Previous posts in this discussion:
PostEconomics of Fascism; From Ric Mauricio (John Eipper, USA, 10/25/17 4:00 am)
Ric Mauricio writes:
Eugenio Battaglia (October 20) wrote, "In a striking contrast to the laissez-faire doctrine of economic liberalism, Fascism set forth the right of the state to intervene in the process of production whenever private initiative was not up to the task at hand. The emphasis on the supremacy of the state was an effort to transcend the disastrous economic and political effects of class conflicts by focusing on the solidarity of capital and labor in the production process."
I would like to thank Eugenio for his clarification on what Fascism is. But I believe he unfairly chastises me for my use of the word "fascism" and equating it with Mao, Hitler and Stalin. If you look at my post, I stated "extreme fascism." The opposite would be "extreme democracy" or anarchy, which leads to the tyranny of the masses. The problem, of course, is who decides that "private initiative is not up to the task at hand." And who focuses on the "solidarity of capital and labor in the production process."
If I read Eugenio's definition correctly, that definition fits the founding of the People's Republic of China to a T. Because of the failures of laissez-faire economics and the imbalance of wealth amongst its citizens, Mao instituted the Marxist government to intervene in the process of production. There was an emphasis on the supremacy of the state over the individual. And in order to do that, he had to purge (yes, murder) millions of his own people and attempt to destroy the cultural history of China. I call this extreme fascism. Today, the Communist Party does use censorship and a heavy hand in governing its citizens, and the largest companies in China are SOEs (State-Owned Enterprises), so they do still practice, if I am not mistaken, the definition that Eugenio provides, "fascism." That is not being derogatory, it is just stating a fact.
Here in California, we have the opposite. We border on extreme democracy. But is it really democracy? For example, Governor Brown just made California a "sanctuary" state, meaning that our law enforcement does not have to comply with ICE. I do not recall ever being asked to vote on this or my opinion on this. Is this an emphasis on the supremacy of the state over the individual? Wait, that's not democracy. What is it? Is Governor Brown deciding on his own that private citizens are not up to the task?
JE comments: Eureka, therein lies the rub. Who decides when private initiative is "not up to the task"? And perhaps more importantly, how do you ensure "solidarity" from the top down? Coercive solidarity?
In practice if not in theory, is today's China the ultimate fascist state? Discuss.
It's shaping up to be Fascism Wednesday. Next on the subject: Istvan Simon.
China as a Fascist State?
(Cameron Sawyer, Russia
10/26/17 4:11 AM)
Eugenio Battaglia, who sometimes apologizes for his English (although he obviously speaks it better than most of us native speakers), has produced a superb formulation of Fascist economics, actually one of the clearest and best I've ever seen.
This formulation underlines the fact that Fascism, in economics, as in other things, is the opposite of liberalism. It is the State unbound and freed from any subordination to liberty. The State so unbound becomes Total--and that's Totalitarianism; the total subordination of the individual to the State.
I think we can all agree that extreme degrees of economic liberty do not produce ideal results--even most libertarians agree that some degree of regulation, including taxation, of some kinds of economic activity, is necessary. But the absence of any economic freedom has also been shown, by extensive experimentation during the 20th century, to produce poor results. The lack of liberty, in the economic sphere too, degrades the quality of human life in non-material ways, and illiberal economies don't work economically. The market, in some role or another, is essential to economic progress and growth--to the creation of wealth in the first place, which we now know pretty well can't be produced by decree, by central planning, by top-down organization by the State.
China is not at all an example of Fascism--China has extremely illiberal politics, and is a quite oppressive state in my respects, but economic freedom is probably greater than in the US, and the Chinese (and the world) are reaping the rewards of this.
Of course there are different definitions of "economic freedom," and I am using the term strictly defined--the right to engage in economic activity, negotiate prices, and to reap the rewards of that activity, with minimal interference by the State.*
*I disagree with the Heritage Foundation's definition of economic freedom which includes many non-economic factors like freedom of expression, environmental problems, etc., all of which are important issues but not part of economic freedom per se.
