<blockquote>
<p>How to make a country rich with no ground resources?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Country can develop and achieve high income country status (I assume that's what you mean by being rich), without much if any natural resources. There are numerous historical examples, such as Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland etc.</p>
<p>Economic development and economic growth comes from having good 'inclusive' institutions such as property rights or free labor markets as opposed to bad 'extractive' institution such as slavery (see Acemoglu 2008, <a href="https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/115/4/1167/1820389" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Acemoglu &amp; Robinson 2000a</a>, <a href="https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.90.2.126" rel="nofollow noreferrer">2000b</a>, <a href="https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.91.4.938" rel="nofollow noreferrer">2001</a>, <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/economic-origins-of-dictatorship-and-democracy/3F29DF90519971B183CAA16ED0203507" rel="nofollow noreferrer">2006</a>, <a href="https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.98.1.267" rel="nofollow noreferrer">2008</a>; <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1nprdd" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Olson 1984</a>, Bates <a href="https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520282568/markets-and-states-in-tropical-africa" rel="nofollow noreferrer">1981</a>, <a href="https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520060142/essays-on-the-political-economy-of-rural-africa" rel="nofollow noreferrer">1983</a>, <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/africa/article/abs/robert-h-bates-beyond-the-miracle-of-the-market-the-political-economy-of-agrarian-development-in-kenya-cambridge-cambridge-university-press-218-pp-2995-isbn-0-521-34257-0-hard-covers-1989-1095-isbn-0-521-43792-x-paperback-1992/FA07682578E411892B1628A8593E12E1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">1989</a> and sources cited therein) and from technological growth, saving, capital accumulation (see Acemoglu Introduction to Modern Economic Growth or Romer Advanced Macroeconomics).</p>
<p>None of the factors above require country to have abundance of natural resources. In fact, in economics we talk about natural resource curse. That is abundance of natural resources often, although not always, makes countries poor and less developed (see for example; <a href="https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.30.1.161" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Venables, 2016</a>). For example, Russia, Ukraine, Iraq, Iran, Kazakhstan etc are all resource rich countries but save for elites average citizens in those countries are very poor by our (western) standards.</p>
<p>Hence to make country rich without natural resources someone needs to first persuade the country's rulers to adopt inclusive institutions such as private property rights, free labor markets, provision of independent justice, provision of public goods etc, and also to invest into technology and capital.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Is it possible for a country to grow economically with just farming?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This question is not clear. It is certainly possible for country to focus on producing agricultural products and to develop and grow. However, even countries that typically specialize in agricultural products do not devote whole economy to that sector. The sort of agriculturally centered feudal economy of middle ages where virtually everyone was employed in agricultural production is likely inconsistent with significant economic development or growth.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-27T17:14:43.047Z
when you say free labor market, do you mean less regulated labor? so like child labor?
Armen Babakanian
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-27T17:25:41.880Z
@ArmenB it’s not what I mean I did not coined the term myself. When Acemoglu and Robinson  talk about free labor market they mean unrestricted access to labor market without much price regulation; that is no caste system; no forced labor like slavery or serfdom. I don’t know if they also mean allowing child labor (if defined for children below 13) i don’t remember them mentioning child labor when they talk about free labor market but I think they do not because another inclusive institution they mention is basic education for children. However, it also depends on what you mean by child labor
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-27T17:34:46.687Z
Since in the literature there are various definitions of child labor. For example, a common definition classifies child labor as anyone engaging in economic activity under age of 17 (ie that would include lemonade stands or the sort of apprenticeships common in EU in Netherlands Germany Denmark or Sweden where adolescents in vocational education contribute to some economic production). However there are different definitions and classifications some consider only labor by individuals under 15, 14 or 13 and some even make distinction on what sort of work it is
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-27T17:40:08.017Z
@1muflon1 I think Union regulate salary, and that's a good thing on the personnel level and make happy employees. I kinda disagree with the free labor market strategy that sounds like a capitalist propaganda,who is advocating that? Acemoglu and Robinson what?
Armen Babakanian
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-27T17:43:10.177Z
@1muflon1, I can open up a can of worms here, the term free labor is very broad. If labor is not regulated we won't have weekends, and we dont' have time off or vacation time. Germany has a very strict labor laws and it a good example why the free labor requirement is not a must.
Armen Babakanian
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-27T17:44:44.643Z
@1muflon1 I disagree with the natural resource issue, it can go both ways. Norway has oil and has distributed it to it's people and Saudi has oil and it's a nightmare to live there.
Armen Babakanian
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-27T17:51:33.967Z
