(1) You wrote:
> 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 think you don't know what is "market regulation" and what is "guidance of market". I think you should read my article "On What's Market Regulation and On Relationship between Market and Government" <http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/Exchange/3058/marketaa.html>
For example, it is reported lately that there appears a great shortage of grain at home in Russia. The Russian premier has appealed to international communities for grain aid. How does this happen? It is because they don't have "market regulation". What is "market regulation"? When grain is in short supply, and people suffer from hunger, there will be some of them who quit their original vocations and go over to be engaged in grain production, working as farmers and thus acquire more grain. Conversely, when grain is excessive, there will be some of the farmers who resign from grain production and transfer to industrial production, and thus acquire more industrial articles. So when there appears a great shortage of grain at home in Russia, the Russian people should be engaged in farmland cultivation.
What is "guidance of market"? When grain is in short supply and the people are unwilling to engage in farmland cultivation, the government should cut down their relief funds to make them rather willing to take up this job. If someone is rich, he will not take up the job. If someon is poor, he will have to take up the job, because he have no money to pay for food. This is different from "centrally planned". In centrally planned economy country, whether they have money to pay for food or not, they will have to take up the job. The government will order them to take the job. If all the people are unwilling to engage in farmland cultivation, the orders are not effective all the time and in result there is no poeple who do this job. This is the reason why there appears a great shortage of grain at home in Russia.
Besides, my suggestions of 11 in this message, Why do I argue that "There would be no free market economy without bankruptcy and there would be no new enterprises and new companies formed without bankruptcy, and so the development of social economy would be impossible."? In USA, if a company default salary, it will be declared bankruptcy at once. But in a centrally planned economy country, it will not be declared bankruptcy all the time. This is also a difference between "centrally planned" and "free market".
(2) You wrote:
> > Chang wrote:
> > 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.
Should the Russian people encourage the export of their food when there appears a great shortage of grain at home in Russia? In China, a lot of workers are working hard for the export of various consumer goods. How many salary do they get? A worker only get one hundred US Dollars every month or even less! You will not belive it, but this is true.
Could you give me your comments on my view mentiond above? Your answer will be much appreciated.
Sincerely, Ju-chang He
SHENZHEN, P.R. CHINA Welcome to visit My Home Page at <http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/Exchange/3058/> or <http://www.geocities.com/~juchang/>
Dennis R Redmond wrote:
>
> On Sat, 17 Oct 1998, chang wrote:
>
> > 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