By Peter Galuszka

As conservatives argue about cutting deficits and keeping low taxes for the rich both in Virginia and nationally, a bigger question is coming up: does Vladimir I. Lenin actually have the answer?

Sounds strange, I know, but not if you read Britain’s center-right weekly business newsweekly, The Economist. In a leader titled, “The Rise of State Capitalism,” they note that the success of state-private economies in China and Singapore, countries such as Brazil and South Africa are flirting with the idea of turning back some of their privatization work and going more with state-owned companies.

As the magazine states: “With the West in a funk and emerging markets flourishing, the Chinese no longer see state-directed firms as a way station on the way to liberal capitalism; rather, they see it as a sustainable model.”

Also underscoring the success of state-influenced economies is a recent and startling Brookings Institution report that rates 200 global urban areas for their economic performance. Shanghai leads the list, followed by cities in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, India and more in China. None is an example of traditional, U.S.-style market capitalism.

Indeed, you have to go pretty far down the list, to spot 19, to find the first U.S. city, which is Houston and that’s all petroleum money. Washington is No. 134. We don’t even get to the Old Dominion until No. 159 and Virginia Beach. Richmond is a stunningly bad No. 191, beating out only comatose Sacramento among U.S. cities.

The study should be a wakeup call to Baconauts and Boomergeddons everywhere that maybe they are barking up the wrong tree. Or maybe, even worse, they are completely clueless. At Mr. Jefferson’s Capitol, legislators are playing shell games with budgets to make Mickey D. McDonnell seem like a modern, Republican governor worthy of a vice presidential run. And, we’re screwing around with public private partnerships such as the massive U.S. 460-area highway to give private biz a cut and let them toll the crap out of the rest of us for years — all in the name of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan who left the scene more than 20 years ago.

While budget hawks complain about the big bad government and public spending on such things as social services and infrastructure, their beloved model is fading into the dust bin of history. I’m no China expert, but I, like everyone, was taken aback by the  modern, efficient cities of Shanghai and
Beijing when I visited in October. Unlike the U.S., transportation was clean, efficient and hassle free.

Of course, The Economist must stay true to its OxBridge roots and come out warning that state capitalism with a big spoon of Asian Mandarin sauce might not be the best strategy for the West. But the trends are jolting and deserve a look.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

10 responses to “Does Vlad Have the Right Idea?”

  1. Gee, Galuska, why not just throw a chunk of Lithium in the toilet?

  2. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Hydra,
    Just quoting The Economist. Also, it’s Galuszka with a “z”.

  3. Peter has finally let his inner Bolshevik out of the closet! The way he’s going, he’ll soon join Thomas Friedman in his admiration for the autocratic Chinese political system that knows how to “get things done,” unlike America’s flawed Democratic system trapped in partisan gridlock. (Poor Friedman… so frustrated that Obama doesn’t enjoy dictatorial power.)

    Back to Peter’s main point… We came down this road before, about 20 years ago. But back then, the critics of the “Anglo-Saxon” economic model were declaring the Japanese economic system to be the wave of the future. We all know how that turned out.

    One last point, it fascinates me that when the U.S. economic performance sucks under three years of the Obama administration, Peter’s reaction isn’t to blame Obama — it’s to blame the U.S. economic system! That’s just priceless. All we need is more deficit spending, more Solyndras and more high-speed rail. Yeah, that’s the trick!

  4. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Watch yourself, Bacon! Your most recent blog posting have had a decidedly leftist tone. Before you know it, you’ll be voting for Obama.

  5. there are a ton of countries in the world with lower taxes than us and less regulations than us.

    those countries.. not only do not leave us in the economic dust, those countries are down dozens of notches on the economic scale.

    They are called 3rd world countries.

    Conservatives love to call Obama a European-style socialist but look around – all the major and top economic countries in the world are industrialized Democracies with higher taxes and more regulation, universal health care and pensions… virtually 100% literacy and advanced technologies.

    the low tax, low regulation is a race to the bottom. There are no real world analogs for that model – none.

    The Conservatives are all about theories these days and totally disconnected from the realities. This is why they continue to insist of lower taxes that “in theory” will generate higher revenues – and when it fails – they have no Plan B for the lack of revenues that leads directly to structural deficits.

    they blather on about cutting spending but they themselves refuse to make the spending cuts necessary which would have to include cutting DOD in half no matter what you do about entitlements.

    So the GOP really has no plan forward other than to obstruct and obfuscate things they don’t agree with philosophically.

    They’ve become the party of ideology and have completely abandoned the most important core principle that often got my vote – the fiscal grown-ups in the room. Even Ronald Reagan increased taxes when it became clear that we’d have massive deficits without it. When things got better, he did cut but the man was realistic enough..and adult enough to know when to do what was necessary for responsible fiscal actions regardless of what the theory said “in theory”.

    Reagan–No Loopholes For Millionaires

  6. constructionandlaborguy Avatar
    constructionandlaborguy

    I’m attempting to comment on another post besides one about the Silver Line. Can I get a pat on the back?

