nicely done!
[quote]fahd wrote:
redfreddy wrote:
oh yeah?! well…my great great distant ancestors could beat up your great great distant ancestors!!!
So what? my great great great distant ancestors probably fucked your great great distant ancestors!
Wait… doesn’t that mean they were also my great distant ancestors?
Fahd[/quote]
Professor,
Interesting to here the “YOU’RE MY DR?!?” stuff. I used to get a similar reaction when I first started in my business due to my age (I was a 23 year old in a field where 90% of my peers are over 50). Unfortunately, I don’t get the response as much now that I’m 31.
I can only imaging the reactions and faces you get, since you have most of the qualities not expected of Doctors from the older generation of patients. I’m pretty sure that my Great Grandmother thought that to be a doctor you must be at least 65 years old, small and waify. I’d like to see some of the faces when a young muscled-up 250lb jacked Doctor comes in and snaps on the latex exam gloves.
Could you take a camera to work for us for the next couple of days?
The biggest single reason that certain countries are poor is that their corrupt governments actively keep out modern production techniques and have restrictive trade barriers in place.
Read this and come back to discuss:
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
The biggest single reason that certain countries are poor is that their corrupt governments actively keep out modern production techniques and have restrictive trade barriers in place.
Read this and come back to discuss:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0262161931?v=glance [/quote]
That’s not fair, B. We now have to buy more books to debate with you? Shit, I need a bigger bookcase as it is.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
The biggest single reason that certain countries are poor is that their corrupt governments actively keep out modern production techniques and have restrictive trade barriers in place.
Read this and come back to discuss:
That’s not fair, B. We now have to buy more books to debate with you? Shit, I need a bigger bookcase as it is.[/quote]
Sorry – I’ll see if I can’t find a nice summary article. =-)
Here’s the Amazon summary though:
Book Description
Why isn’t the whole world as rich as the United States? Conventional views holds that differences in the share of output invested by countries account for this disparity. Not so, say Stephen Parente and Edward Prescott. In Barriers to Riches, Parente and Prescott argue that differences in Total Factor Productivity (TFP) explain this phenomenon. These differences exist because some countries erect barriers to the efficient use of readily available technology. The purpose of these barriers is to protect industry insiders with vested interests in current production processes from outside competition. Were this protection stopped, rapid TFP growth would follow in the poor countries, and the whole world would soon be rich.
Barriers to Riches reflects a decade of research by the authors on this question. Like other books on the subject, it makes use of historical examples and industry studies to illuminate potential explanations for income differences. Unlike these other books, however, it uses aggregate data and general equilibrium models to evaluate the plausibility of alternative explanations. The result of this approach is the most complete and coherent treatment of the subject to date.
Book Info
Offers a theory explaining the reason why the United States is so much more affluent a nation than so many others, based on differences in Total Factor Productivity. Discusses why these differences exist and what can be done to bring these poorer nations up to speed with the United States. DLC: Economic development.
Here’s a summary book review:
Wealth Depends on How Open Nations Are to Trade
By Virginia Postrel
The New York Times, May 17, 2001
Stumping last week for expanding free trade, President Bush added a fresh argument to the usual promises of new markets for American goods and services. He called free trade a “moral imperative” essential to economic and political progress. “When we negotiate for open markets,” he said, “we are providing new hope for the world’s poor.”
That’s true both directly and indirectly. Economists have been explaining the direct advantages of trade since “The Wealth of Nations,” by Adam Smith, was published in 1776. By allowing nations, organizations and individuals to specialize in what they do best, trade makes more goods and services available to everyone, raising living standards for all.
Open international trade has indirect advantages as well. By increasing competition, it spurs producers to find ways to reduce costs and, hence, prices to consumers ? again, increasing living standards. And it spreads knowledge and skill. People all over the world gain access to the best technologies and most productive business practices.
Unless they’re forbidden to adopt them.
Such prohibitions explain why poor countries stay poor, two economists, Stephen L. Parente of the University of Illinois and Edward C. Prescott of the University of Minnesota, argue in “Barriers to Riches,” published last year by MIT Press. “Although countries have access to the same stock of knowledge,” they write, “they do not all make equally efficient use of this knowledge because policies in some countries lead to barriers that effectively prevent firms from adopting more productive technologies and from changing to more efficient work practices.”