@ArmenB that is being advocated by top developmental economists. Acemoglu and Robinson are one of the most cited developmental economists in the world and its generally accepted scientific fact that these policies support economic development. The literature on this issue is mostly empirical (that means this is result from real world observations) This is just science, that does not mean you have to use science for your policies. For example, science shows vaccines generally help prevent deaths,  thats a scientific fact, but that does not mean you have to support policy of forced vaccination.
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-27T17:54:41.450Z
@ArmenB yes Norway is an exception that confirms the rule. Thats why I said: "That is abundance of natural resources **often, although not always**, makes countries poor and less developed". About 40-50% of empirical papers on development find negative relationship between resources and development about 30-40 find no relationship and there are few papers that find positive relationship so clearly there can be some special cases where natural resources help but empirically speaking its rare and in the case of Norway it probably again comes back to good institutions that is for a country
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-27T17:55:45.323Z
with excellent institutional quality like Norway, it might be that having natural resources is boon because the relationship might be nonlinear with institutional quality being a mediator for whether the relationship is positive or negative
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-27T17:57:07.557Z
@1muflon1 well I just brought an example that negates their statement. Germany is not a free labor market, it's highly regulated compared to US and it's GDP is comparatively very good.
Armen Babakanian
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-27T17:59:45.197Z
@ArmenB 1. free labor market does not mean unregulated labor. Free labor market means state does not regulate price and quantities. Until very recently germany did not even had minimum wages and in germany unlike in USSR you are not forced by state to work or go to prison. Having safety regulation etc does not mean labor market is not free. 2. Even after adoption of minimum wage it only affects very small number of professions since only about 3-4% people in geramny earn minimum wage so that price regulation is practically unimportant for most of the economy
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-27T18:02:08.430Z
3. When it comes to these institutions its not have it all or have none of it. A country might develop while having predominantly inclusive institutions (like when china switched from centrally planned to market economy by allowing people to own private property set up business and be employed/unemployed where they want), while still retaining some extractive institutions (like China's labor camps for minorities and dissidents) . It is not like having one extractive institution will completely ruin economic developement. For example, US managed to develop while having slavery
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-27T18:03:11.050Z
because despite slavery dragged labor productivity down, it affected only small portion of population and it was one institution out of hundreds of institutions which were for its time of high quality. Let me give you another analogy. If you exercise and eat healthy then going to McDonalds once a month for a bigmac and big cola will not hurt your health much. Indulging in fast food once  a month will have marginal effect on your life expectancy.  But by the same token if you eat only McDonalds and eat something healthy 1 in a month you will be sick. The same holds for economy. Country does not
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-27T18:07:43.660Z
need to have 100% optimal policies to develop.
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-28T05:59:08.793Z
I actually read the definition of Free Labor Market here: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/040915/what-are-some-examples-free-market-economies.asp#:~:text=A%20free%20market%20economy%20is,free%20market%20and%20command%20economies.
Armen Babakanian
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-28T05:59:50.983Z
Ok so your basically saying don't be Venezuela and North Korea if you want a country to create wealth which I agree 100%
Armen Babakanian
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-28T06:03:07.557Z
so one thing about slavery (this is only concepts, I don't advocate slavery) is that in the past it has generated quite a lot of wealth for US, Egypt and now in Dubai. But you are saying just a few becoming rich doesn't make a rich country correct?
Armen Babakanian
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-28T09:32:12.610Z
@ArmenB investopedia is **not economics site but finance site** and they regularly have mistakes in economics material. According to **oxford dictionary of economics**: free market: A market in which people buy and sell voluntarily, without legal compulsion. Neither the quantities traded nor the price at which trade takes place are subject to control by third parties. **This is not to say that such markets operate without legal regulation: the participants have to conform to laws concerning health and safety, weights and measures, labelling requirements, and so on.**
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-28T09:32:25.857Z
link to the dictionary of economics https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198759430.001.0001/acref-9780198759430-e-1283?rskey=v0T25m&result=5
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-28T09:33:26.743Z
The oxford dictionary has the same definition as *peer reviewed* textbooks such as Mankiw Principles of Economics etc. Investopedia does not use accepted definition of free market in economics profession. Maybe in finance they have their own definition, or more likely whoever written that article did not understand the econ definition and took artistic liberties with it the Investopedia article does not refer to any peer reviewed econ sources
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-28T09:38:12.943Z
