How long have you been running the PP?

General Discussion on the Permanent Portfolio Strategy

Moderator: Global Moderator

How long have you been running the PP?

< 1 year
24
55%
1-2 years
7
16%
2-3 years
2
5%
4-5 years
2
5%
5+ years
3
7%
haven't pulled the trigger
6
14%
 
Total votes: 44
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9096
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by MediumTex » Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:26 pm

Adam1226 wrote: It's easy to talk about cutting government programs, but I think if we actually implemented some of these shrink-government-policies as purely and abruptly as suggested by many a Libertarian, we would have big problems. 
Ronald Reagan was a textbook example of selling this storyline to the voters and then basically doing the exact opposite.

David Stockman (who was Reagan's first OMB Director and has recently been writing about the  current fiscal mess) wrote an excellent book in the 1980s about his experience in Reagan's administration called "The Triumph of Politcs."  Basically, he discovered that it is easy to cut taxes and hard to cut spending.  Duh.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
User avatar
KevinW
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 945
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 11:01 pm

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by KevinW » Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:21 am

Adam1226 wrote: I think it actually may be healthy that our government is unable to make extreme changes in an abrupt manner
Yes, I think the founders deliberately set things up that way, and that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
User avatar
AdamA
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2336
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 8:49 pm

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by AdamA » Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:33 am

MediumTex wrote: Ronald Reagan was a textbook example of selling this storyline to the voters and then basically doing the exact opposite.
I have always thought that the 1980 election marked a turn for the worse in modern US history.  In retrospect, it seems like we essentially chose the easy thing over the right thing...

Just my opinion, and I know likely to be controversial.
"All men's miseries derive from not being able to sit in a quiet room alone."

Pascal
User avatar
KevinW
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 945
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 11:01 pm

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by KevinW » Fri Apr 08, 2011 1:07 am

On the original topic, I've been fully in the PP since January.  I first heard of the PP in spring 2009 and my first reaction was similar to craigr's, this is complete bull#&*^.  However the historical performance was incontrovertible so I listened to the radio show.  At that point I was a Boglehead, and as I listened to the show and read the books I went through the five stages of grief, eventually being convinced to switch to the PP.
EM2

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by EM2 » Mon Apr 11, 2011 5:58 pm

Hello everyone,

Back to the original question in the post, I learned about the permanent portfolio a couple of months ago, I think it was, when Richard Russell of Dow Theory Letters first started to mention the fund PRPFX.  I did a lot of reading, and then found this site.  The concept clicked, and about a week ago, I started to shift assets around to get to the 4x25% allocation.  Whew.  A simple concept, but not that easy to implement.  I've been on a vertical learning curve, reading here and listening to Craig's podcasts. Bought my first long bonds last week. 

I notice that most of the voters in this poll (70%) are new, as I am, and I wanted to say thanks to the few seasoned pp investors who take the time to post and give advice here.  I have a lot of questions to ask so thanks in advance for y'all's input.

Maggie
User avatar
Pkg Man
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 401
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 7:58 pm

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by Pkg Man » Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:38 pm

MediumTex wrote:
Ronald Reagan was a textbook example of selling this storyline to the voters and then basically doing the exact opposite.
I think Reagan tried to do what he wanted to do, but one man -- even if President -- can only do what so much.  But right now I'd take a Reagan over any of the major party contenders in a New York minute.
"Machines are gonna fail...and the system's gonna fail"
pershing83

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by pershing83 » Mon Apr 11, 2011 8:06 pm

Well, I started buying it 5 yrs ago and now have 30% of my security position in PRPFX. And, it has been good to me, up 19% last yr and up 4.5% YTD. Before this board starts talking about alternatives perhaps you should consider will they do as well? Also, do you wish to adjust you allocations and pick stocks? The S&P is up 6% YTD. I feel better with 4 1/2% of PP somehow.
clacy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1128
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 8:16 pm

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by clacy » Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:13 pm

I have been running with 1/3rd of my investable assets in the HBPP for less than two months now.  I recently found out about HB/PP reference while perusing the Morningstar board.  That led me to the bogleheads threads and then to this.  I was looking for a mean reversion strategy at the time, to complement my momentum strategies and looked into Lichello's AIM system, which is more of a DCA/re-balancing strategy.  I wasn't sold on it (AIM), and kept looking.  As soon as I started reading about the PP, I knew instantly that it had a place for me.  

