[adventured]

Because Georgia isn't a libertarian dream country.

They suffer from relatively high corruption. Transparency.org lists them as comparable to Grenada, Costa Rica, and Rwanda.

Georgia has been subject to being ripped apart by Russia. Its politics are directly, violently influenced by its giant neighbor.

There are no other highly prosperous nations in the region to trade with. All nations in the region are either extremely low on the per capita wealth & per capita income scores, or a few are barely mid-lower tier. Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria, Moldova, Russia, Ukraine, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Serbia, etc. These are quite poor nations per capita. It's like you expect a Singapore or Hong Kong to pop up out of nowhere amongst the desert, without a Japan + South Korea + China to trade with. Much less being eg Denmark in the midst of economic valhalla, or Canada riding on the world's richest economy.

They get ranked very low on property rights protections, government integrity (ie corruption), and judicial:

https://www.heritage.org/index/country/georgia

You can have low taxes, or flat taxes, as in Russia as well, but if your system is a totalitarian dictatorship and part command & control economy, the results are still going to overwhelmingly tend to be mediocre. Or in the case of Georgia, if you still suffer from weak property rights protections and high corruption, trust is going to be very low when it comes to investing. To say nothing of the risk that Russia will randomly destroy the nation, as it's known today, in any given year. That foreign capital investment is a prerequisite to massive economic development.

Prosperous nations very rarely exist in such circumstances, save for a few extremely resource rich examples, such as Qatar, UAE, Brunei and Saudi. Those few isolated examples are all that have existed in modern history out of the present ~195 nations.

[emodendroket]

Well, by the same standard, we could say that China was very poor when Mao took over and China had historically been subject to a lot of famines. Poking holes in your examples is just as easy.

[adventured]

> we could say that China was very poor when Mao took over and China had historically been subject to a lot of famines

During China's early development time frame (1980s & 1990s) it had the world's largest population base and the world's largest trading partners in the US and Japan (and world's #1 and #2 economies), to leverage for economic expansion. Your example is supportive of my premise: massive foreign investment is a prerequisite. China didn't develop in isolation, they developed solely due to hundreds of billions of dollars that the US invested. Further, China had to abandon its rigid command & control economic policies, and dramatically liberalize away from Mao's former Communist system.

Which neighboring nation is going to randomly choose to invade modern China (post 1970s) and destroy it, as in the case of Russia & Georgia? Pretending investors aren't extremely concerned about that, is silly.

> Poking holes in your examples is just as easy.

Apparently not, you have yet managed to. Saying something is easy, while then not actually doing it (only saying it is), debases the confidence of your entire argument.

[emodendroket]

I don't recall disputing the idea that foreign investment is helpful.

[adventured]

It's not just helpful, it's a requirement.

Economic development from poverty to prosperity, is nearly impossible without vast foreign investment. The wealthy European powers built up the US economy in its early days, providing immense capital. Without that, the US either would have never properly developed, or it would have taken dramatically longer.

How long has Georgia been separate from the USSR at this point? It was ruled by a backwards, violent, impoverished, broken Soviet system for seven decades. You were what, expecting them to sprout $70k per capita GDP prosperity in just 15-20 years post Soviet slavery, while in the midst of a political and military confrontation with Russia?

[coldtea]

>It's not just helpful, it's a requirement.

It wasn't a requirement for the US -- itself a very protectionist country until well into becoming a superpower.

[emodendroket]

My whole issue is the original post says, more or less, that more liberalism is always better and then dredges up examples like Maoist China and Argentina to say if you're going to say anything else you have to explain why those states weren't successful. Well, they had other challenges had nothing to do with how liberal or not their trade regimes were, is my answer. It's a little strange to me that everyone is so willing to consider (not incorrectly) that issue with Georgia but not with states that don't adhere to free-trade orthodoxy.