TPP and free trade: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/on-the-wrong-side-of-globalization/

The Economic Policy Institute on the TPP: http://www.epi.org/publication/white-house-wrong-fast-track-massive-trade/

Ha Joon Chang on free trade: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003Z9L4NA/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1

Economists on rethinking free trade: http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2008-01-30/economists-rethink-free-trade