←back to thread

132 points pseudolus | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.479s | source
Show context
throwawawua4234 ◴[] No.19470693[source]
Is there any knowledge on why East Asian Tiger economies do so well with state backing ?

The major takeaway from the 'Princes of Yen' by Richard Werner is about how Japan soared from a destroyed country to an economic powerhouse, before being brought down by the bankers at the BOJ, ostensibly to change the system from a 'state backed economy' to a US-styled one. Ditto with the Asian tigers in Thailand, S Korea etc.

Such managed-economies have failed miserably in many other places - notably in India. China seems to be following the path of its neighbors, however.

On a meta-level, I don't see what the big deal is TBH - whatever floats ones boat eh ? The argument about 'unfairness' is a bit of a joke, since it is well known that there are very deep (albeit hidden) connections/interests b/w state and corporations in Western nations.

replies(5): >>19470742 #>>19470845 #>>19471134 #>>19471166 #>>19471573 #
bobthepanda ◴[] No.19471166[source]
More state backing is great when starting out on the path because it’s relatively straightforward; provide education, infrastructure and stability and your country will take care of itself. You can even goose the figures a bit by boosting a select few companies to be your champions.

The problem is that as you get richer and move up the value chain, you start requiring industry that is more creative, or entirely new creative industries. When creativity is required state backing is horrible at picking winners. And then those industrial champions are now sucking up a lot of the capital within a country.

Eventually the champions become slow and sluggish. But they’re too big to fail; as an extreme example, Samsung’s revenues are 17% of South Korean GDP, to say nothing of their suppliers.

replies(1): >>19472459 #
1. oblio ◴[] No.19472459[source]
Samsung is a world leader in display tech, memory tech and probably many other things. Slow and sluggish, you say? :)
replies(1): >>19479932 #
2. bobthepanda ◴[] No.19479932[source]
Before that we had Sony, Sharp, and Toshiba at the top of the world. You can lose your competitive advantage very quickly, and then all of a sudden you'll either get launched into a lost decade or two (Japan) or beg the IMF for money and have to sell off the crown jewels (Korea, 1998).