𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗣𝗢𝗟𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗟 𝗘𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗢𝗠𝗬 𝗢𝗙 𝗣𝗪: 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗤𝗨𝗘𝗦𝗧 𝗢𝗥 𝗠𝗨𝗧𝗨𝗔𝗟 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗥? Why Making Others Poorer Doesn't Make Us Richer Inspired by Ken Lyons' article "The History of China" imagine two villages side by side. One grows rice, the other weaves cloth. Then the powerful thinks, why bother to trade? just take it So it goes, takes the fields, puts the farmers to work. Great first day deal. Then the bills appear. soldiers. police. Farmers who couldn't care less. Israel may still come out ahead. Although add the two villages together, and there are fewer. This is a question I keep coming back to. Do you get rich by taking from others, or by doing things with them? 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗠𝗘𝗥𝗖𝗔𝗡𝗧𝗜𝗟𝗜𝗦𝗧 𝗛𝗔𝗕𝗜𝗧 For hundreds of years, European powers occupied the first. Gold in the vault, captive markets, excess. If you won, someone else lost. With land and gold, okay, that's right. With production it is not. They were wrong there. Adam Smith said this in 1776. Ricardo then showed that trade is profitable even when one country is better in everything. The cake is not fixed. I'm still amazed how many people in power didn't get the memo. 𝗔𝗔𝗣𝗔𝗡 𝗗𝗗 𝗜𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗛𝗔𝗥𝗗 WAY Imperial Japan wanted coal, iron, farmland and markets, and Manchuria had them. The official story was "Greater East Asia Common Prosperity Area". actually? The army ran the show. Military spending exploded, trade broke down, forced labor, resistance everywhere. In 1941 the Americans cut off the oil. By 1945 the economy was in ruins. Japan went to war in search of economic security. It got the opposite. teller Then, with zero empire, it became one of the richest countries on earth. American defense helped, sure. But no one needed Manchuria for that. 𝗖𝗛𝗜𝗡𝗔'𝗦 𝗥𝗢𝗨𝗧𝗘 and then there is China after 1978. Reform, foreign investment, factories, exports. Not even one colony.

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗣𝗢𝗟𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗟 𝗘𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗢𝗠𝗬 𝗢𝗙 𝗣𝗪: 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗤𝗨𝗘𝗦𝗧 𝗢𝗥 𝗠𝗨𝗧𝗨𝗔𝗟 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗥? Why Making Others Poorer Doesn't Make Us Richer Inspired by Ken Lyons' article "The History of China" imagine two villages side by side. One grows rice, the other weaves cloth. Then the powerful thinks, why bother to trade? just take it So it goes, takes the fields, puts the farmers to work. Great first day deal. Then the bills appear. soldiers. police. Farmers who couldn't care less. Israel may still come out ahead. Although add the two villages together, and there are fewer. This is a question I keep coming back to. Do you get rich by taking from others, or by doing things with them? 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗠𝗘𝗥𝗖𝗔𝗡𝗧𝗜𝗟𝗜𝗦𝗧 𝗛𝗔𝗕𝗜𝗧 For hundreds of years, European powers occupied the first. Gold in the vault, captive markets, excess. If you won, someone else lost. With land and gold, okay, that's right. With production it is not. They were wrong there. Adam Smith said this in 1776. Ricardo then showed that trade is profitable even when one country is better in everything. The cake is not fixed. I'm still amazed how many people in power didn't get the memo. 𝗔𝗔𝗣𝗔𝗡 𝗗𝗗 𝗜𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗛𝗔𝗥𝗗 WAY Imperial Japan wanted coal, iron, farmland and markets, and Manchuria had them. The official story was "Greater East Asia Common Prosperity Area". actually? The army ran the show. Military spending exploded, trade broke down, forced labor, resistance everywhere. In 1941 the Americans cut off the oil. By 1945 the economy was in ruins. Japan went to war in search of economic security. It got the opposite. teller Then, with zero empire, it became one of the richest countries on earth. American defense helped, sure. But no one needed Manchuria for that. 𝗖𝗛𝗜𝗡𝗔'𝗦 𝗥𝗢𝗨𝗧𝗘 and then there is China after 1978. Reform, foreign investment, factories, exports. Not even one colony.