JE comments: With China's heavy reliance on SOEs (state-owned enterprises) and the ubiquitous cronyism and graft of the 10 million party members who run them, can we really call its economic system liberal or "free"?
Has anyone in WAISworld done business in China? I'd love to hear an anecdote or two.
Doing Business in China: A Friend's Saga
(Nigel Jones, -UK
10/26/17 6:10 PM)
It's a while back now, but a Californian friend in the mortgage business saw the crash of 2008 coming and while standing by the Pacific one day decided to relocate to China.
He went to live in a provincial Chinese city, and before succumbing to a fatal heart attack, experienced a mix of personal freedom and business frustration. On the one hand he acquired two Chinese girlfriends and roared about the country on a vintage WWII Nazi motorbike, proudly sporting Iron Cross livery; on the other, he found it impossible for a Westerner to get a business off the ground.
His conclusion was that the Chinese are great at business..but only for the Chinese.
JE comments: What a sad ending for an intrepid soul. The chutzpah required to pilot a 70-year-old motorcycle in Chinese traffic speaks volumes. Nigel's friend experienced personal freedom and business frustration; the stereotypical image for China is the other way around.
Did you friend ever write about his adventures, Nigel?
- Doing Business in China (Cameron Sawyer, Russia 10/27/17 10:15 AM)
John E asked, "Has anyone in WAISworld done business in China? I'd love to hear an anecdote or two."
I visited China twice in the last year, and have done some business there.
I think it's fair to say that corruption degrades economic freedom, and significantly. But conditions for entrepreneurship in China are amazing.
Here is a good article on it: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tseedward/2016/04/05/the-rise-of-entrepreneurship-in-china/#498b9eff3efc
State-owned enterprises (SOEs) employ only 16% of Chinese workers, and their role in the Chinese economy is shrinking.
JE comments: Istvan Simon has also written on business and entrepreneurship in China. His take is less sanguine. I'll try to post Istvan's comment before the end of today.
- Doing Business in China: Frustrating (Istvan Simon, USA 10/28/17 7:55 AM)
I have done business in China, and given that I have lived in China and that my wife is Chinese, I could probably say that I am fairly well informed about the country. Though I am sure that Cameron Sawyer is well informed about China as well, I'd have to say that I disagree with Cameron (October 26th) that China is a freer market than the United States. That is not even close to the truth in my opinion.
The Chinese economy is a mixture of statism and free enterprise. The government reserves to itself large sectors of the economy which it considers strategic assets. Thus all communications in China are under government control, including telephones, the generation and distribution of energy, roads, the famous disgraceful attempt to censor the Internet, and all banking. Together that must be more than 50% of the economy I'd say, though I do not have exact statistics at the moment. This is a subjective but well-informed personal assessment.
The fact that all banking is in the government's control is particularly disastrous to the Chinese economy. That is because small businesses do not have access to capital, which is dispensed by political influence, and is essentially a corrupt system. Those who have access to the Communist Party bigwigs, have everything. Those that do not, are up the famous Sh*t Creek.
As WAISers who have followed my activities know, I have researched renewable energy for the past 15 years or so. I had a supplier in China that made the prototypes of my Solar Collecting Panels, which was a very high technology contraption, that followed the sun, and had 1 cm square "panels" which worked with highly concentrated solar radiation at 1000 suns. A 1 cm square "panel" would produce 25 watts of energy all day long, from sunrise to sunset, as long as it received direct sunlight. The company that made my prototypes was a small company that made Chinese telescope parts. The technology for telescopes is the same as what I needed for my panels, because to watch a star one needs to compensate also for the rotation and movement of the Earth in its orbit.
This company is everything that proves how wrong Cameron Sawyer is in his assessment. Because there is no venture capital in China, and because the banking system is corrupt, as I explained above, this small company struggled against incredible odds. They succeeded, but their survival is hardly an advertisement for the Chinese economic model and system. Much to the contrary.