As a side note, I had listened to Julian Rubenstein's advertisement/radio program for American Asset Management even before stumbling on the bogleheads HBPP threads.  I listened to his pitch several times and found it to be very interesting.  As soon as I started reading about PP, I figured that he was using the PP.  He posts on this board, and has confirmed that he is a PP enthusiast.  Cheers to him for managing a lot of wealth in the HBPP vein and thinking outside the typical money manager dogma.  

I've read both threads at boglehead forum, as well as most posts here.  I've listened to all of HB's investment shows and read two of his books in short order.  

I plan on listening to more of his archived political talk shows as well.  I really admire him, as he was very savvy in politics as well as investing and I match up well with his ideologies.  I regret not having found him before he passed away.  It's a shame that he wasn't able to pontificate for another decade or two.  
Last edited by clacy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Pkg Man
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 401
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 7:58 pm

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by Pkg Man » Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:40 pm

clacy wrote:
As a side note, I had listened to Julian Rubenstein's advertisement/radio program for American Asset Management even before stumbling on the bogleheads HBPP threads.  I listened to his pitch several times and found it to be very interesting.  As soon as I started reading about PP, I figured that he was using the PP.  He posts on this board, and has confirmed that he is a PP enthusiast.  Cheers to him for managing a lot of wealth in the HBPP vein and thinking outside the typical money manager dogma.  
Interesting.  I had not heard of American Asset Management before.  While I admire him for being true to the PP, a tip of the hat to HB would have been nice, although certainly not required.

I also would have inserted the word "likely" before "will be" in the statement below which I found on the website:

"No matter what economic cycle the country is experiencing, one or more of our asset classes will be rising to provide a positive return for the year".  

The PP has lost money over a calendar year before, and there is no guarantee such a loss won't occur again.
"Machines are gonna fail...and the system's gonna fail"
User avatar
AdamA
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2336
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 8:49 pm

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by AdamA » Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:57 am

Pkg Man wrote: I think Reagan tried to do what he wanted to do, but one man -- even if President -- can only do what so much.  But right now I'd take a Reagan over any of the major party contenders in a New York minute.
Why does this nation have such fond memories of the Reagan presidency? 

Was Jimmy Carter really so bad?
"All men's miseries derive from not being able to sit in a quiet room alone."

Pascal
TBV
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 250
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 2:20 pm

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by TBV » Tue Apr 12, 2011 1:05 am

Adam1226 wrote:
Pkg Man wrote: I think Reagan tried to do what he wanted to do, but one man -- even if President -- can only do what so much.  But right now I'd take a Reagan over any of the major party contenders in a New York minute.
Why does this nation have such fond memories of the Reagan presidency?  

Was Jimmy Carter really so bad?
1) The list is too long for one reply.  However, here's a start. http://www.presidentreagan.info/reagan_budgets.cfm

2) Yes.
Last edited by TBV on Tue Apr 12, 2011 1:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by moda0306 » Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:59 am

I think a huge part of the Carter/Reagan difference in popularity was pure luck.  Carter oversaw extremely high oil prices, and they went down significantly during the 80's.  Further, Reagan really started the running of defecits and benefitted from the smart fed policy of Carter-appointee Paul Volker.  I really don't buy that Carter was that bad or Reagan that great.  That said, 70% tax rates were completely out of line.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

- Thomas Paine
User avatar
AdamA
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2336
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 8:49 pm

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by AdamA » Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:05 am

TBV wrote: 1) The list is too long for one reply.  However, here's a start. http://www.presidentreagan.info/reagan_budgets.cfm
2) Yes.
I've heard the argument made that the main reason Jimmy Carter's presidency was not successful was because he was not willing to use the military to essentially bully other countries out of resources.  Myth?

Not my opinion, but I wonder about this whenever I hear people talk about the Reagan era, and how much better everything got.
"All men's miseries derive from not being able to sit in a quiet room alone."

