What do you think?
Rate this book
The End of the Free Market: Who Wins the War Between States and Corporations?
Understanding the rise of state capitalism and its threat to global free markets
The End of the Free Market details the growing phenomenon of state capitalism, a system in which governments drive local economies through ownership of market-dominant companies and large pools of excess capital, using them for political gain. This trend threatens America's competitive edge and the conduct of free markets everywhere. An expert on the intersection of economics and politics, Ian Bremmer has followed the rise of state-owned firms in China, Russia, the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, Iran, Venezuela, and elsewhere. He demonstrates the growing challenge that state capitalism will pose for the entire global economy. Among the questions addressed: Are we on the brink of a new kind of Cold War, one that pits competing economic systems in a battle for dominance? Can free market countries compete with state capitalist powerhouses over relations with countries that have elements of both systems-like India, Brazil, and Mexico? Does state capitalism have staying power? This guide to the next big global economic trend includes useful insights for investors, business leaders, policymakers, and anyone who wants to understand important emerging changes in international politics and the global economy.
The End of the Free Market details the growing phenomenon of state capitalism, a system in which governments drive local economies through ownership of market-dominant companies and large pools of excess capital, using them for political gain. This trend threatens America's competitive edge and the conduct of free markets everywhere. An expert on the intersection of economics and politics, Ian Bremmer has followed the rise of state-owned firms in China, Russia, the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, Iran, Venezuela, and elsewhere. He demonstrates the growing challenge that state capitalism will pose for the entire global economy. Among the questions addressed: Are we on the brink of a new kind of Cold War, one that pits competing economic systems in a battle for dominance? Can free market countries compete with state capitalist powerhouses over relations with countries that have elements of both systems-like India, Brazil, and Mexico? Does state capitalism have staying power? This guide to the next big global economic trend includes useful insights for investors, business leaders, policymakers, and anyone who wants to understand important emerging changes in international politics and the global economy.
Audiobook
First published May 13, 2010
58 people are currently reading
915 people want to read
About the author
Ian Bremmer
33 books372 followersIan Bremmer (born November 12, 1969) is an American political scientist specializing in US foreign policy, states in transition, and global political risk. He is the president and founder of Eurasia Group, a leading global political risk research and consulting firm, and a professor at Columbia University. Eurasia Group provides financial, corporate, and government clients with information and insight on how political developments move markets. Bremmer is of Armenian and German descent.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 59 reviews
July 12, 2010
This book was clearly written with an audience of wealthy American Friedmanites in mind. If that is not you, its assumptions may sicken/disappoint you and it's self-contradictions will certainly frustrate/amuse/confuse you. The only reason to read this book is to get further insight into what modern Friedmanites/neo-liberals/neo-conservatives are afraid of.
The bulk of the book is a laundry list of all the good (sometimes great) results of various economic practices the author calls "state capitalism". After each section details examples of good things that resulted from "state capitalism", sometimes accompanied by a counterpoint of how the free market examples made things worse (usually globally), the author then concludes that it's obvious that state capitalism is a terrible threat to free markets and must be stopped. Not exactly a convincing argument against "state capitalism".
At one point, on page 186, the author states that "...now is the time to make the case that only genuinely free markets can generate broad, sustainable, long-term prosperity." Unfortunately, the author made no effort to make such a case in this book, instead assuming that the reader already believed that it was true. With only the examples and details in this book, the only case made is that "state capitalism" provides a lot of benefits for the citizens and governments where it is practiced, and protections from the dangers of free markets.
This quick review was written on my iphone. For a few more details, please read the comments/updates I made as I was reading the book, below my review.
The bulk of the book is a laundry list of all the good (sometimes great) results of various economic practices the author calls "state capitalism". After each section details examples of good things that resulted from "state capitalism", sometimes accompanied by a counterpoint of how the free market examples made things worse (usually globally), the author then concludes that it's obvious that state capitalism is a terrible threat to free markets and must be stopped. Not exactly a convincing argument against "state capitalism".
At one point, on page 186, the author states that "...now is the time to make the case that only genuinely free markets can generate broad, sustainable, long-term prosperity." Unfortunately, the author made no effort to make such a case in this book, instead assuming that the reader already believed that it was true. With only the examples and details in this book, the only case made is that "state capitalism" provides a lot of benefits for the citizens and governments where it is practiced, and protections from the dangers of free markets.