In other words, says Professor Parente, “poor countries are poor because some groups are benefiting by the status quo,” and those groups use the law to block change. India has a long history of this. In the early 20th century, strikes kept Indian textile mills from increasing the number of looms each worker operated, and the government protected the old ways through steep tariffs on foreign textiles. As a result, from 1920 to 1938 textile productivity rose by only a third as much in India as it did in Japan, which was beginning its climb to prosperity.
Such policies, the authors note, continue in India, where “regulations require certain firms to award workers with lifetime employment and require firms with more than 25 workers to use official labor exchanges to fill any vacancy.”
They add, “The state can and often does discourage entry by firms that use more productive work practices through the subsidization of existing firms.”
To protect favored workers, India forces its economy to be less productive than it could be, making the country poorer.
Professors Parente and Prescott came to their bold conclusion after examining alternative explanations, like savings rates or educational levels. The difference, they argue, can’t be explained by what countries put into their economies. It must lie in what comes out.
If savings and education were enough, says Professor Prescott, “Khrushchev would have been right.”
“The former Soviet Union would have buried the West. They were well educated. They had high savings rates. The efficiency with which you use resources matters.”
Take savings as an example. From 1966 to 1993, the savings rates in rich and poor countries were about the same, roughly a fifth of gross domestic product, according to the International Monetary Fund. Africa, for example, lags only a few percentage points behind the industrialized regions and has occasionally surpassed them. The economists acknowledge that these statistics are open to question, since countries have been known to fudge their data and collecting accurate information is a difficult task. But these are the same data used by people who claim that high savings rates are the key to economic growth.
Besides, the savings hypothesis doesn’t pass the smell test. The gap between rich and poor countries is simply too big. For savings and investment to account for the difference in output, the authors calculate that “savings rates in the rich countries would have to be 8,000 times higher than in the poor countries.”
Education is another common explanation for growth. Basic literacy is necessary, but it isn’t sufficient, the economists argue. Education spending can’t explain “economic miracles.” As Professor Parente notes, “Japan didn’t double its schooling capital when it doubled its income.”
One by one, the book explores the standard explanations for economic differences and concludes that while inputs matter, they can’t account for the huge differences between rich and poor countries or explain why some countries catch up with the economic leaders.
Something must be going on that makes some countries more productive. That’s a puzzle, since everyone has access to the same technologies and capital markets. Indeed, multinational companies make information flows between countries increasingly fluid. When Ford builds an auto plant in Mexico, it draws on the best practices developed all over the world. Mexicans don’t have to reinvent auto manufacturing from scratch. “Technological transfer is so much easier than it’s ever been,” Professor Parente says.
The economists argue that the puzzle is explained by local interest groups’ blocking efficient techniques. Free trade’s indirect benefit is that it forces local monopolies to compete, opening countries to the most productive technologies and practices. Governments that commit themselves to free trade agreements are binding themselves not to protect the status quo, even in the face of interest group pressure. “Trade,” Professor Parente says, “is great for getting rid of these vested interests.”
This research turns the activist attack on free trade on its head. Multinational companies become the carriers of the state-of-the- art production techniques that poor countries need to climb out of poverty. And political power and influence, which antitrade protesters praise as democratic, becomes the biggest barrier to riches ? and the greatest source of poverty.
Not surprisingly, Professor Prescott expresses great hope for a Free Trade Area of the Americas. He recently spent time in Brazil and is distressed to see such a resource-rich country with a dynamic people remain so poor. “If they formed this free trade within the Americas, you’d see growth miracles throughout,” he says. “We’d benefit a little bit. These other countries would benefit a huge amount.”
Virginia Postrel (www.dynamist.com) is author of The Substance of Style: How the Rise of Aesthetic Value Is Remaking Commerce, Culture, and Consciousness (HarperCollins).
I’ve taken a fair amount of economics and one thing I do know, it isn’t a very certain science. Underpinning it all is the behavior of poeple… which are inherently tricky when it comes to getting them to conform to calculations.
It looks to me like this book is just another way to blame the unsuccessful for their own plight.
All free and open trade does is normalize advantages. A backwards country will not have an advantage in technology and science capabilities. It will likely have advantages in terms of raw commodities.
However, advanced countries, such as the USA and Canada are still fighting to protect their own commodities sectors, such as agriculture, lumber and so on.
It’s not as simple as saying “let in free trade” and you’ll be fine. Presumably there would be lots of demand for very cheap labor making shoes for Nike or some such – we’ve all seen that before.