Pascal
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9096
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by MediumTex » Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:25 am

What made things better under Reagan was primarily driven by demographics.

When a demographic bulge of that size enters its peak earning years in a stable economy, things are normally going to look very rosy.

The dawning of the technology revolution and the capacity of the U.S. economy to take on enormous amounts of debt also helped (though the ability to take on debt is itself a product of favorable demographics).

George W. Bush tried to do what Reagan did, but failed to realize that the Reagan playbook appplied to an unfavorable demographic situation is a recipe for disaster.

Normally, the demographic profile, degree of political stability and natural resource availability will tell you all you need to know about the state of an economy.  Interestingly (and I am interested in PkgMan's thoughts on this matter), these three metrics are frequently not given that much attention by economists.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
User avatar
AdamA
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2336
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 8:49 pm

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by AdamA » Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:51 am

MediumTex wrote: Normally, the demographic profile, degree of political stability and natural resource availability will tell you all you need to know about the state of an economy. 
The leaders don't dictate the times, the times dictate the leaders...or something like that. 
"All men's miseries derive from not being able to sit in a quiet room alone."

Pascal
clacy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1128
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 8:16 pm

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by clacy » Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:15 am

MediumTex,

Have you ever looked at Harry Dent?  I just received his book, but haven't had time to read it.  He is a very demographic-driven economist.  He seems to be very bearish about the next decade or more and he's pessimistic overall about the future of the US (again I haven't read much of his work, but this is my impression of what I've heard from him so far).  He believes that demographics can foretell economic trends over a large time frame.

I really have no idea if his track record is accurate or not.  Obviously timing and putting your ideas into practice are just as, if not more important when making these types of calls so I won't be betting the farm on anything he has to say.
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9096
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by MediumTex » Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:29 am

clacy wrote: MediumTex,

Have you ever looked at Harry Dent? 
Harry Dent is kind of like a bush league Robert Prechter.  IMHO, he is mostly a gadfly who makes his living making ridiculous predictions (Dow 40,000!!!).  His analysis is very loosely based upon demographic trends (as he understands them), but his primary role is telling interesting stories (like most of his ilk).

Let me know what you think after reading his book.  I agree with his focus on demographics as providing insights into the shape of the future, but I think his predictions should just be treated as a form entertainment.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
TBV
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 250
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 2:20 pm

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by TBV » Tue Apr 12, 2011 3:49 pm

The reluctance in some quarters to recognize Reagan's leadership is instructive.  Perhaps if he had allowed the Carter recession to drag on for ten more years, he would at least have matched FDR's performance during the Depression and thus gained true immortality.

Moda and MT:The demographic bulge (i.e the Baby Boomers) didn't hit their "peak" earning years until the Clinton administration, when coincidentally crude oil prices hit post-WWII lows.  Perhaps that helps us understand how the "pure luck" of demographics and cheap oil goosed the economy during Clinton's second term.  As for the Reagan years, oil didn't really get cheap until 1986, long after the economy and inflation problems had been tamed.

Adam1226: I haven't heard that particular argument as a reason for Carter's weak foreign policy.  But then again, within recent memory, I know of no resources that the US has "bullied" other countries out of.  At least not since Woodrow Wilson's invasions of Haiti and Mexico.  There was, of course, the recent bullying of Honduras, but that wasn't about natural resources.
Last edited by TBV on Tue Apr 12, 2011 3:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by moda0306 » Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:00 pm

The beginning of the end of the middle class started under Reagan.

The beginning of an unsustainable expansion of credit began under Reagan.

The beginning of large defecits began under Reagan.

Boomers started being born in 1945, which would have made them 35-43 during his term.  That's maybe not their "peak", but certainly is some of their better earnings years.

Reagan is given a lot of credit for Volker's strangling of inflation, but Volker was a Carter appointee and a democrat if I am not mistaken.

Computer technology, demographics, defecits, and lowering gas prices helped BOTH Clinton & Reagan.

