Ha-Joon Chang Quotes

Democracy and markets are both fundamental building blocks for a decent society. But they clash at a fundamental level. We need to balance them.

... I'm not a fan... First... a lot depends on how you do it. ...Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek were supportive of universal basic income. ...[T]hese are people who say, "Yea, give everyone £9,000" or whatever, and they can do whatever... with that money. They wouldn't starve to death, but everything about that is not society's problem. ...[I]f it is that kind of universal basic income which is... supported by some of the Silicon Valley billionaires, I'm 200% against it. If it is the more progressive form, I still have a problem because... having income is one thing, but... you need affordable high quality services. ...Unfortunately the supporters of universal basic income do not address this aspect... very clearly... So you convert all the... welfare entitlement... in Britain, so... your NHS service... your , the amount of childhood housing benefits, convert them only to cash... then how are people going to buy these? ...[I]s the government then going to wash ...its hands and say now you can go into the private market and buy it? ...[T]hat will be a disaster, because... many of these services are... provided by the government, which is not seeking profit. Of course, a lot of it has become privatized by stealth, but at least in theory... these, NHS and other bodies that provide these social services... are not out to make money, and... they pool the customers and... get the big discounts. There's a scale of economy provision. Instead of single hospitals going to a pharmaceutical company... to buy diabetes drugs for 5,000 people, the NHS can go to these companies... for 17 million people. ...[T]he kind of discount you get.... it's a totally different planet. So... these services are going to be very expensive... even when you give them the same amount of money, they will be able to buy less.

Britain and the US are not the homes of free trade; in fact, for a long time they were the most protectionist countries in the world. Not all countries have succeeded through protection and subsidies, but few have done so without them. For developing countries, free trade has a rarely been a matter of choice; it was often an imposition from outside, sometimes even through military power. Most of them did very poorly under free trade; they did much better when they used protection and subsidies. The best-performing economies have been those that opened up their economies selectively and gradually. Neo-liberal free-trade free-market policy claims to sacrifice equity for growth, but in fact it achieves neither; growth has slowed down in the past two and a half decades when markets were freed and borders opened.

Gore Vidal, the American writer, once described the American economic system as 'free enterprise for the poor and socialism for the rich'. Macroeconomic policy on the global scale is a bit like that. It is Keynesianism for the rich countries and monetarism for the poor.

[I]t's up to societies... especially the citizens to demand these things, to create systems that will... not only enable the country to deal with these kind of crises in the future, but... more importantly that... can make the society more equal. ...My point is, we have to start the discussion. ...We have to talk about this. ...The people have to keep banging on, "Why did you keep all those claps [applause] during those eight weeks in the spring to the nurses but then you didn't pay them any more? ...Why is the NHS so dilapidated? We have to keep pushing... otherwise the people in power are not going to do that.

Also in the process, realizing that if we all... reduce our activities... cities like ... which has never seen... clear sky for many years... can have... blue sky... made people realize that we should and could do a lot more to fight .

Assume the worst about people and you get the worst.

[T]his has been the most corrosive consequence of the recent rise of the... extreme right, but... despite all this mistrust, we have to invest in rebuilding trust in these institutions. Maybe some of the existing institutions have become so discredited, they need to be scrapped. ...Maybe some can be redeemed, but also we could try to create ...a global public information service ...[T]hat sounds overly idealistic, but... it's something that we need because these gainers from the erosion of public trust in these public s... also ...control the media with their money. ...[I]f ...citizens do not have... a UN information service or some global charity that provides fact checks [etc.]... Unless people have these trusted sources, they'll begin to believe whatever... and those who control the media, including things like Facebook [etc.]... through their money will... be in a position to manipulate them to their benefit. ...[D]espite people's misgivings about building yet another international organization trying to restore trust in the public institutions that have already been eroded and dilapidated .., that's the only way out because otherwise it becomes a free-for-all... [which] means all those people with money...

I... tell... how numbers in economics are defined and put together... not as... objective as... weight or... temperature...

There is a big logical jump between acknowledging the destructive nature of and arguing that the lower the rate of inflation, the better.

As South Korea shows, active participation in international trade does not require free trade. Indeed, had South Korea pursued free trade and not promoted infant industries, it would not have become a major trading nation. It would still be exporting raw materials (e.g., tungsten ore, fish, seaweed) or low-technology, low-price products (e.g., textiles, garments, wigs made with human hair) that used to be its main export items in the 1960s.

Making rich people richer doesn't make the rest of us richer.

All the alleged key causes of SOE [State-Owned Enterprise] inefficiency—the principal–agent problem, the and the soft budget constraint—are, while real, not unique to state-owned enterprises. Large private-sector firms with dispersed ownership also suffer from the principal-agent problem and the free-rider problem. So, in these two areas, forms of ownership do matter, but the critical divide is not between state and private ownership—it is between concentrated and dispersed ownerships.

Culture changes with .

There are concerns that the s that have been built in the last few decades of globalization have become too concentrated, so if something goes wrong in one place, the whole chain is affected... It was already happening, but now.... people are saying... we need to do something about it.