@ArmenB there is no rigorous evidence that slavery would generate lot of wealth for a country as whole. Slavery generated a lot of wealth for the **slave owners**, however slavery distorts incentives to invest in human capital  (especially the kind of chattel slavery practiced in US, Roman slavery was bit different more akin to long term labor contract since slaves could buy themselves out of slavery and had to be paid wages etc see Tamin's work on Roman economy).
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-28T09:39:57.550Z
and human capital accumulation also helps growth.  US would probably have higher industrialization rate and faster economic growth if it would not have slavery. UK that voluntarily gave up slavery was much more prosperous without slave labor than US, and US north that abolished slavery was growing much faster than south which didnt.
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-28T09:47:55.977Z
@ArmenB also I am not saying just don't be north korea and venezuela those are extreme examples of a countries with terrible institutions. For example, countries like Russia or countries in the balkans have sufficient quality of institutions to have some meandering development over time but they could be far more prosperous if they would work on their institutions balkan countries have especially problems with not having independent judiciaries. This is a complex topic that cannot be really reduced to soundbites like "dont be north korea" science is not that simplistic
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-30T00:58:41.517Z
@1muflon1 free market is not the same as free labor market. The definition you provided is talking abut buying and selling, not wage and employment.
Armen Babakanian
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-30T07:47:14.813Z
@ArmenB 1. free labor market is free market for labor. 2. If you would literally read any academic literature you would learn that on labor market laborers sell labor and employers buy labor. In econ jargon hiring someone for example for 10 hours is purchasing 10 hours of labor. Wage is just price for labor the same way as rent is price of land. 3. Are you here to learn or just argue for sake of arguing? Because if for the latter there is no point in continuing. You can call dolphin a fish even though biologists call it mammal. However, that does not make it fish in biological sciences
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-30T11:43:57.450Z
Trying to convince biologist that dolphin is a fish just because you heard it somewhere or read it from some unknown source at some non-peer reviewed website that does not even focus on the subject matter without author or references would be pointless.
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-19T06:28:00.323Z
@1muflon1 If I am to accept any answer given without using my brain, then I should go back university. I don't take peer reviewed studies that seriously, there are a lot of think tanks that push narratives and try to legitimize it by appending "peer reviewed" or "Harvard research" etc etc
Armen Babakanian
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-19T06:31:09.630Z
all I am saying is that if by free labor market you mean the labor price is not regulated then I say thats not a valid argument for economic growth. I brought the example of Unions which is necessary. If these "scientist" (which conclude their results based on empirical evidence) come up with a theory then its literary just a theory, you cannot repeat the experiment in a controlled environment so it's 100% incorrect to say its science and it's the final answer.
Armen Babakanian
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-19T08:46:56.693Z
@ArmenB i am not asking you to accept answer without thinking. I am asking you to accept definitions in the field. You can’t just make up your own definitions of words… there is nothing to think about dolphin = fish or dolphin = mammal. Both definitions could theoretically work. However, it is already widely in biology accepted that dolphin = mammal and in econ definition of free … market where you can insert anything into … eg labor, goods, etc market is market where quantity and price is not regulated. Other regulations do not conflict with definition. Again this is just definition there is
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-19T08:48:58.147Z
Nothing to think about there in alternative universe perhaps definition is different. However if you want to discuss economics in this universe you have to accept definitions of words used in economics. That would be like trying to have conversation in English and refusing to accept definitions of words and using words in idiosyncratic way saying cat when you mean dog etc. that’s just foolish waste of time. Also even if you would doubt analytics presented in top journals, I don’t see any reason to doubt definitions of econ jargon… that’s like doubting def of English words in dictionary
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-20T19:20:31.107Z
@1muflon1 ok leave the dolphin alone, I am simply saying if free market "definition" mean no unions, then it's simply a bad strategy.
Armen Babakanian
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-20T19:33:49.527Z
@ArmenB but unions are not even regulations, also they don’t conflict with definition of free market. In fact they can actually also be part of the inclusive institutions depending on how they are institutionally set up since they can be set up in various ways. Moreover, whether something is good or bad for economy is an empirical question. That’s a separate topic but research about unions shows that depending how they are set up or not can help or damage economy. I don’t think there is any evidence for to support the idea that simply not having them is always bad strategy depends on their
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-20T19:35:47.893Z
Institutional set up.
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-27T01:10:41.443Z
2022-04-27T01:10:41.443Z
1muflon1
<p>I have heard from an interview with N. Chomsky that the British favored India to work their fields instead of creating the machines that are used in the fields, this is a form of economic supressesion I assume, but India was a British colony so it's a different story. Is it possible for a country to grow economically with just farming? Or really wealth comes from having highly demanded ground resources like oil.</p>

