Molson Hart

You think the protectionism was necessary? 1. Highly educated, smart, entrepreneurial people 2. Great infrastructure 3. Economically competent government 4. Demographic dividend 5. Proximity to manufacturing powerhouses like sk and japan

I would not conclude that from one graph. But i think it's worth investigating. Much of what you describe applies to countries where the middle class eroded (west) or didnt quite emerge to the same extent (india).

Had the west been more protectionist, it's possible that this would not have happened to the extent that it did. Wouldn't you say that a middle class was created in India without protectionism and by avoiding it's bad infrastructure? I'm thinking about the one created by BPO.

I think the key reason that I did not mention which is important regarding the formation of a new middle class, is labor price differential. Containers and sea shipping does not compensate for all the other advantages of making in China.

What I'm trying to say is that if you have those positive characteristics (good infr., demographic dividend, sensible policy, smart people), relative to a developed country, plus a cost differential, you can probably create a middle class without protectionism.

Afaik protectionism was only relevant in the development of certain industries in China, i.e. high technology. A middle class would've been created on the back of apparel, shoes, injection molding, electronics assembly alone.

Well yes if you have a huge labor price difference then you dont need to add anything on top of that. By definition protectionism only applies in cases where you are not competitive. I mean youre probably right to an extent but question is to what extent.

Is that true? Africa is not exporting much besides raw materials and their labor is cheap. I think you really do need infrastructure and a few other things in order to compensate for the disadvantage of sea shipping...in order to compete. All I'm saying is that it's possible that