This quick review was written on my iphone. For a few more details, please read the comments/updates I made as I was reading the book, below my review.
August 24, 2010
This is one of those big-themed books that looks at what's going on economically on a global basis, and tries to make sense of it. The pattern that Ian Bremmer sees is one where Western countries with free-market economies and relatively laissez-faire governments are having their butts kicked by the likes of China and India whose governments practice what he calls "state capitalism". He defines this concept as one where there's a large amount of free enterprise but the state is clearly the dominant player imposing its vision on shaping the economy and how it will evolve.
His favorite example is China, but he also draws heavily from India, Russia and the Persian Gulf oil states. While he understands the factors that these countries have in common and those that they don't, he doesn't make the leap from his mass of anecdotes and descriptions to coming up with any kind of model that explains it all. Nor does he really come up with any useful insights into how they will change their model of economic governance as they move from being developing countries to developed states. So, for example, it would have been useful had he talked about how resource-based regimes (Russia, Saudi Arabia, UAE) use a different model of state capitalism than a far more complex economy based on agriculture / manufacturing / services such as India or China. And how does the model change at each stage of development? Will China's state capitalism be likely to come crashing down as the country moves beyond building infrastructure (roads, dams, power plants, airports, telecom networks ...) and beyond manufacturing mountains of widgets for Westerners and instead starts catering to the needs of its own consumers? Will there be some kind of convergence with the politics and economics of the Western developed countries? I didn't get answers to these kinds of issues from this book. Inquiring minds still want to know ...
His favorite example is China, but he also draws heavily from India, Russia and the Persian Gulf oil states. While he understands the factors that these countries have in common and those that they don't, he doesn't make the leap from his mass of anecdotes and descriptions to coming up with any kind of model that explains it all. Nor does he really come up with any useful insights into how they will change their model of economic governance as they move from being developing countries to developed states. So, for example, it would have been useful had he talked about how resource-based regimes (Russia, Saudi Arabia, UAE) use a different model of state capitalism than a far more complex economy based on agriculture / manufacturing / services such as India or China. And how does the model change at each stage of development? Will China's state capitalism be likely to come crashing down as the country moves beyond building infrastructure (roads, dams, power plants, airports, telecom networks ...) and beyond manufacturing mountains of widgets for Westerners and instead starts catering to the needs of its own consumers? Will there be some kind of convergence with the politics and economics of the Western developed countries? I didn't get answers to these kinds of issues from this book. Inquiring minds still want to know ...
March 5, 2011
In the end, something of a disappointment. Bremmer begins by talking about "state capitalism" as something new, but neglects Alexander Gerschenkron's work two generations ago about the role of the state in directing and supporting industrialisation in Central and Eastern Europe in the 19th and early-20th centuries. He also seems to think that state capitalism is the aberration, that some Friedmanite version of the "free market" is and should be the norm, and takes it as a given that only "free markets" can innovate or provide real growth--- attitudes that completely fly in the face of economic history. Moreover, Bremmer imagines that economics and international politics are two entirely different worlds, with no connections to one another. That's a failing common enough to Anglo-American free marketeers, who've never quite seen that industrialisation in almost all other countries has been consciously seen as a way to build state power in the international arena (and what was Hamilton's intention, by the way?), and not just to promote market efficiency. Bremmer does quite rightly see the risks of cronyism and corruption in many state enterprises, but seems oblivious to the idea that states might regard resource companies or financial institutions as subordinate to social needs rather an vice versa. All in all, a disappointing look at an economic phenomenon that requires a much better book.
October 28, 2010
Bremmer is a sharp critic of state capitalism, but an apologist for the failures of markets. He goes so far as to hold government primarily responsible for the economic collapse of 2008. While government surely is responsible for some of the blame, the outright greed and immorality (is that even a concept anymore?) of the markets is quickly dismissed. While he believes that state capitalism is not an enduring model, he barely nibbles at the nefarious intrusion of corporations into government in the United States and seems to have no quibble with the revolving door between Washington and Wall Street/K Street. Which all leads me to continue to believe as William Goldman noted over 20 years ago - nobody knows anything...
October 9, 2011
Иън Бремер обявява свободния пазар за мъртъв
http://www.knigolandia.info/2010/08/b...