<economic-growth><food>
How to make a country rich with no ground resources?
Armen Babakanian
# How to make a country rich with no ground resources?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-04-26)

I have heard from an interview with N. Chomsky that the British favored India to work their fields instead of creating the machines that are used in the fields, this is a form of economic supressesion I assume, but India was a British colony so it's a different story. Is it possible for a country to grow economically with just farming? Or really wealth comes from having highly demanded ground resources like oil.

**Tags:** economic-growth, food

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2022-04-27. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

> How to make a country rich with no ground resources?

Country can develop and achieve high income country status (I assume that's what you mean by being rich), without much if any natural resources. There are numerous historical examples, such as Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland etc.

Economic development and economic growth comes from having good 'inclusive' institutions such as property rights or free labor markets as opposed to bad 'extractive' institution such as slavery (see Acemoglu 2008, [Acemoglu & Robinson 2000a](https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/115/4/1167/1820389), [2000b](https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.90.2.126), [2001](https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.91.4.938), [2006](https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/economic-origins-of-dictatorship-and-democracy/3F29DF90519971B183CAA16ED0203507), [2008](https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.98.1.267); [Olson 1984](https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1nprdd), Bates [1981](https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520282568/markets-and-states-in-tropical-africa), [1983](https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520060142/essays-on-the-political-economy-of-rural-africa), [1989](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/africa/article/abs/robert-h-bates-beyond-the-miracle-of-the-market-the-political-economy-of-agrarian-development-in-kenya-cambridge-cambridge-university-press-218-pp-2995-isbn-0-521-34257-0-hard-covers-1989-1095-isbn-0-521-43792-x-paperback-1992/FA07682578E411892B1628A8593E12E1) and sources cited therein) and from technological growth, saving, capital accumulation (see Acemoglu Introduction to Modern Economic Growth or Romer Advanced Macroeconomics).

None of the factors above require country to have abundance of natural resources. In fact, in economics we talk about natural resource curse. That is abundance of natural resources often, although not always, makes countries poor and less developed (see for example; [Venables, 2016](https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.30.1.161)). For example, Russia, Ukraine, Iraq, Iran, Kazakhstan etc are all resource rich countries but save for elites average citizens in those countries are very poor by our (western) standards.

Hence to make country rich without natural resources someone needs to first persuade the country's rulers to adopt inclusive institutions such as private property rights, free labor markets, provision of independent justice, provision of public goods etc, and also to invest into technology and capital.

> Is it possible for a country to grow economically with just farming?

