Comments on: Freedom and Wealth

By: DC Loser

DC Loser — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 12:33:02 +0000

Dave, I'd like to know in your view, what aspect of the Chinese economy (besides its defense industries), have been a commmand system ala the Soviet model? With the selloff of SOEs in the 90s, I belive it's more capitalistic than the US or any western economy, with basically little government intervention or policing to protect the rights of investors or workers. Now, it's all about making money.

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 01:08:28 +0000

Where food supplies have become reliable and plentiful in places like East Asia and China, with no threats of famine, the population is allowed to focus its energies to develop industry, technology and businesses to improve life even more.

That's almost exactly the opposite of what has happened in China. The Chinese put capital investment into farming to improve productivity and moved relatively non-productive labor from agriculture to manufacturing, basically at the same time. Amazing what you can do with a command system.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 16:29:11 +0000

Conservative comfort food? In the past couple of days, we learn that the White House has blessed a deal creating an official safe-zone for al-Qaeda and the Taliban in NW Pakistan (as opposed to the unofficial safe zone they've enjoyed since 2001) ... ... and Bush announces he's sending the planner of 9/11 to Gitmo, apparently as part of a move to pressure Congress into embracing a new set of kangaroo tribunals ... ... and at OTB, we're reminded that the free market really is a good thing? Busy day jobs, I guess. I understand! ;)

By: DC Loser

DC Loser — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 14:10:18 +0000

I'll argue another angle about this. I think the one single most important facilitator for the increasing wealth and freedom is a stable, reliable source of food. Without reliable food sources, humanity is preoccupied with subsistence living. Where food supplies have become reliable and plentiful in places like East Asia and China, with no threats of famine, the population is allowed to focus its energies to develop industry, technology and businesses to improve life even more.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 13:48:49 +0000

matt: His argument doesn't "neglect to mention" that. That is his argument. The situation you describe is the opposite of economic freedom.

By: madmatt

madmatt — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 13:44:39 +0000

His argument neglects to mention that it is abuse of markets and lack of regulation that keeps those in the lower ranks stuck in a basic sustenance loop that prevents them from succeeding. Don't blame juan or ndugu and his pushcart when it is the corrupt plutocrats in power conspiring with corporations to enrich themselves at the expense of the people. Look no further than the Marianas islands and the abromoff/delay actions on behalf of clothing manufacturers....is it the seamstresses who wanted forced abortions and virtual slavery?

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 13:34:24 +0000

I'm not sure proxy is the right word, James. I think that there are a number of interrelated factors involved including the rule of law, civil liberties, representative democracy, attitudes toward the individual, the primacy of reason and evidence in solving problems. And markets. There's a great experiment going on right now in China: can modest economic liberalization result in sustainable growth in the absence of the other factors above? It has so far but I don't think the results are really in yet. What we've learned is that modest economic liberalization can result in enough gains to hoist a country from being the poorest of the poor into the world's middle class. Sustainable? We don't know.