Сензационните теории имат едно лошо свойство – почти винаги са неверни и лесни за опровергаване. Имах личен интерес към “The End of the Free Market: Who Wins the War Between States and Corporations?”, която развива тезата, че държавите превземат управлението на корпорациите и започват да ги използват за свои политически и икономически цели. Дипломната ми работа бе посветена точно на обратния процес – на приватизацията на държавната власт от страна на едрия бизнес и ми бе интересно какво съм пропуснал.
http://www.knigolandia.info/2010/08/b...
Сензационните теории имат едно лошо свойство – почти винаги са неверни и лесни за опровергаване. Имах личен интерес към “The End of the Free Market: Who Wins the War Between States and Corporations?”, която развива тезата, че държавите превземат управлението на корпорациите и започват да ги използват за свои политически и икономически цели. Дипломната ми работа бе посветена точно на обратния процес – на приватизацията на държавната власт от страна на едрия бизнес и ми бе интересно какво съм пропуснал.
May 20, 2014
Books like this make the advocates of free markets work a lot harder to get their case across. This is not so much making a case for free markets but a diatribe against state capitalism from someone who confuses free markets with the corporate market rigging which exists in the USA.
The freer markets exist at local levels where product and service providers fight tooth and claw to grasp at local opportunities but where competition is fierce.
At a higher level, corporations, with their lawyers and their agents, actively promote laws and regulations which will safeguard and extend their priviledges and tax breaks do not compete but exist in networks which perpetuate their positions at the expense of the individuals.
It is a useful fiction to portray markets as free in order to extend business opportunities around the world but the reality is a harsh mistress. The expansion of retail across the US which looks the same everywhere is not because of the existence of competition which results in commodification but because corporate production decrees standard models regardless of competition.
Anyway, never mind the bollocks, treat this book as toilet tissue. Throw it down the drain when you are finished.
The freer markets exist at local levels where product and service providers fight tooth and claw to grasp at local opportunities but where competition is fierce.
At a higher level, corporations, with their lawyers and their agents, actively promote laws and regulations which will safeguard and extend their priviledges and tax breaks do not compete but exist in networks which perpetuate their positions at the expense of the individuals.
It is a useful fiction to portray markets as free in order to extend business opportunities around the world but the reality is a harsh mistress. The expansion of retail across the US which looks the same everywhere is not because of the existence of competition which results in commodification but because corporate production decrees standard models regardless of competition.
Anyway, never mind the bollocks, treat this book as toilet tissue. Throw it down the drain when you are finished.
September 8, 2010
Disappointing. Rather than being a methodical analysis of how statist regimes use industrial enterprises for political ends, using examples as case studies--i.e. what the book advertises itself to be, it is instead little more than a series of anecdotes, written from the perspective of someone who refuses to rethink the legitimacy of neoliberal economic theory, even in light of what's happened in the West over the past two years.
I think a more fruitful approach to the study of this topic requires one to look at in depth treatments of the specific examples, i.e. Russia, China, the Middle Easterns petro-states, etc. To that end, I plan to read Marshall Goldman's Petrostate and Martin Jacques's When China Rules the World (though this book is concerned with much more than China's political economy). I also think that analyzing the political economy of these countries, as Bremmer does, through the prism of the conventional laissez faire/command-economy polarity is a rather glib approach.
I think a more fruitful approach to the study of this topic requires one to look at in depth treatments of the specific examples, i.e. Russia, China, the Middle Easterns petro-states, etc. To that end, I plan to read Marshall Goldman's Petrostate and Martin Jacques's When China Rules the World (though this book is concerned with much more than China's political economy). I also think that analyzing the political economy of these countries, as Bremmer does, through the prism of the conventional laissez faire/command-economy polarity is a rather glib approach.
July 30, 2011
The book is written with conclusions already in mind and the structure seems to have been created to state the already-formed conclusions.
To start with, state capitalism is more or less defined as something that starts with just beyond whatever the US government does and is expanded to include everyone the author does not like.
Biases are too ridiculous even when you want to agree with the conclusions. For example, market capitalism is branded as only good system because that's the only one that has worked while China-style state capitalism is not worth considering because it is bound to fail.