It’s hard for an underdeveloped country to suddenly compete, with Asia for example, by investing in technology. It is possible that they could attempt to woo automakers or other manufacturers keen on cheap labor, but with a lot of recent unrest in various areas, who wants to make large investments and take that risk?
The problem is a tough one. I really haven’t looked at it seriously. I do think finding a way to successfully export goods to pull in currency would be a good plan. Tourism is one way to do this… again, stifled by conflict and unrest.
What resources do they have? Has anybody drilled for oil there yet? 
vroom,
Free trade is pretty much a win-win for every country involved, if not each segment of a country’s population. If there’s one thing that almost all economists agree upon, it’s that free trade benefits all countries who participate, and that barriers to trade harm the countries that enact them.
As I said, that doesn’t mean each individual will benefit, or each segment – the candle makers won’t benefit from the availability of cheap lamps, after all. But overall it’s a net benefit for the countries.
This is a good essay on how increased global trade will help developing countries:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20051201faessay84707/william-r-cline/doha-and-development.html
[quote]lumbernac wrote:
The White race has crossed seas, harnessed rivers, carved mountains, tamed deserts, and colonized the most barren icefields. It has been responsible for the invention of the printing press, cement, the harnessing of electricity, flight, rocketry, astronomy, the telescope, space travel, firearms, the transistor, radio, television, the telephone, the lightbulb, photography, motion pictures, the phonograph, the electric battery, the automobile, the steam engine, railroad transportation, the microscope, computers, and millions of other technological miracles.
It has discovered countless medical advances, incredible applications, scientific progress, etc. Its members have included such greats as Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, Homer, Tacitus, Julius Ceaser, Napoleon, William the Conqueror, Marco Polo, Washington, Jefferson, Hitler, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Magellan, Columbus, Cabot, Edison, GrahamBell, Pasteur, Leeuwenhoek, Mendel, Darwin, Newton, Galileo, Watt, Ford, Luther, Devinci, Poe, Tennyson, and thousands upon thousands of other notable achievers.
Now, African Americans have done a lot too, in fact Prof X has pointed that out to a lot of us on previous threads. I want to take the time to laugh at the people that X talked about, that couldn’t beleive he was a doctor. I’ve met several over qualified doctors in fact i think the first doctor to perform a open heart surgury was Black. Thanks[/quote]
Nice post dumbass. Next time you’re quoting a white supremacist diatribe, make sure to take ‘Hitler’ out of the list of ‘greats.’
I’m assuming you didn’t write that first part yourself, based on the grasp of the English language you show in the last paragraph.
[quote]Free trade is pretty much a win-win for every country involved, if not each segment of a country’s population. If there’s one thing that almost all economists agree upon, it’s that free trade benefits all countries who participate, and that barriers to trade harm the countries that enact them.
As I said, that doesn’t mean each individual will benefit, or each segment – the candle makers won’t benefit from the availability of cheap lamps, after all. But overall it’s a net benefit for the countries.[/quote]
Boston,
I’ve got a lot of economics in my background. I’ve argued for free trade many times in the past.
However, I’ve come to believe that there are things that are not well measured by economics and that the period of transition to a state of free trade can have long lasting drawbacks for various reasons.
For example, sectors of an economy may have to be reallocated to another area… such that everyone working in auto-manufacturing will have to moved to another industry as the industry goes bankrupt.
Unfortunately, if things are moved too quickly, those people who have spent their lives learning to manufacture cars will not have a lot of other skills. They may not be very employable in areas where the country has a new competitive advantage. Their unemployment or underemployment represents a huge hardshipt to them, some hardship to the tax base and shrinks the total economic output until resolved.
While shifts to free trade can occur in a few short years, the ability to retrain workforces, move families to new centers of demand and so on can take an entire generation or more.
During this time there can be a lot of pain and suffering for those that are forced to undergo upheaval.
Mind you, I’m not arguing that free trade is bad. I’m arguing that it, especially the transition to it, is not a panacea. Underdeveloped countries often do not have sophisticated protections for children, for example, which causes them for economic reasons to work instead of obtain an education. Sure, the economic output is increased, but at what cost? Hopefully the problems inherent in such a situation don’t have to be spelled out.
There are very many problems that can occur during these transitions. Blindly claiming free trade will solve the worlds woes, because N-Mart can sell toilet paper 3% cheaper, is a bit nearsighted at the very least.
