 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Master Zen
|
 |
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
Care to explain, in simple layman's terms, what "institutionalist" means?
-Arrian |
Basically the institutionalists (of which I consider myself one) believe that the problems (and solutions) of the economy are not due to monetary, macro, or micro issues but rather because of the institutional framework in which the country finds itself. Thus, the legal system for example, is a major actor in the economic system as it dictates what works and what doesn't.
Example: you have spring breakers coming to mexico and trashing hotel rooms, doing public rowdiness etc. and you have Mexican citizens coming to the US and acting nice, polite, and obeying the law. Why this sudden change of behaviour? Because the US citizen knows for the most part nothing will happen to him if he does this, and the Mexican knows he will get arrested for jay walking and sentenced to death in Texas... thus, the institutional framework generated a modified behavour for these people.
There' A LOT more to this theory but I have to go and can't explain it all...
-MZ
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Adam Smith
|
 |
Maryland, USA
Jan 1970
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Zen Basically the institutionalists (of which I consider myself one) believe that the problems (and solutions) of the economy are not due to monetary, macro, or micro issues but rather because of the institutional framework in which the country finds itself. Thus, the legal system for example, is a major actor in the economic system as it dictates what works and what doesn't. |
A Lot of Douglas North's arguments are that certain institutions were more economically efficient and therefore led to greater economic development.
One example was the English vs. French legal system. The English system provided greater protection of property rights from expropiration by the state, thereby leading to greater capital investment. Part of this stemmed from the Magna Carta roots versus the centralization of French monarchy.
Another example I seem to remember North mentioning was the collection of taxes in specie versus in labor or in kind. IIRC, collection in specie afforded the state greater spending flexibility, and also allowed the development of larger holdings and more efficient land tenure. Interestingly, this same system of tax collection seems to have hindered China's growth, leading to powerful absentee landlords, tax evasion, and greater corruption.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
MZ - I've been more or less an intstitutionalist for a long time before I moved south. 
Oerdin - like a lot of mixed-bag economic activities, the enthusiasm for turistas, especially spring-breakers, depends on a combo of your benefit from their spending and their impact on you.
If you have a purpose-built party town like Cancun, where the locals primarily moved there to work in the related industries and they live in separate areas, it's one thing.
Most of the other towns it's much more mixed. Border towns like Tijuana and to some extent Rosarito are problematic, because a majority of both workers and residents do not benefit from the activity. In the summers, Rosarito has signs up in English pointing out that pissing in the streets and fighting in the streets is against Mexican law.
Tijuana has a million and a half people or more, and three main, closely connected areas for gringos - Av. Revolucion, la Zona Norte for hookers, and the border/Rio zone from Pueblo Amigo to the various clubs down Paseo de los Heroes. The area of negative impact is more widespread than the area of positive impact, and it's really primarily the club owners, working girls, and a few others who benefit - the average guy working in a gringo club or girl in a lap dance place doesn't make a hell of a lot more, or have much better opportunity than they would in a non-gringo turista job. The places themselves are eyesores, the neighborhoods they're in acquire a special sort of greasiness, and the border traffic impact is a pain in the ass for everyone.
In that respect, it's not too much different than something like, say, a slaughterhouse. There's an economic benefit to some groups, but it's nothing you want to live next to. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Smith
One example was the English vs. French legal system. The English system provided greater protection of property rights from expropiration by the state, thereby leading to greater capital investment. Part of this stemmed from the Magna Carta roots versus the centralization of French monarchy.
|
Expropriation and centralization? Odd.
AFAIR the history, a much bigger problem was the permanent default on french public debt.
I don't get the tax collection example. The more interesting thing in my view is bureaucracy vs conductors. Can you elaborate on the point?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-05-2003 01:04
They are also annoying when they say "I'm not gonna give up my farm, its been in my family for generations." like it was a sin no get a job in city. If they can't make a profit on thier farm then there are too many farmers, what a bunch of bast@rds. 
If the government needs to buy extra grain from farmers to keep the prices high there is something wrong. We are unfortunately stuck with it because voting against subsidies would be political suicide for a senator from a rural area. (the house isn't a problem because the rural states have few representatives, but in the senate well, you know. 
)
|