A lot of the deregulation that let banks play fast and loose with OPM started under Reagan.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

- Thomas Paine
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9096
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by MediumTex » Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:33 pm

TBV wrote: The reluctance in some quarters to recognize Reagan's leadership is instructive.  Perhaps if he had allowed the Carter recession to drag on for ten more years, he would at least have matched FDR's performance during the Depression and thus gained true immortality.
I recognize Reagan's leadership.

He just had the benefit of some favorable tailwinds along the way that I think made him look a bit better than he might have looked in the 2000-2008 period, for example.

As far as the steps the Fed took under Volcker to bring inflation under control, I don't think Reagan gets any credit for that.  If anything, the Reagan administration pressured the Volcker Fed to be less restrictive in its monetary policy.

I think to be fair one must also point out that in fiscal matters there was a bit of a disconnect between the Reagan myth and the Reagan reality.

When it comes to spending, although Reagan spoke of reducing the size of government, the size of the federal government increased during his presidency as a percentage of GDP (see statistic in article below).

When it comes to taxes, although Reagan talked about reducing tax burdens, he signed off on many tax increases during his presidency.

Here is an article with an overview of tax and spending policy during the Reagan years:

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/ec ... /index.htm

On Taxes:
After Reagan's first year in office, the annual deficit was 2.6% of gross domestic product. But it hit a high of 6% in 1983, stayed in the 5% range for the next three years, and fell to 3.1% by 1988. (By comparison, this year it's projected to be 9% but is expected to drop considerably thereafter.)

So, despite his public opposition to higher taxes, Reagan ended up signing off on several measures intended to raise more revenue.

"Reagan was certainly a tax cutter legislatively, emotionally and ideologically. But for a variety of political reasons, it was hard for him to ignore the cost of his tax cuts," said tax historian Joseph Thorndike.

Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together "constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime," Thorndike said.
There were other notable tax increases under Reagan.

In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees.

The tax reform of 1986, meanwhile, wasn't designed to increase federal tax revenue. But that didn't mean that no one's taxes went up. Because the reform bill eliminated or reduced many tax breaks and shelters, high-income tax filers who previously paid little ended up with bigger tax bills.

"Some of these taxpayers were substantial contributors to the Republican Party and to the president's re-election campaign, and had direct access to the White House. Reagan rebuffed their pleas," wrote J. Roger Mentz, the Treasury assistant secretary for tax policy in 1986, in a Tax Notes commentary last year.

All told, the tax increases Reagan approved ended up canceling out much of the reduction in tax revenue that resulted from his 1981 legislation.
On Spending:
Thanks in part to the increases in defense spending during his administration, Reagan also didn't really reduce the size of government. Annual spending averaged 22.4% of GDP on his watch, which is above today's 40-year average of 20.7%, and above the 20.8% average under Carter.

Indeed, in one very symbolic respect he enlarged it. While in the early years of his presidency Reagan tried to shrink the IRS, by the end, the number of IRS employees hit an all-time high, according to Steuerle in his book Contemporary U.S. Tax Policy.
Ronald Reagan was a feel good presence (compared to Jimmy Carter's feel-bad presence) and I think he did some good things while in office.  My point was that favorable demographics and lower oil prices in the 1980s helped a lot.  

The oil story also has an added dimension that is not often discussed, and it involves the collapse in revenue from oil exports that the USSR experienced as a result of the dramatic declines in oil prices in the 1980s (oil prices were falling during almost all of Reagan's presidency).  This dramatic decline in revenue made it much harder for the Soviets to keep up with U.S. levels of defense spending, which probably hastened its demise.  

In my view, Reagan was an extremely skilled politician, but ultimately he did what all modern politicians do: he increased the size of the government and ran up debt that would be left to later generations to deal with.
Last edited by MediumTex on Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
User avatar
Lone Wolf
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1416
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 11:15 pm

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by Lone Wolf » Tue Apr 12, 2011 5:08 pm

I started my PP in mid-2009 mid-2010.  (Edit: Due to either mental feebleness or deliberate deception, I initially wrote mid-2009, which was not correct.)  I was fortunate enough to have a large chunk of cash after the 2008 financial crisis and gathered up enough intestinal fortitude to buy into stocks.  In the meantime, I read and read on monetary policy and history to try to figure out some answers.  I wanted to get into gold but was quite afraid of gold as an investment (with good reason.)  Eventually my searching led me to the Permanent Portfolio.