I do however very much understand that through comparative advantage that countries X and Y together will produce more in free trade than they will without out. Theoretically, both countries will benefit from this increased total producitivity – though the division of the benefit between the two may certainly be very one sided.
Anyway, to be clear, economists agree that there is the theoretical ability to create a larger pie by working together more efficiently via free trade. What they don’t talk about is transitional issues and their costs.
vroom,
I agree with you that there will be transition costs - as I said above, not every segment of the economy will win, which means certain industries will cease to exist. Of course, new industries will spring up, and other ones will expand, so that helps to assuage the problem.
I think that these “relocation costs” are even less of a problem in the poorest, least developed countries than they are in developed countries. In less developed countries there are fewer industries anyway, and among those fewer still that require specialized skill sets. The initial comparative advantage of the poorest countries is in agriculture and labor, as you pointed out. Allowing those advantages to be utilized will do the most to assuage any relocation costs that do arise.
The governments of those countries could also help a lot by putting their foreign aid money to use in worker training programs. And if they wanted to pass worker protection laws, they could do that as well. In any event, even if they didn’t, it seems to me that the people working in the new industries would be comparably better off than in the previous state, which for many was unemployment because there were no jobs.
It’s a process, not a magic wand, so it will take time. But keeping closed borders w/r/t trade simply locks in the poverty and doesn’t even allow the improvement proces to begin.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
rrjc5488 wrote:
Out of curiosity, how old are you?
I can see a patient being a little curious when a 25 year old walks into the room, but I dont think you’re 25 judging from your pics.
29.[/quote]
I actually think its pretty telling of your personality that you think people are questioning whether you’re the doc b/c you’re black as opposed to your age. Simply put, you ARE on the young side and I would wonder the same thing. Simple fact is, black doctors are not an endangered species and not exactly all that uncommon. I’m sure there was some racism from a few of the folks you refer to, but by and large, it is your age first, and probably your appearance second, and a distant third is your race, if at all. My humble opinion…maybe you’re not that guy, but I hate the black that sees racism everywhere when the majority of us whites don’t really care about your color until YOU make an issue of it. And at age 29, you would NOT be MY doctor. And it has nothing to do with your race, qualifications, etc. Very simply, I defend med mal cases and when push comes to shove, I want experience. Not any slight to you sir. I’m sure you’re competent and accomplished. With women, I’ll always go with youth (pick em like you would your football team) and with doctors, I’ll err to the side of experience.
Steve
Well, you really are highlighting another problem. Most advanced countries are working very hard to help their agricultural industries while at the same time perishable products require short transport times.
These countries will need a “new” area to develop comporable advantages in industries that their trading partners will have product interest.
Seriously, without some type of products and ability to produce those products, free trade basically means access to a cheap unskilled labor pool where ownership of the facility and the products will be held by outside investors.
Honestly, you aren’t offering a panacea and I think the transitions are much more significant than you suspect they are. Again, I’m not against it, but it should be a slow controlled process which in particular opens up markets in a way that the underdeveloped country chooses in accordance with their own development plan.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Professor X wrote:
rrjc5488 wrote:
Out of curiosity, how old are you?
I can see a patient being a little curious when a 25 year old walks into the room, but I dont think you’re 25 judging from your pics.
I actually think its pretty telling of your personality that you think people are questioning whether you’re the doc b/c you’re black as opposed to your age.
Simply put, you ARE on the young side and I would wonder the same thing. Simple fact is, black doctors are not an endangered species and not exactly all that uncommon. I’m sure there was some racism from a few of the folks you refer to, but by and large, it is your age first, and probably your appearance second, and a distant third is your race, if at all.
My humble opinion…maybe you’re not that guy, but I hate the black that sees racism everywhere when the majority of us whites don’t really care about your color until YOU make an issue of it. And at age 29, you would NOT be MY doctor. And it has nothing to do with your race, qualifications, etc.
Very simply, I defend med mal cases and when push comes to shove, I want experience. Not any slight to you sir. I’m sure you’re competent and accomplished. With women, I’ll always go with youth (pick em like you would your football team) and with doctors, I’ll err to the side of experience.
Steve[/quote]
Wow.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Professor X wrote:
rrjc5488 wrote:
Out of curiosity, how old are you?
I can see a patient being a little curious when a 25 year old walks into the room, but I dont think you’re 25 judging from your pics.
