I'm standing back looking at a pointless argument.

I think you all forget the basic of trade. You can't sell to people who cannot afford to buy.

China's growth has only been achieved some success because it has markets to sell to.

If ever those markets contract China is in very deep trouble.

It's internal economy is now hostage to two things:
it needs massive growth just to sustain itself, and it's property bubble is massive.

China has more to worry about than the debt ridden governments and banks of the west. The Western Govdernments and banks can all fail and the population will go on feeding itself and producing goods. We will change both the governments and the way we allow our banks to operate.

Many Chinese will starve and their command economy won't be able to adapt to change. They'll have massive social unrest and maybe another revolution a'la the Arab Spring.

We'll have elections and letters to the editors or olo and at the very worst 'soup kitchens'.

You blokes should read much more outside your fields ... try the classics.

yes, i agree with last post in sense there are no win-win situations for anyone. China would also be in big trouble should policy trends change, and we may have even more tension in world.

From my perspective, however, I do believe that trends are favouring China in terms of that nation attracting much more eco activity with little regard for liberal economic and political practices.

Chris
There is no onus on me to agree with you unless what you say is true and sensible. I have shown why it isn't. And you, unable to defend your own argument or refute mine, only descend instantly into personal argument. Why don't you just do the intellectually honest thing and concede the issue? You have used false collectivist and aggregative concepts that overlook the real conflicts of interest at work; you have failed to distinguish government's conflict of interest as against everyone else; have not defined the relevant "balance" or how it could be known; and your whole discussion is biased in favour of endless open-ended interventions that cause the problems you are concerned about.

It's the Keynesians and statists who are the extremists, not people like me who urge the ethical and practical superiority of voluntary social relations over coercive central planning, otherwise statists would be able to join issue in a rational discussion, not just evade the economic and political issues by appeal to mystical and metaphysical concepts as you have done.

mac
The phenomenon of 'private profit, public loss' is precisely the hallmark of interventionism. Anyone describing the Feds' operations, or its relations with Wall Street, or the obscene handouts to banks and corporations, as "market forces" is either confused or dishonest.

Which are you?

You studied economics. And did they teach you that such government interventions are market forces? And did you believe them?

imajulianutter,

You're making sweeping generalizations in regard to China, you could be correct of course. China doesn't actually have a "command economy" it's more state directed capitalism, so I'd assume it could adjust if the party mandarins allowed it to. Forecasting is notoriously dificult,100 years ago Argentina was predicted to leave Australia far behind in development and during the 90s "Japan as no 1" was the fashion, few 'experts' considered China or India. That said, I'll still put my money on China for the long term.

BTW What are "the classics"?

Peter Hume,

Try to avoid loaded questions, straw man arguments and ad hominem comments. Never, any stage, did I claim that government interventions are 'market forces'. I agreed with Chris Lewis that, given the realities of politics and political economy, governments cannot afford to ignore the social and economic consequences of a dysfunctional financial sector.

I think it a sweeping generlisation go say that I'm 'making sweeping generalizations in regard to China'.

Can you please be specific and substantiate your sweeping generalisation.

Now 'state directed capitalism' is a contradiction in terms it was also the modus operandi that great socialist dictator Adolph Hitler and his National Socialists adopted. (Deliberate irony).

Basically initially the Greek classics and the traditional great literature of the western world. I'd also suggest a read of the Russian classics especially Nikolai Leskov ... and the Frenchman Gustave Flaubert and the Englishmen W. Sommerset Maughan ... and Willie's sonnets and ... ahhh

http://mises.org/daily/5570/First-in-Line-for-New-Money

Chris, this article gives a good summary of the issues that you appear to overlook.

On the one hand you think government intervention is necessary to help “the battlers”, but on the other you don’t seem to make any connection between government interventions and the distresses of the most vulnerable. According to this theory, government interventions have only a positive effect. That is credulous.

The Keynesian view only looks at the *aggregate levels* of demand, spending, etc. It overlooks who benefits at the expense of whom.

“Increases in money aren't sprinkled from the sky, floating indiscriminately into whoever's hands are in the right place at the right time. Money-supply increases occur through the commercial banking system and Federal Reserve. Those who receive the money first benefit at the expense of those receiving the money last.
"The fiat dollar is an 'elite' system," Jim Grant told the Wall Street Journal recently, "and Wall Street is its supporting 'interest group' — those nimble, market-savvy, plugged-in folks know how to shuffle assets and exploit cheap funding from the Fed to leverage up their profits and soften the downside."

The crazy thing is that the left love government’s redistributive powers, love inflation – but then they JUST DON’T GET IT when they see the results of their policies – crony capitalism, and social injustice affecting the most vulnerable.

So you’re trying to have a bet each way. On the one hand you express concern about economic instability and social injustice, but on the other hand you support fiat money, central banking and Keynesian economics.