> In my opinion, there are only two types of economy patterns. One is the
> centrally planned economy exercised by the former USSR, and the other is
> the free market economy exercised in the US and West Europe. In the
> former USSR, centrally planned economy has dominated the country for
> nearly 70 years. During these years, the Russians people found that the
> free market economy had much more advantages over the centrally planned
> economy.
One problem: the "free market" doesn't exist over here. When things get tough, Western central banks and governments bail out the big shots with centrally planned deficit financing -- as is currently happening in Japan, and which is about to happen in the US. Second problem: what has that wondrous free market done for Brazil, sub-Saharan Africa, and Indonesia lately? They've had market economies for years, but they're poor as dirt; despite its problems, Russia's system built a functional industrial structure, educated its population, created world-class scientific and aerospace sectors, and more than held its own against the US Empire's military industries -- despite the Cold War, Stalin's hideous purges and the nightmarish destruction and carnage of WW II. Or are you seriously arguing that Czarist Russia was a modern, industrialized state, and that it's all the fault of the Bolsheviks?
> I found there are many economists in China holding the theory
> that the less the imports and the more the exports, the faster the
> economic development of one country. Such thought, I believe, is not
> reasonable.
Why not? Export-led/import-restrictive development has worked wonders for Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, and of course China. Russia will have to give its industries breathing room and time to adjust to world market pressures; you can't expect newly-born children to compete in Olympic marathons. Poland and Hungary are doing well because they slapped tariffs on imports in 1992-93, after the neoliberal mania of 1991, and pursued pro-export policies.
-- Dennis