[ar0]

> Yeah, it was just a coincidence that when China stated opening up their markets that their quality of life improved immensely and hundreds of millions are lifted out of extreme poverty. When you're talking about economic success in general then you can't forget the ex-Soviet states either. The ones that embraced free markets the most recovered the most.

China is interesting because you can really use it both ways: Free market enthusiasts will argue that China took off after it embraced free market reforms. State intervention enthusiasts will argue that China has been so successful because it is still very far away from the "free market policies" which e.g. the IMF is pushing on poor countries. In particular it has totally not opened up its capital markets or many of its import markets.

And the same holds for the ex-Soviet economies, too: The ex-Soviet economies that have done best are those that have joined the European Union, which most people especially on the American right would not exactly call a free market paradise.

For me, the answer to this apparent contradiction is actually quite simple: as so often, the answer lies in the middle. Total deregulation and extremely opening up your markets probably is not a good strategy to quickly pull your country out of poverty. But too much state intervention is at least as big a recipe for disaster.

Also, I would add that the optimal level of state intervention probably also depends a lot on how corruption-free your government is: with a very well functioning, corrution-free bureaucracy, you can operate effectively at a higher level of state interventionism (e.g. Scandinavia, Singapore) than if you hand that power to corrupt and/or inept officials.

[Mirioron]

>And the same holds for the ex-Soviet economies, too: The ex-Soviet economies that have done best are those that have joined the European Union, which most people especially on the American right would not exactly call a free market paradise.

But they did well even before they joined the EU. Arguably they did even better in terms of growth before joining, but it's difficult to fault the EU on this, because the financial crisis will definitely take (some of) the blame.

On the topic of China you could also argue that IP theft is what helped China succeed. We'll never know, but that IP issue and them not opening up their markets will probably bite them soon. There's only so much the EU and US are going to take once China becomes even richer.

>Also, I would add that the optimal level of state intervention probably also depends a lot on how corruption-free your government is:

I definitely agree with this, but I would like to add that I think it's not just strict corruption that's the problem. Heavy lobbying by certain small groups of people (corporations) to the detriment of the general population also plays a role in this. The government officials don't have to be corrupt for this to have a negative impact on regulations.

[AnimalMuppet]

> The ex-Soviet economies that have done best are those that have joined the European Union, which most people especially on the American right would not exactly call a free market paradise.

Compared to the Soviet days, I think that most, even on the American right, would consider the EU to be quite free market.

It's not an absolute thing. The difference from "almost totally state planned" to "not as free as we think it should be" matters. It changes outcomes quite a bit. Some think that outcomes would be even better with more freedom, but I think most people - even on the American right - understand that the EU is vastly different from the Soviet economy.

[jhbadger]

Literally the whole point of the European Union is to promote free trade (they've just announced that they are going to have free trade with Japan in addition to among themselves). It may look "socialist" to the US right, but to everybody else, it is as capitalistic as it gets. That's actually why the British Left like Jeremy Corbyn has always been rather unenthusiastic about the EU as they see it as more a win for business than for people. Which is kind of why Brexit happened -- pretty much the main "remain" bloc was squashed between the anti-immigrant right and anti-business left.