Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: russwinter who wrote (109430)	12/31/2010 8:45:54 PM
From: GST	5 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

<command and control structures> I cannot agree with you when you compare the Soviet system of command and control with what goes on in China. The central government is a trimtab on a giant rudder -- and it has remarkable success in guiding the economy. But to call it command and control calls into question personal bias. In many ways, the Chinese model is capitalism run amok more than it is command and control. In my crude estimation, half a billion people in China have advanced economically, albeit at a terrible environmental price. The challenge they face is to double that number, turn towards meeting more internal needs and do both of these things while steering away from becoming a toxic wasteland -- a very tall order indeed. but as to their 'model', it is not likely to break down or change all that much. Chinese have a deep, very deep fear of chaos -- that was the lesson and the tragedy of Tiananmen. In the end, both the government and the people chose economics over politics -- stability over political chaos. For those who died, it is a grim epitaph. For those who chose money over political advancement, the jury is still out. But to cast all of this as an economy on the brink of collapse? I think that falls short of a realistic viewpoint.