This question is not clear. It is certainly possible for country to focus on producing agricultural products and to develop and grow. However, even countries that typically specialize in agricultural products do not devote whole economy to that sector. The sort of agriculturally centered feudal economy of middle ages where virtually everyone was employed in agricultural production is likely inconsistent with significant economic development or growth.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: when you say free labor market, do you mean less regulated labor? so like child labor?  
> **username_1**: @ArmenB it’s not what I mean I did not coined the term myself. When Acemoglu and Robinson  talk about free labor market they mean unrestricted access to labor market without much price regulation; that is no caste system; no forced labor like slavery or serfdom. I don’t know if they also mean allowing child labor (if defined for children below 13) i don’t remember them mentioning child labor when they talk about free labor market but I think they do not because another inclusive institution they mention is basic education for children. However, it also depends on what you mean by child labor  
> **username_1**: Since in the literature there are various definitions of child labor. For example, a common definition classifies child labor as anyone engaging in economic activity under age of 17 (ie that would include lemonade stands or the sort of apprenticeships common in EU in Netherlands Germany Denmark or Sweden where adolescents in vocational education contribute to some economic production). However there are different definitions and classifications some consider only labor by individuals under 15, 14 or 13 and some even make distinction on what sort of work it is  
> **username_0**: @1muflon1 I think Union regulate salary, and that's a good thing on the personnel level and make happy employees. I kinda disagree with the free labor market strategy that sounds like a capitalist propaganda,who is advocating that? Acemoglu and Robinson what?  
> **username_0**: @1muflon1, I can open up a can of worms here, the term free labor is very broad. If labor is not regulated we won't have weekends, and we dont' have time off or vacation time. Germany has a very strict labor laws and it a good example why the free labor requirement is not a must.  
> **username_0**: @1muflon1 I disagree with the natural resource issue, it can go both ways. Norway has oil and has distributed it to it's people and Saudi has oil and it's a nightmare to live there.  
> **username_1**: @ArmenB that is being advocated by top developmental economists. Acemoglu and Robinson are one of the most cited developmental economists in the world and its generally accepted scientific fact that these policies support economic development. The literature on this issue is mostly empirical (that means this is result from real world observations) This is just science, that does not mean you have to use science for your policies. For example, science shows vaccines generally help prevent deaths,  thats a scientific fact, but that does not mean you have to support policy of forced vaccination.  
> **username_1**: @ArmenB yes Norway is an exception that confirms the rule. Thats why I said: "That is abundance of natural resources **often, although not always**, makes countries poor and less developed". About 40-50% of empirical papers on development find negative relationship between resources and development about 30-40 find no relationship and there are few papers that find positive relationship so clearly there can be some special cases where natural resources help but empirically speaking its rare and in the case of Norway it probably again comes back to good institutions that is for a country  
> **username_1**: with excellent institutional quality like Norway, it might be that having natural resources is boon because the relationship might be nonlinear with institutional quality being a mediator for whether the relationship is positive or negative  
> **username_0**: @1muflon1 well I just brought an example that negates their statement. Germany is not a free labor market, it's highly regulated compared to US and it's GDP is comparatively very good.  
> **username_1**: @ArmenB 1. free labor market does not mean unregulated labor. Free labor market means state does not regulate price and quantities. Until very recently germany did not even had minimum wages and in germany unlike in USSR you are not forced by state to work or go to prison. Having safety regulation etc does not mean labor market is not free. 2. Even after adoption of minimum wage it only affects very small number of professions since only about 3-4% people in geramny earn minimum wage so that price regulation is practically unimportant for most of the economy  
> **username_1**: 3. When it comes to these institutions its not have it all or have none of it. A country might develop while having predominantly inclusive institutions (like when china switched from centrally planned to market economy by allowing people to own private property set up business and be employed/unemployed where they want), while still retaining some extractive institutions (like China's labor camps for minorities and dissidents) . It is not like having one extractive institution will completely ruin economic developement. For example, US managed to develop while having slavery  
> **username_1**: because despite slavery dragged labor productivity down, it affected only small portion of population and it was one institution out of hundreds of institutions which were for its time of high quality. Let me give you another analogy. If you exercise and eat healthy then going to McDonalds once a month for a bigmac and big cola will not hurt your health much. Indulging in fast food once  a month will have marginal effect on your life expectancy.  But by the same token if you eat only McDonalds and eat something healthy 1 in a month you will be sick. The same holds for economy. Country does not  
> **username_1**: need to have 100% optimal policies to develop.  
> **username_0**: I actually read the definition of Free Labor Market here: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/040915/what-are-some-examples-free-market-economies.asp#:~:text=A%20free%20market%20economy%20is,free%20market%20and%20command%20economies.  
> **username_0**: Ok so your basically saying don't be Venezuela and North Korea if you want a country to create wealth which I agree 100%  
> **username_0**: so one thing about slavery (this is only concepts, I don't advocate slavery) is that in the past it has generated quite a lot of wealth for US, Egypt and now in Dubai. But you are saying just a few becoming rich doesn't make a rich country correct?  