    Do you think greater regulation and higher taxes in industrialized Democracies led countries to become great/ economic powerhouses?

    Or do you think regulation and higher taxes crept into these societies after success?

    Or is there some sort of interdependent relationship where one fed off the other incrementally?

    What if only successful economies could shoulder the tax and regulatory burden?

    Or what if successful economies welcomed regulation to eliminate the bad actors and preserve a fair and free market that leads to prosperity?

    What if our definitions and perceptions of fairness are not congruent with our society’s values today vs. our values 50 years ago?

    I think LarryG’s thought that poor economic performers/3rd world countries have less regulation, therefore less regulation means you are bound to become a Banana Republic in a race to the bottom, is not only inaccurate but a fallacious leap in logic.

    The 3rd world countries are where they are today because of poor natural resources, poor education and health systems, poor infrastructure, corrupt governments and/or recent independence from another system of government. More regulation and taxes could help alleviate some of those problems in theory, but they have a build an economy first. Success through regulation and taxation can’t just materialize out of nowhere.

    As Churchill said, “We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”

  7. ” The 3rd world countries are where they are today because of poor natural resources, poor education and health systems, poor infrastructure, corrupt governments and/or recent independence from another system of government. More regulation and taxes could help alleviate some of those problems in theory, but they have a build an economy first. Success through regulation and taxation can’t just materialize out of nowhere.”

    we’ve had hundreds of years for all countries in the world to do their thing and the results are in.

    No matter what you think of taxes or regulations – the reality is that the most advanced economies in the world – BAR NONE are those that have taxes, infrastructure, health care, education, and regulations.

    When folks say less regulation and less taxes – there is no real world analog for that …coming or going… it’s a theory, it’s ideology… not reality.

    Just as the supply side folks have no Plan B for what happens when the revenues don’t show up and we get structural deficits – the anti-regulation people strive to blame regulation on stifling job creation.

    If anything, regulation, creates MORE jobs. You actually have to hire people to make sure you don’t have ecoli in food or don’t dump pesticides in rivers or mercury out of smokestacks.

    So people eat a lot less bad food, don’t get sick from kepone in their fish, and their kids don’t have their IQs stunted by mercury.

    3rd world countries have these kinds of problems in spades…

    but I digress…

    there is not a single country in the entire world that does not have a govt-directed health care system that even comes close to life expectancy of the countries that do.

    the most regulated countries in the world – by far have the biggest and most powerful economies, the healthiest and most educated citizens – no contest.

  8. DJRippert Avatar

    “there is not a single country in the entire world that does not have a govt-directed health care system that even comes close to life expectancy of the countries that do.”.

    The difference in life expectancy between Japan (#1) and the United States (#36) is 4.3 years.

    The difference between the American state with the longest life expectancy (Hawaii) and the state with the lowest life expectancy (Mississippi) is 7.8 years.

    Your statistic may be right but I question the causality of your assumption.

    Portugal (#39) has universal health care. So does Japan (#1). And, if you have ever visited Japan you will see a country where 44.3% of the men smoke. Yet they live to 79.0. In Sweden only 19% of the men smoke yet they die 0.3 years younger than the Japanese men on average. Both Japan and Sweden have National Health Care.

    LarryG – I think your point would be more useful if you used the statistics to combat the absurdity that the United States has the best health care quality. That argument is often made by the “if it’s not broken, don’t fix it crowd”.

    By all overall quantitative metrics the United States has an absurdly expensive health care system that yields mediocre results.

  9. DJRippert Avatar

    “Richmond is a stunningly bad No. 191, beating out only comatose Sacramento among U.S. cities.

    Great. The multi-generational nesting place of Virginia’s political elite and driving force behind Virginia’s adherence to Dillon’s Rule is a global basket case.

    What was that song by Jonathan Edwards –

    “He can’t even run his own life. I’ll be damned if he’ll run mine.”.

    I heard that Jonathan Edwards grew up in Northern Virginia. I just didn’t know he was singing about the political elite in Richmond.

  10. the fact that the US pays twice as much for health care as any other industrialized country is relevant but the dividing line for life expectancy and infant deaths is stark – between any industrialized country – no matter their health care costs – and 3rd world countries with that legendary “free market” health care.

    If it were the case that lower taxes and less regulation were the key to a stronger economy – we have well over 100 countries in the world that could be real-world labs to prove that concept.

    Instead, we have just enough excuses to go around so that every country that currently has that opportunity also has good excuses …why they can’t.

    🙂

    the really funny thing is that the folks who oppose ObamaCare and a federal takeover of health care .. say that the real fix to the problem is to allow people to buy health insurance across state lines and to allow it to be “portable” – both of which would require – you guessed it – that evil Federal takeover of health care to tell the states and insurance companies that they don’t have a choice.. the Feds have decided it.

    the whole affair is a charade….. on the part of the “anti” folks…

    IMHO of course.

Leave a Reply