If all countries became tiger economies post-WWII, by how many years will tech be advanced?

In my "Onward March of Freedom" TL in the signature, I desire to turn all countries, especially the ones from the OTL developing world, into highly-developed Tiger economies like South Korea and Taiwan, which were really poor post-WWII, but are now very rich.

In this scenario, I know tech will be advanced since more countries will have more money for research and development, but the question is, by how much? Will tech be advanced by 10-20 years or so, or will tech advancement just be advanced by less than a decade?
 
Also note that I am also planning to have all nations here implement robust welfare systems (single-payer healthcare, universal basic income, jobs guarantee, free education, much higher taxes on the rich, etc.) that encourage high social mobility as well, which helps all world economies grow.
 
Technology falls behind as the global economy enters free fall. The price of formerly high value added products like electronics crash as the market is now flooded with them, destroying the value an income potential of all the training and capital imvestment. Interest rates on debt skyrocket as global credit is sucked into the crash capitalization programs, than needed to fund the broad social welfare states, so there's little liquid investment left and it's value is tied to rapidly inflating currencies (or deflating like mad if it's denominated in something stable) essentially shutting down global trade.

What you are suggesting isen't poasible.
 
Technology falls behind as the global economy enters free fall. The price of formerly high value added products like electronics crash as the market is now flooded with them, destroying the value an income potential of all the training and capital imvestment. Interest rates on debt skyrocket as global credit is sucked into the crash capitalization programs, than needed to fund the broad social welfare states, so there's little liquid investment left and it's value is tied to rapidly inflating currencies (or deflating like mad if it's denominated in something stable) essentially shutting down global trade.

What you are suggesting isen't poasible.

This really assumes that demand due to greater social wealth wouldn't keep up with increased supply of tech. And for the rest of the statement, I am sensing a slippery-slope fallacy here that the global economy will collapse if many countries produce tech, and if I'm correct, if there are big welfare states in each country?

That's seems to apocalyptic because there are many countries that do have such levels of advancement (tech, welfare state), e.g. Canada, EU, USA, Japan, South Korea, Israel, Singapore, HK, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, but they haven't collapsed yet. And there are many tech companies out there in those countries, yet investment and profits in tech companies went up.

I hope there's a better answer than this, tbh.
 
This really assumes that demand due to greater social wealth wouldn't keep up with increased supply of tech. And for the rest of the statement, I am sensing a slippery-slope fallacy here that the global economy will collapse if many countries produce tech, and if I'm correct, if there are big welfare states in each country?

That's seems to apocalyptic because there are many countries that do have such levels of advancement (tech, welfare state), e.g. Canada, EU, USA, Japan, South Korea, Israel, Singapore, HK, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, but they haven't collapsed yet. And there are many tech companies out there in those countries, yet investment and profits in tech companies went up.

I hope there's a better answer than this, tbh.

Slippery slope fallacy? No; I'm refering to the basic economic laws of supply and demand, which applies to money and labor as well as goods. The entire concept of the "tiger economy" is that, through capitalization and education/training, a country moves from producing low value-added goods to high value-added goods which, because they require more capital and trained personal to produce, usually add greatly to the pre-Tiger productivity per citizen. Its important to note, however, that this isen't guranteed and that our own tiger economies emerged under a particular set of circumstances. Japan and Korea both emerged during the early eras of de-industrialization (or at least a move away from manufacturing) in much of the Western world as industry shifted from primarily "manufacture" in the traditional sense to an increasingly electronics-dominated market, and represented relatively small shares of the global economy as a whole and total productive capacity. This allowed them to have plenty of "space" to fill and rich nations that could serve as a market for their exports and provide cheap investment capital of jump-start their economic modernization. However, transfer that over to the entirety of the world: the amount of available capital hasen't changed, so its going to be streched thinner and less efficently as well as being more expensive, nor has the demand for high level goods changed: indeed, if more money is being plowed into investment rather than consumption and nations will have domestic counterparts to potential imports, the export market is going to be smaller and thus you have more goods chasing fewer dollars. It dosen't take a genius to see that it would drive down the price of goods... and folks are going to have to pay more and higher interest rates on the initial investments they'd need to set up the productivity in order to produce the same amount of goods that the tiger economies enjoyed IRL.

Ultimately, that means your production is much less profitable, causing the "Tiger" economies to not be as impressive as they were IOTL despite looking identical because of completely different market conditions. That's especially true if large amount of money are being plowed into a welfare state, since you need to borrow money in order to fund those (Counteries that do so IRL can afford it because they got rich before they got old, and there's a sufficent gap between their relative wealth and productivity compared to the underdeveloped world that they can translate that into an economic asset). You're already putting a great deal of strain on the available credit market with all this additional investment... there won't be enough available to fund welfare states everywhere unless you start inflating the currency quite drastically or change unsustainable rates of interest, both of which will ultimately result in a liquidity crisis by destroying the ability to generate demand. While I'd love it if reality bent to wishful thinking, it simply dosen.t
 

Oh I see, I understand. What are other non-Tiger economy ways to have developed economies? You said promoting domestic consumption is key.

And on the main question, by how many years can technology be advanced if all countries become developed ones, albeit many not pursuing the East Asian Tiger model?
 

FBKampfer

Banned
The world becomes Socialist Star Trek Land as the world economy tanks and people are forcibly made to reckon with the fact that capitalism isn't sustainable without mass poverty somewhere (which was eliminated by literally every where having a massive boom post WWII).
 
. . . robust welfare systems (single-payer healthcare, universal basic income, jobs guarantee, free education, much higher taxes on the rich, etc.) . . .
Here might be one darkside possibility and source of drama:

We are much too timid regarding universal income. We can’t get past the previous moralistic mindset of not wanting to “discourage” people from working, even though there are nowhere near enough jobs.

That is, it works very well for a while and we all get rich together. But we badly handle the automation crisis.
 
Top