Not sure how this turned into a Reagan thread, but grading on the "politician's curve", Reagan does very well.

Both Carter and Reagan were budgetarily victimized by the Congress of the day, causing both men (Carter and Reagan) to run deficits throughout their entire terms.  I genuinely believe that both of these Presidents wanted to cut a good deal more spending than Congress allowed them to.  (I think that Carter felt especially betrayed by this.)

Reagan's tax policy was excellent.  The inexcusable 70% tax rate was finally dismantled and all tax rates were slashed, to great positive effect.  The 80s saw rapidly falling unemployment, rapidly rising standards of living and rapidly rising real income.  Times were really, really good after things had been really, really bad.

Volcker gets credit for ending the out-of-control inflation while Reagan gets the credit for enduring the recession these Fed policies caused (no mean feat.)  The root cause of the inflation was of course the Nixon Shock, and Carter was largely a victim without a clear idea how to end it, at least at first.

TBV's right about energy prices.  They weren't really coming down until later in the 80s so Reagan didn't benefit from this until much later in his Presidency.

Reagan also had a genuine libertarian streak.  This was a wonderful, welcome change after the sleaze and economic cluelessness of Nixon.

Like I said, no politician is perfect but I'd take Reagan in a heartbeat over the current possibilities.  With the potential for the US to have to choose between Donald Trump and Barack Obama, it is an easy choice.  :)
Last edited by Lone Wolf on Wed Apr 13, 2011 1:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9096
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by MediumTex » Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:46 pm

I split the energy stuff into a separate thread.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
User avatar
Pkg Man
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 401
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 7:58 pm

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by Pkg Man » Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:46 pm

MediumTex wrote: What made things better under Reagan was primarily driven by demographics.

When a demographic bulge of that size enters its peak earning years in a stable economy, things are normally going to look very rosy.

The dawning of the technology revolution and the capacity of the U.S. economy to take on enormous amounts of debt also helped (though the ability to take on debt is itself a product of favorable demographics).

George W. Bush tried to do what Reagan did, but failed to realize that the Reagan playbook appplied to an unfavorable demographic situation is a recipe for disaster.

Normally, the demographic profile, degree of political stability and natural resource availability will tell you all you need to know about the state of an economy.  Interestingly (and I am interested in PkgMan's thoughts on this matter), these three metrics are frequently not given that much attention by economists.
It's been quite a while since I took an economics of development course, but clearly demographics play a role in how fast an economy can grow.  In a simplistic way, GDP is a function of labor (which is a function of population) and capital (both physical capital and human capital, i.e., skills).  A rising population will, other things being equal, lead to higher GDP growth than a falling or barely rising population.  This is one reason that the so-called "potential GDP growth rate" of the US has fallen to under 3%.  The post-WWII average growth is 3.3%.  While the difference between 3.3% and say 2.8% might not sound like much, it makes an enormous difference over time.  The other day I saw a USAToday headline stating that the labor force participation rate was at it's lowest level in years.  I believe that during the Reagan years you still saw a lot of women entering the workforce, which was a tailwind to growth, but not something that can be repeated.  I'm not sure how this differed between the Reagan and Bush 41 terms, but perhaps it did.

The other obvious things that matter are political institutions, or stability as MT says.  Included in this is how friendly or unfriendly the government is to business.  I'm not talking about being in the pocket of big business, but rather not interfering excessively in the ability to create and run a business.  If you look at a scatter chart of the number of days it takes to start a business on one axis, and GDP per capital on the other axis, there is a clear relationship.  For an exciting read on the importance of institutions, read Jim Rogers' Investment Biker.  It is replete with examples of nations with fairly prosperous economies that border basket-case economies, each with the same endowment of natural resources.  The Chilean economic miracle of the 70s is a great example of what can happen when the right institutions are in place.  Whatever you may think of Pinochet, he knew enough to hire some bright Chicago-School PhDs.  Of course it goes without saying that a government that is relatively free from corruption is preferred, but I don't think it is essential in order for an economy to prosper.

