Romney joins Bachmann and Coffman in pointing to China as winning practitioner of capitalism

9 thoughts on “Romney joins Bachmann and Coffman in pointing to China as winning practitioner of capitalism”

1. where people who petition their government for change and get in the way of business as usual somehow always get involved in ” traffic accidents ”

   http://www.chinasmack.com/2010…

   Weird coincidence, huh ?  Yeah, thats what we need.

   Log in to Reply

2. He cites China’s 0% capital gains rate as a reason for their sustained growth.

   PS – what ever happened to the simple explanation that China is emerging from being a 2nd or 3rd world economy?

   Log in to Reply

   1. You can have a supposedly prospering country, growing by leaps and bounds by several economic measurements, but it’s all going to a minority  with the majority struggling.

      The meaningful measurement should be the percentage of people doing well and able to afford a decent life style, quality education, quality healthcare and a comfortable retirement. In other words, does the country have a majority healthy prosperous middle class?   If not then a country may have a wealthy elite complimented by a small auxiliary educated middle class but it’s not a wealthy country.  

      China has a very long way to go to get anywhere near that kind of life for the majority of its people and we’re losing that kind of middle class fast. The present policies of both countries are not going to create, or in our case, recreate, that kind of majority middle class prosperity.

      Log in to Reply

3. because, really, who wouldn’t want cops to drive Porsche Cayennes?

   http://www.latimes.com/news/na…

   Log in to Reply

4. Is China a “capitalist” economy, as opposed to a “socialist” state along the lines of, say, Sweden, but minus multiple parties compating for seats in parliament?

   Both terms seem outdated, coined as they were to describe the industrial economies of 19th century Europe. China would be as well described  as a state-managed economy in which private entrepreneurs are allowed significant latitude in running their individual businesses, the operative word being “allowed.”

   Whatever the case in China operating under the policies of Deng Xiaoping, it hardly seems like a feasible model for the United States, and the capitalist-socialist dichotomy insisted upon by Republicams seems way, way out of date.

   One example: how do these models address the impact of carbon-fueled industries in climate change? Another: the demographic impact of improved efficiencies brought about by technologies in virtually every economic sector. What is to be done when the economy can operate full-out using technology in lieu of humans, while business still operates on the out-dated model of hourly pay for work performed? What is to be done about people rendered “surplus” by this development?

   Too bad that no one in politics seems to be spending time addressing the larger challenges facing the society … in employment, medicine (including longer life expectancy), managing the transition away from carbon fuels, environmental degradation.

   These were hardly issues during the era of unrestrained capitalism, and its working-class twin, socialism. Time to drop out-dated ways of thinking, and the vocabulary that goes along.
   

   Log in to Reply

   1. and that’s a good point, really.

      China is migrating toward oligarchy and away from communism.  Most of the entrepreneurs in China have their background in the Party, as Party members were pretty much the only people who had the cash and influence to build up an industry.  So that covers the political changes – oligarchy seems to best describe it.

      But what exactly the economic system is called, I couldn’t tell you.  Much of the economy is still state-run, so I think it still qualifies in part for the communist label (within some broad definition of the word ‘communist’ that doesn’t distribute wealth equally to all of the people), but it is moving to a more capitalist/socialist economy, so…

      Communist, in transition to a Capitalist-Socialist Oligarchy?

      Log in to Reply

   2. Capitalism and Socialism as the terms are normally used aren’t opposite ends of the spectrum but rather points along the way.

      Free-market Capitalism and Communism are the endpoints.  Regulated Capitalism and partial Socialism, as we see them applied in various countries around the world to various degrees, are a continuous scale.

      The truly appropriate point along that scale to me is not a constant – it varies somewhat (toward the capitalist end) depending on conditions within the country at any given time.  For example: it seems obvious – and an independent study in Colorado pretty much backs me up – that private health insurance is not doing its job well, and that some level of socializing it would be of benefit to the country (and I would argue for a minimal level of socialism here – single payer with private administration might suffice…).

      Log in to Reply

      1. I see your point about capitalism and socialism being points on a spectrum, but my point was slightly different. In the case of China, entrepreneurs are assigned the task of organizing the most efficient means of production. Almost by definiton, that precludes caring about people or issues (e.g. environment) that do not relate directly to the company’s specific realm.

         But in every society, there are other issues that need tending. Care of the young, old, and others not able to work, for example, a category that covers a range of activities such as education. The impact of human avtivity on the environment is another that also covers a broad range, from pollution of water, climate change, etc. And there is yet another category, such as regulating trade with foreigners. All these have in common the characteristic as affecting everyone, including businesses, without being specific to any one in particular to the exclusion of the rest. Coping with these issues is the function of government, including paying the price.

         These are not “opposites,” nor are they different points on a scale. The debate could/should be about the relative importance of these issues, and how many resources to devote to each. That is a set of legitimate arguments, but I don’t see it happening in the USA so long as some, the Republicans notably, continue to frame the debate in terms that had greater relevance a century ago than they do today.

         Log in to Reply

5. While China has come far in allowing personal entrepreneurs to flourish, in reality, the praise Romney, Bachmann and Coffman are lavishing on the Chinese government is misplaced.

   Distributed Command Economy — Infrastructure investments are made not just from Beijing, but also by the regional authorities.  Not always to good effect: http://articles.businessinside…

   In addition to China’s well-documented Human Right’s challenges, they tightly censor the internet: http://topics.nytimes.com/topi…

   In addition to China’s predatory currency and export practices, they impose massive red tape on foreign companies wishing to do business there: http://www.reuters.com/article…

   But if you like to get smoker’s cough without the expense or bother of actually lighting up a cigarette, there’s always the smog to enjoy:  http://factsanddetails.com/chi…  This statistic is really impressive: Only 1 percent of the China’s 560 million city dwellers breath air considered safe by European Union standards according to a World Bank study.

   So basically, a totalitarian dictatorship, rife with corrupt, crony-capitalism, with heavy-handed social policies (move it, we’re building a dam here, and oh by the way, you still can’t have a second kid…), with predatory currency and export practices represents the GOP economic and governmental nirvana?

   But one last footnote.  Props to the ultra-rich Chinese entrepreneurs for ingenuity:

   Here in this smoggy coastal metropolis, the nouveau-riche heart of entrepreneurial China, the latest sign that one has really made it is not a Benz, or even a Bentley. It is a helicopter. Perhaps 10 of Wenzhou’s super-rich have one.

   “For us, a workweek is 80 hours or more. So you know what we need? Fast,” said Mr. Guan, a gold-necklaced, yacht-sailing titan who made a fortune as a trader. To relieve the stress of making vast sums of money, he said, there is nothing like zipping around in a copter.

   “Only then can I truly relax,” he said. “It’s that simple.”

   If only it were legal, too.

   Mr. Guan and his friends are black fliers – part of a minuscule group of wealthy Chinese who fly, quite literally, in the face of the law. The first Chinese rich enough to own their own aircraft, they have collided in midair with the Chinese military, which controls the country’s airspace and never contemplated such a fantastic development, much less authorized it. Just asking for permission to take off can involve days of bureaucratic gantlet-running, and still end in rejection.

   Getting permission to land can be another hassle altogether.

   Log in to Reply