I'd like to add a few more observations about China. After Deng Xiaoping started the ground-shaking capitalist reform that ended the disastrous reign of Mao Zedong, Chinese universities recovered from the terrible depredations of Mao's criminal cultural revolution which destroyed a whole generation. Chinese universities are very good at some things, but not so good at other things. The Chinese are practical people. So they educate fabulous engineers, but not-so-fabulous scientists. Considering that China has 1/5 of the world's population, one could expect about 1/5 of the World's Nobel Prizes to go to Chinese scientists. Yet that is not at all the case, almost all Chinese Nobel Prize winning scientists live in the West. I think that this is due to the cultural character of the Chinese. The Chinese are not curious, and they do not routinely ask why something works the way it does. They are happy that it works and do not usually ask the question why. This leads to great engineers but lousy scientists.
Russia is almost the exact opposite of the Chinese. Russian scientists are great, but Russian engineers are usually lousy.
Finally, I enclose the following reference that has some interesting commentary on what has been happening with China's economy in recent years, and sheds further light on my qualitative comments above. It includes some statistical data relevant to our discussions. In particular it points out falling growth, problems of the banking sector with bad loans, and an excess in real estate inventory.
Cumulatively these problems are very significant, because China's economy since Deng Xiaoping has used a model of economic growth primarily fueled by taking land away from peasants and building real estate on it, apartments, offices, etc., coupled with enormous investments in infrastructure. This model has reached its limits which points to the need for a major change in China's economic model of development. At this point this is not yet happening. Xi Jinping has used an anti-corruption crackdown within the Communist party as an excuse to consolidate his powers. There is a danger that China will revert to an even more authoritarian government than in recent years. Xi Jinping might change the healthy major reform first introduced by Deng Xiaoping that limited the term in office of the top leader, and established procedures on how the next leader was to be chosen.
JE comments: Istvan Simon raises a point for further discussion: is the Chinese development model at its limits? Even more fundamentally, is Istvan's description of this model (confiscate land, build stuff) accurate?
(Istvan, one of my best friends is a Russian engineer. And he's really good at it! He probably designed the seating in your car. Maybe it's because of his 20 years in the US?)
Attempting to Do Business in China; from Ric Mauricio
(John Eipper, USA
10/29/17 8:17 AM)
Ric Mauricio writes:
I too have attempted to do business in China. My clients have done or attempted to do business in China. However, not being a good little Communist, I found it to be extremely challenging. Like Istvan, my wife is Chinese, but that did not help at all, since she is as American as one can be (San Francisco-born). I guess since I am also as American as one can be, it would in itself be challenging.
My client shared with me the nuances of owning property in the PRC. Unlike the US (which is why many PRC citizens love to buy US real estate), you cannot own the land. You just own the property on the land. The land belongs to the "people." She told me that the escrow process is fraught with danger, with escrow officers taking the funds and investing elsewhere while waiting for the sale to close.
By the way, in a previous post, someone stated that China has no venture capitalists. Ah, but there are. You see, China's VCs are based in Taiwan. So the saber-rattling that you see is just that--all show, no substance.
The PRC, although Communist in government, is one of the most capitalistic societies today. When I was last in Beijing, in 2012, my tour group was approached by a gentleman selling doodads, and I blurted out, "Good ole capitalism." Oops.
It is possible to do business in China, but you must have a trustworthy Chinese partner. Hmm. It is easier to just buy Alibaba.
BTW, 67% of China's GDP is attributed to the SOEs (State Owned Enterprises).
JE comments: Cameron Sawyer recently wrote that the SOEs employ just 16% of China's population. Are both numbers correct--meaning, do 16% of the Chinese produce 67% of the GDP? This doesn't make sense, especially given the assumption that the SOEs are less productive than their private-sector counterparts.
- Doing Business in China (Cameron Sawyer, Russia 10/27/17 10:15 AM)
- Doing Business in China: A Friend's Saga (Nigel Jones, -UK 10/26/17 6:10 PM)