To: GraceZ who wrote (8060 ) 4/17/2006 1:49:17 PM From: ahhaha Respond to of 24758 but he's not weighing in on the question that was asked first, which country is structured more capitalistic, US or China. That wasn't asked first. What was asked first is which country is more capitalistic. Not the same as structured more.Certainly there are other forms of capitalism but there is a reason why the British/American form rose above the rest. A form isn't the "property" of a nation. Rather, the move to another form is a reaction to external constraints possibly so stringent that the intent was to rid a nation of capitalism through the constraints when all it did was provoke another form.A lot of historians would attribute the increasing riches in the US to it's military power, Which ones? I would challenge them. One might concede that the result of victory in war brings the spoils of war, but a war per se never increases wealth. It wastes it. but it's military power is more likely a result of it's rising wealth. You're taking weight off the scale. The thing that secure property rights along with the rule of law provide for is the ability to transact with strangers, even enemies. Trade capitalism doesn't need property rights. Hard to believe, isn't it. Consider that when trade uses trade credit, then law is critical, but if it's a matter of barter or pay on exchange, that isn't true. This is especially true if those property rights are attached to land because the security isn't moveable and the value is more readily public information. Something as simple as getting utilities to your home become problematic in a country without free title to land. I think I can make an argument that land ownership is antithetical to capitalism. That wasn't so true in the past, but it will become ever more true in the future.China is getting its day in the Sun precisely because they impoverished their people with their anti-capitalism. The reaction to the rejection of capitalism which brings poverty is an embracing of it which brings wealth. Now they give a few of those rights back (the ones we take for granted and our forefathers died for) causing an explosion of industrial development. Quite true. Capitalism first and then law and rights. It is never the case in reverse. You have to eat first. Animals don't have law, but they eat.They've made some progress moving up to the level of the rest of the world but they can hardly be called the best example of capitalism at work. They're the best example, but they aren't the best that can be practiced.The biggest reason they are working is because they are working for us! Then we're paying them more than we're worth.They are working for us not because they are the most productive or most efficient but because they are so poor and destitute in comparison. Now you're off the scale.