It’s hard to study Chinese history since the late 1940s and come away thinking Marxist principles are what pulled hundreds of millions of Chinese out of poverty. The results of the programs under Mao were horrific. The incredible growth of the Chinese economy, during the period Wolff highlights, coincided with the introduction of private property, profit, foreign investment, and letting market forces go to work. When this growth started, China could not be described as a dynamic and innovative economy. Removing the profit incentive tends to stifle creativity and growth. To realize rapid growth, as China did, you need a dynamic and innovative economy. China was able to take a shortcut by becoming the cheap labor for the dynamic, innovative, and wealthy capitalist societies of the west. There were rich buyers, ready to pay to transform China into a giant manufacturing hub. And China was able to borrow and steal innovation while their private sector grew and developed.
There are definitely debates to be had about the cost/benefits of different levels of central planning in a capitalist society. Or about how much redistribution you can have before you start to stifle innovation and growth. But I do not see how one could seriously debate whether communism is better at creating wealth than capitalism.
My opinion has been formed through casual reading so I would love to hear from someone who has a different take on the growth of China since the 40s. One that puts Marxist ideas in a better light. Though I suspect this is the wrong forum for that.
What I don't understand is why Glenn didn't push back at Dr. Wolff's claims. The enormous improvement in standard of living in both Russia and China happened only after both countries introduced the capitalist and market economics that Dr. Wolff so abhors. Just look a photos of downtown Beijing under the socialists Dr. Wolff applauds - thousands of people in Mao suits riding bicycles, after the introduction of elements of a market economy - thousands of people driving their own cars. How could Prof. Loury have missed this?
I think there is a balance every podcaster has to find between pushing back and being a gracious host. Also, between number of topics to cover and how thoroughly to cover each topic. This is especially true with a hard time limit. There is no right answer and I think you have to just go by feel. I am frustrated at times when he doesn't dig in his heels and push back, but I have seen other hosts do that and the conversation gets bogged down for an hour. I guess the upside of less pushback is it gives us a lot more room to be original in the comments section.
It’s hard to study Chinese history since the late 1940s and come away thinking Marxist principles are what pulled hundreds of millions of Chinese out of poverty. The results of the programs under Mao were horrific. The incredible growth of the Chinese economy, during the period Wolff highlights, coincided with the introduction of private property, profit, foreign investment, and letting market forces go to work. When this growth started, China could not be described as a dynamic and innovative economy. Removing the profit incentive tends to stifle creativity and growth. To realize rapid growth, as China did, you need a dynamic and innovative economy. China was able to take a shortcut by becoming the cheap labor for the dynamic, innovative, and wealthy capitalist societies of the west. There were rich buyers, ready to pay to transform China into a giant manufacturing hub. And China was able to borrow and steal innovation while their private sector grew and developed.
There are definitely debates to be had about the cost/benefits of different levels of central planning in a capitalist society. Or about how much redistribution you can have before you start to stifle innovation and growth. But I do not see how one could seriously debate whether communism is better at creating wealth than capitalism.
My opinion has been formed through casual reading so I would love to hear from someone who has a different take on the growth of China since the 40s. One that puts Marxist ideas in a better light. Though I suspect this is the wrong forum for that.
What I don't understand is why Glenn didn't push back at Dr. Wolff's claims. The enormous improvement in standard of living in both Russia and China happened only after both countries introduced the capitalist and market economics that Dr. Wolff so abhors. Just look a photos of downtown Beijing under the socialists Dr. Wolff applauds - thousands of people in Mao suits riding bicycles, after the introduction of elements of a market economy - thousands of people driving their own cars. How could Prof. Loury have missed this?
I think there is a balance every podcaster has to find between pushing back and being a gracious host. Also, between number of topics to cover and how thoroughly to cover each topic. This is especially true with a hard time limit. There is no right answer and I think you have to just go by feel. I am frustrated at times when he doesn't dig in his heels and push back, but I have seen other hosts do that and the conversation gets bogged down for an hour. I guess the upside of less pushback is it gives us a lot more room to be original in the comments section.