Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by coliveira 3194 days ago
This is unsupported by facts. China has a very tight control on areas that they want to develop or open to outside capital, and their growth has been stunning. On the other hand, undeveloped countries that have open their markets with little oversight have suffered tremendous economic problems, Mexico is a case in point. There is no correlation whatsoever between lax oversight of markets and robust economic growth, as most people tend to believe.
2 comments
CryptoPunk 3194 days ago
China's economy was rapidly privatised, starting with the privatisation of collective farms and legalisation of entrepreneurship in 1978:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2005-08-21/online-ex...

Much of the economic growth happened in special economic zones that were free of much of the state economic control present in the rest of China.

Also, tight control can be consistent with market freedom when it is targeted at controlling violent crime, kidnapping and extortion. This is one area where China has outperformed other developing countries.

link
padobson 3194 days ago
If you'll notice in all of my comments here, I've been careful to say "markets" and not "free markets". I've also tried to steer clear of specific opinions about levels of regulation or taxation or the value provided by certain social programs.

If you want to discuss the merits of a specific regulation, tax or social program, I'm happy to do that, but I haven't addressed any of those things as of yet.

Since China switched to a market economy, a huge chunk of their massive population has escaped poverty. Some of those markets are highly regulated, but they are still markets. Nothing about China's recent growth is incompatible with the views I've expressed in this thread thus far.

link
nerfhammer 3194 days ago
this is why the term "competitive market" better captures what may intended by the term "free market".

"free" would seem to exclude regulation that increases market competition but would not seem to exclude subsidies that might decrease competition. All of the benefits of markets come from competition, not "free"-ness.

link