One aspect of economic development that I think has not received much attention from economists is the degree of social cohesion in a society.  Years ago I read a great book by Francis Fukuyama called Trust.  To put it in overly-simplistic terms, it is much easier to enter into contracts in a society where a person can have a certain degree of trust in the people he is dealing with.  This was vividly demonstrated to me after spending some time in South America.  It seemed that everyone was out to screw everyone else, which makes it much more difficult to enter into business with others.  If I were teaching a course on economic development, both Investment Biker and Trust would be required readings. 

Natural resources are of course a plus for growth, but probably on the lower end of the scale in terms of importance. 
"Machines are gonna fail...and the system's gonna fail"
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9096
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by MediumTex » Thu Apr 14, 2011 10:23 pm

Pkg Man wrote: One aspect of economic development that I think has not received much attention from economists is the degree of social cohesion in a society.  Years ago I read a great book by Francis Fukuyama called Trust.  To put it in overly-simplistic terms, it is much easier to enter into contracts in a society where a person can have a certain degree of trust in the people he is dealing with.  This was vividly demonstrated to me after spending some time in South America.  It seemed that everyone was out to screw everyone else, which makes it much more difficult to enter into business with others.  If I were teaching a course on economic development, both Investment Biker and Trust would be required readings. 
I think this is an area in which the U.S. has great economic advantages.  Regardless of what anyone says about corruption or crooked politics at the macro level, it's very uncommon to fear being short-changed in routine commercial transactions, feel that you need to bribe a police officer to stay out of trouble, feel that you won't get paid after doing work, etc. (there are exceptions, but I am just talking about typical expectations).

If you look around you every day, there is also normally a basic level of courtesy among enough people that it really smooths the process of economic transactions.

I think that lots of people in the U.S. also have a basic sense of fairness about things that translates into smoother commercial dealings as well.  This is not exclusive to the U.S. and there are certainly plenty of people in the U.S. who don't care about fairness, but I just frequently sense that when I am dealing with people we are both calculating what is fair more than we are calculating how we can best take advantage of one another.

We often take these things for granted in developed economies, but in many societies they are not prevalent outside of one's family, tribe, religious group, etc.

There is a peculiar tradition in professional table tennis of a player not accepting a point that he/she doesn't think is clean.  The video below contains a few such examples (music is goofy), and I think this characteristic and way of thinking is a huge advantage to any society where such values are widespread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzwZP5X8 ... re=related

Creating this sense of shared values is harder to do than it looks, but when a community or society does reach a critical mass of shared values, it is a powerful boost to economic transactions (among other things).  When people are talking about the U.S. being in bad shape, as PkgMan notes, they rarely focus on this huge structural advantage that our economy has.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
User avatar
Lone Wolf
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1416
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 11:15 pm

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by Lone Wolf » Fri Apr 15, 2011 8:39 am

Pkg Man wrote: One aspect of economic development that I think has not received much attention from economists is the degree of social cohesion in a society.  Years ago I read a great book by Francis Fukuyama called Trust.  To put it in overly-simplistic terms, it is much easier to enter into contracts in a society where a person can have a certain degree of trust in the people he is dealing with.
MediumTex wrote: I think this is an area in which the U.S. has great economic advantages.  Regardless of what anyone says about corruption or crooked politics at the macro level, it's very uncommon to fear being short-changed in routine commercial transactions, feel that you need to bribe a police officer to stay out of trouble, feel that you won't get paid after doing work, etc. (there are exceptions, but I am just talking about typical expectations).
...
Creating this sense of shared values is harder to do than it looks, but when a community or society does reach a critical mass of shared values, it is a powerful boost to economic transactions (among other things).  When people are talking about the U.S. being in bad shape, as PkgMan notes, they rarely focus on this huge structural advantage that our economy has.
I very much agree with you both.  This is one of those very important intangibles that I have never quite been able to pin down.  How does it emerge?  Why does it fail to emerge in so many societies?  In short, I don't yet understand how you "bottle that magic".

Does anyone have any ideas on this?
Post Reply