> **username_1**: @ArmenB investopedia is **not economics site but finance site** and they regularly have mistakes in economics material. According to **oxford dictionary of economics**: free market: A market in which people buy and sell voluntarily, without legal compulsion. Neither the quantities traded nor the price at which trade takes place are subject to control by third parties. **This is not to say that such markets operate without legal regulation: the participants have to conform to laws concerning health and safety, weights and measures, labelling requirements, and so on.**  
> **username_1**: link to the dictionary of economics https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198759430.001.0001/acref-9780198759430-e-1283?rskey=v0T25m&result=5  
> **username_1**: The oxford dictionary has the same definition as *peer reviewed* textbooks such as Mankiw Principles of Economics etc. Investopedia does not use accepted definition of free market in economics profession. Maybe in finance they have their own definition, or more likely whoever written that article did not understand the econ definition and took artistic liberties with it the Investopedia article does not refer to any peer reviewed econ sources  
> **username_1**: @ArmenB there is no rigorous evidence that slavery would generate lot of wealth for a country as whole. Slavery generated a lot of wealth for the **slave owners**, however slavery distorts incentives to invest in human capital  (especially the kind of chattel slavery practiced in US, Roman slavery was bit different more akin to long term labor contract since slaves could buy themselves out of slavery and had to be paid wages etc see Tamin's work on Roman economy).  
> **username_1**: and human capital accumulation also helps growth.  US would probably have higher industrialization rate and faster economic growth if it would not have slavery. UK that voluntarily gave up slavery was much more prosperous without slave labor than US, and US north that abolished slavery was growing much faster than south which didnt.  
> **username_1**: @ArmenB also I am not saying just don't be north korea and venezuela those are extreme examples of a countries with terrible institutions. For example, countries like Russia or countries in the balkans have sufficient quality of institutions to have some meandering development over time but they could be far more prosperous if they would work on their institutions balkan countries have especially problems with not having independent judiciaries. This is a complex topic that cannot be really reduced to soundbites like "dont be north korea" science is not that simplistic  
> **username_0**: @1muflon1 free market is not the same as free labor market. The definition you provided is talking abut buying and selling, not wage and employment.  
> **username_1**: @ArmenB 1. free labor market is free market for labor. 2. If you would literally read any academic literature you would learn that on labor market laborers sell labor and employers buy labor. In econ jargon hiring someone for example for 10 hours is purchasing 10 hours of labor. Wage is just price for labor the same way as rent is price of land. 3. Are you here to learn or just argue for sake of arguing? Because if for the latter there is no point in continuing. You can call dolphin a fish even though biologists call it mammal. However, that does not make it fish in biological sciences  
> **username_1**: Trying to convince biologist that dolphin is a fish just because you heard it somewhere or read it from some unknown source at some non-peer reviewed website that does not even focus on the subject matter without author or references would be pointless.  
> **username_0**: @1muflon1 If I am to accept any answer given without using my brain, then I should go back university. I don't take peer reviewed studies that seriously, there are a lot of think tanks that push narratives and try to legitimize it by appending "peer reviewed" or "Harvard research" etc etc  
> **username_0**: all I am saying is that if by free labor market you mean the labor price is not regulated then I say thats not a valid argument for economic growth. I brought the example of Unions which is necessary. If these "scientist" (which conclude their results based on empirical evidence) come up with a theory then its literary just a theory, you cannot repeat the experiment in a controlled environment so it's 100% incorrect to say its science and it's the final answer.  
> **username_1**: @ArmenB i am not asking you to accept answer without thinking. I am asking you to accept definitions in the field. You can’t just make up your own definitions of words… there is nothing to think about dolphin = fish or dolphin = mammal. Both definitions could theoretically work. However, it is already widely in biology accepted that dolphin = mammal and in econ definition of free … market where you can insert anything into … eg labor, goods, etc market is market where quantity and price is not regulated. Other regulations do not conflict with definition. Again this is just definition there is  
> **username_1**: Nothing to think about there in alternative universe perhaps definition is different. However if you want to discuss economics in this universe you have to accept definitions of words used in economics. That would be like trying to have conversation in English and refusing to accept definitions of words and using words in idiosyncratic way saying cat when you mean dog etc. that’s just foolish waste of time. Also even if you would doubt analytics presented in top journals, I don’t see any reason to doubt definitions of econ jargon… that’s like doubting def of English words in dictionary  
> **username_0**: @1muflon1 ok leave the dolphin alone, I am simply saying if free market "definition" mean no unions, then it's simply a bad strategy.  
> **username_1**: @ArmenB but unions are not even regulations, also they don’t conflict with definition of free market. In fact they can actually also be part of the inclusive institutions depending on how they are institutionally set up since they can be set up in various ways. Moreover, whether something is good or bad for economy is an empirical question. That’s a separate topic but research about unions shows that depending how they are set up or not can help or damage economy. I don’t think there is any evidence for to support the idea that simply not having them is always bad strategy depends on their  
> **username_1**: Institutional set up.  

---

