See The whole article here: http://www.theadvocates.org/liberator/vol-11-num-4.html#GBU " The free market did not fail in South America. What did fail is what always fails -- government intervention in the economy in the form of widespread protectionism, politically motivated loans, and massive political corruption. The only difference is that in Latin America, this government intervention masqueraded as free-market "reforms." And voters, deluded by opportunistic politicians, decided that the solution to too much government was more government. Sadly, those South American voters will probably pay the price for that mistake for years to come." I read this article and it struck me that socialism is very easy to sell. Too bad it doesn't work as good as it sounds.
Really? Have you ever heard of a country called China? Communist government, virtually zero economic freedom and consistent 10%+ growth rate during the last decade or two. http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=China India is very similar, while not a communist country it offers even less economic freedom than China, yet India's growth rate is also quite impressive. What the author fails to understand is that free market leads to merger between government and big business and creation of plutocratic regimes (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=plutocracy) which leads to government corruption, politically motivated loans, protectionism and lots of other extremely negative problems like huge inequality, poverty, crime, lack of opportunities etc.
Corrections: China's growth rate is not 10%+ in the past decade, more like 7-10%. Probably 1% organic growth and the rest FDI driven and intellectual property theft driven. India has way more economic freedom and political freedoms, thus more organic growth. Regulated markets, not free markets, leads to merger between government (the regulator) and big business.
Yes, you're right but that does not make it any less impressive, does it? Remember we're talking about a communist country with virtually no economic freedom, let alone "free market/trade". Not according to The Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal research which ranked India's economic freedom below China's. China - #111, India - #121. http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm The US is a regulated economy, so is France, UK, Israel, Australia and a bunch of other countries. So btw are India and China - heavily regulated economies. Yet the problems are rampant in South America, aren't they?
have you ever been in china?? poverty in china is HUGE..(one of the greater un the world) have you been in hong kong in the 90 and 80? is one of the most espectacular places in the world.. what about ireland in the 80's and ireland today with their new free open economy? china have become a important economy since they start open their market to the world.. Big goverments and regulate markets never work and never will. Period! the rest is pure socialist demagogy. there's a lot of Myth about china "impresive" growth.. another thing, Nobody can compare an emergin market growth with a industrialize country growth..
Yes I have heard of China. Do you know how they are acheiving that growth? It's because they have been opening their previously closed economy and embracing capitalism. By the way, Hong Kong is the #1 most free economy. You are absolutely wrong. You fail to realize that the problems you mention are caused by the big government side of the equation, not the free-market.
Why don't you let The Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal know about that? They ranked economic freedom in China #111 among 157 countries, between Zambia and Kazakhstan, behind Saudi Arabia, Mongolia, Chad, Ghana. "China ... continues to utilize quotas and licensing and "retains regulatory control over imports via commodity inspection, registration requirements and quarantine rules." "China's top income tax rate is 45 percent. The top corporate tax rate is 30 percent. " "the government retains much of the apparatus of a planned economy and owns major corporations in the energy, banking, telecommunications, steel, car manufacturing, food, and home appliances sectors." "General barriers to investment that plague China include a lack of transparency, inconsistently enforced laws and regulations, weak [intellectual property rights] protection, corruption and an unreliable legal system incapable of protecting the sanctity of contracts." The People's Bank of China regulates the flow of foreign exchange into and out of the country, and the government intervenes and controls foreign investment in the stock market. The International Monetary Fund reports extensive controls, government approval requirements, and quantitative limits on foreign exchange, current transfers, and capital transactions. Direct investment is subject to government approval, as are real estate transactions. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=China Open economy my ass. What does the size of government have to do with all this? Are you saying that a small government can't be corrupt, make political loans or be protectionist, are you saying inequality, poverty, crime, the gap between the rich and the poor can't be increasing if government is small?
China used to be completely isolated. The Chinese economy is far from open, but it is more open now in 2006 than it was in the past. The process of opening up, however slow, creates growth. Do you understand this time or do you need me to draw a picture? Are you trying to suggest the communist government is solely responsible for the 7-10% growth rates? What about all the foreign investments being made in China?
What I am suggesting is that China is not an open economy, it has never been an open economy and it will never be an open economy. Opening up to the west has nothing to do with "open economy", "free market" or "free trade", you're confusing these concepts. They deal with the west the way the see fit, they only do what they believe is in the interests of the Peoples Republic of China, they could not care less about free market theory and practice.