g m g D e s i g n . c o m

“There may be a Chinese century, but it will be the 22nd century — not the 21st.”

Interesting article in the Times with that concluding sentence. Bottom line is that China has a long way to go before she exceeds US GDP, despite some of the hyperbolic projections of China “taking over” (just like the Japanese did[n't] do in the 1980s!). 

My thoughts: not sure that it matters. Whether China’s GDP is half of ours or twice ours really isn’t that significant unless you’re a China “hawk” who fantasizes about a war with our former adversaries (for reasons that are obsolete). China’s about as “Communist” as France (well, maybe less so) and with market-oriented reform has come–and will come–political reform. Inconceivable under Mao; but possible under a burgeoning free-market capitalist system.

From the Int’l Herald Tribune:

President Hugo Chávez will unveil a project to change the Constitution on Wednesday that is expected to allow him to be re-elected indefinitely, a move that would enhance his authority to accelerate a socialist-inspired transformation of Venezuelan society.

This comes as no surprise to most of us, of course. Socialist states are always authoritarian states (the more socialism there is, the more authoritarianism there will be). Reason: erosion of economic freedom translates to erosion of all freedoms (to put it simply). Socialism is, by design, an anti-freedom model.

Great blog entry on FP’s blog site about N Korea. Bottom paragraph is the one of interest:

Lankov’s real point, though, is that information about China, which looks to North Koreans “like a perfect paradise,” is seeping back across the border. And those North Koreans lucky enough to make it to the promised land—be it as refugees or businessmen known as chogyo—soon learn that South Korea isn’t the hell on Earth they’ve been taught to hate, but is even richer than China. This can’t be a sustainable situation.

I.e., connectivity, not the military, will break N Korea’s vile regime.

Interesting article by Sowell (entitled “Sub-Prime Politicians”) where he makes his case that populist government initiatives have led to the sub-prime lending issue that we face today. Read the entire article for his description of how the Visible Hand of government has led to this problematic situation. (Very interesting perspective.)

Stossel has a piece on socialized medicine in Wisconsin. Summary: he’s for it! But only to demonstrate to the other 49 states that large socialized programs are a bad idea and that economic micro-management by the gov is a bad idea.

My thoughts? I think that, for the most part, socialist constructs are a dreadful idea. They’re inherently anti-freedom, imposing a broad governmental program on everyone rather than letting the creative destruction of the market be the determinant of what works and what dies. The imposed system, socialism, doesn’t work very well, while the Darwinian system (capitalism) tends to work great. There are some exceptions–or rather, areas where markets absolutely require tweaking from the gov–but those situations do not represent the majority of cases and are no excuse for economic meddling by opportunistic (or misinformed) political leaders.