I actually think its pretty telling of your personality that you think people are questioning whether you’re the doc b/c you’re black as opposed to your age. Simply put, you ARE on the young side and I would wonder the same thing. Simple fact is, black doctors are not an endangered species and not exactly all that uncommon. I’m sure there was some racism from a few of the folks you refer to, but by and large, it is your age first, and probably your appearance second, and a distant third is your race, if at all. My humble opinion…maybe you’re not that guy, but I hate the black that sees racism everywhere when the majority of us whites don’t really care about your color until YOU make an issue of it. And at age 29, you would NOT be MY doctor. And it has nothing to do with your race, qualifications, etc. Very simply, I defend med mal cases and when push comes to shove, I want experience. Not any slight to you sir. I’m sure you’re competent and accomplished. With women, I’ll always go with youth (pick em like you would your football team) and with doctors, I’ll err to the side of experience.
Steve[/quote]
Gee, don’t get pissed the next time someone tells you what you can’t do because you are too old. The next time you are turned down for a job or insulted by a woman because you aren’t young enough. Just remember, you hold the exact same views.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
TheBodyGuard wrote:
Professor X wrote:
rrjc5488 wrote:
Out of curiosity, how old are you?
I can see a patient being a little curious when a 25 year old walks into the room, but I dont think you’re 25 judging from your pics.
I actually think its pretty telling of your personality that you think people are questioning whether you’re the doc b/c you’re black as opposed to your age. Simply put, you ARE on the young side and I would wonder the same thing. Simple fact is, black doctors are not an endangered species and not exactly all that uncommon. I’m sure there was some racism from a few of the folks you refer to, but by and large, it is your age first, and probably your appearance second, and a distant third is your race, if at all. My humble opinion…maybe you’re not that guy, but I hate the black that sees racism everywhere when the majority of us whites don’t really care about your color until YOU make an issue of it. And at age 29, you would NOT be MY doctor. And it has nothing to do with your race, qualifications, etc. Very simply, I defend med mal cases and when push comes to shove, I want experience. Not any slight to you sir. I’m sure you’re competent and accomplished. With women, I’ll always go with youth (pick em like you would your football team) and with doctors, I’ll err to the side of experience.
Steve
Gee, don’t get pissed the next time someone tells you what you can’t do because you are too old. The next time you are turned down for a job or insulted by a woman because you aren’t young enough. Just remember, you hold the exact same views.[/quote]
Glad you took it well b/c I was not intending to insult you; just a shot across your bow to make you think. And no Sir, I will not be offended b/c those biases are the way we humans are wired.
What many people on these racism debates DO NOT understand is that we are a species that leans to affinity…whether it be skin color, interests, religion, etc. It is part of nature’s hard wiring. Thankfully, we (well most of us 
) are advanced enough to understand that differences among us are not reason to exclude each other and even can be cause to celebrate one another.
But as long as mankind exists, there will be bias and its not just driven by that magic R word - racism. Animals exhibit the same behavior. And more people have been oppressed in the name of religion than any racial minority.
Trust me, when the world population is majority “brown”…and it will happen eventually, people will still find a basis by which to hate, exclude or have a bias toward one another. It is reality; mine and yours. I can give you countless examples; heck, my best friends (not SOME of my friends) are black. I can’t go to a black club or bar w/o someone thinking I’m a cop.
And even though I DO date and live with a 21 year old (I’m 40), there ARE young women that think I’m too old for them; its just reality. Now don’t get me wrong; I’m not comparing the foregoing to overt acts of racism suffered by many over too many years or attempting to trivialize it.
I’m merely illustrating, in a fun way, that we all suffer bias of some sort and always will. Somewhere there is a point in my convuluted writing…lol. But I am distressed that you see racism in patient’s reactions when I see clearly that the reaction is clearly, overall, about your age.
And if you step outside yourself for a minute and loose the professional detachment that is so necessary to your work, you will realize that people are generally nervous about their health when its time to see a doctor. It can’t be very reassuring to be greeted by someone in their twenties…with muscles to boot! LOL.
But don’t fret, you’re aging with the rest of us and I guarantee you that when you hit your mid thirties, you won’t suffer that reaction much, if at all. Personally, I think for shits and giggles you should enter the exam room for your next patient wearing a tank top; please hide a camera and film it for us. LOLOLOL.
Yours in strength,
Steve