The book does not try to make any moral, ethical or economic argument for why state capitalism is inferior but mostly takes the view of how such state capitalism would be bad for US/Western nations. One of the biggest negative sited is that it would create rivals for the Western economies.
As valid as conclusions may be, the book's arguments are poorly researched, poorly constructed and without fundamental basis.
To start with, state capitalism is more or less defined as something that starts with just beyond whatever the US government does and is expanded to include everyone the author does not like.
Biases are too ridiculous even when you want to agree with the conclusions. For example, market capitalism is branded as only good system because that's the only one that has worked while China-style state capitalism is not worth considering because it is bound to fail.
The book does not try to make any moral, ethical or economic argument for why state capitalism is inferior but mostly takes the view of how such state capitalism would be bad for US/Western nations. One of the biggest negative sited is that it would create rivals for the Western economies.
As valid as conclusions may be, the book's arguments are poorly researched, poorly constructed and without fundamental basis.
December 24, 2010
I guess the real question is: have governments ever NOT been engaged in regulating/manipulating/fixing the markets? Bremmer postulates that for a variety of reasons, we have reached the end of the free market and state capitalism is increasingly emerging as the new global model (see: China, Saudi Araba, US bail-out of banks, etc.). Overall, Bremmer is right to some degree but the tensions will remain and pendulum will undoubtedly swing back and forth in the decades to come, I suspect. Overall, his book is more a survey of what some of the leading economic powers are doing (again, China, Saudi Araba with their oil businesses, etc.). For those who do not follow this for a leaving, it will be a bit of an eye-opener. For bankers, it's what we deal with daily. Could not find the earth-shaking passage in the book I expected but it was a worthy review.
February 12, 2022
Devoid of content. Chock-full of neoliberal buzzwords. I can’t believe someone wrote a book about challenges to free market capitalism by starting with (and not defending or even entertaining challenges to) the assumption that free market capitalism is the best system to promote economic growth.
I started the book with the question “Why might free market capitalism have been better for China’s economic growth from 1980-2010 than the model of state capitalism/socialism with Chinese characteristics that China actually used?” Absolutely no answer was provided. I don’t even know if the author had a question in mind when he wrote this book! He just wrote words.
The author’s dichotomy between free market capitalism and state capitalism doesn’t make sense. Rather than lumping so many very different “state capitalist” countries together, the book should have focused on China’s model of state capitalism and said little about other countries—then maybe the author could have gotten into particulars and actually said something.
I started the book with the question “Why might free market capitalism have been better for China’s economic growth from 1980-2010 than the model of state capitalism/socialism with Chinese characteristics that China actually used?” Absolutely no answer was provided. I don’t even know if the author had a question in mind when he wrote this book! He just wrote words.
The author’s dichotomy between free market capitalism and state capitalism doesn’t make sense. Rather than lumping so many very different “state capitalist” countries together, the book should have focused on China’s model of state capitalism and said little about other countries—then maybe the author could have gotten into particulars and actually said something.
September 11, 2018
Terlalu mudah ditebak. Saya tidak suka mengatakan bahwa Ian Bremmer adalah kapitalis buta atau semacamnya, tetapi argumen-argumen yang dia angkat sedikit kurang membuat saya kecewa karena hanya menekankan isu "state-capitalism" sebagai ancaman nyata dari pasar bebas. Menurut saya, musuh dari pasar bebas bukan hanya nation-state, melainkan juga isu lingkungan, ketimpangan, krisis, dan globalisasi yang kurang dapat dikontrol. Saya tentu tidak menyalahkan Ian Bremmer, karena memang sedari awal dia telah menekankan "Siapa yang menang antara negara dan perusahaan?" Tetapi apabila anda ingin argumen yang lebih logis tentang berakhirnya pasar bebas, menurut saya buku ini bukan pilihan yang tepat.
May 29, 2017
The book starts with a bold question in its title but then fails to answer it. It decently explains the various kinds of state capitalism and gives multiple examples of its inner workings in practice. This is then contrasted with the more laissez-faire approach of Western economies, but at no point does the author make any serious predictions or models. Overall the books serves well as an introduction to state capitalism, what it is, and how it works, but makes no attempt at describing the actual trends.
April 4, 2023
A high four. While the book is informative, and I can respect the perspective (which is the typical neoliberal markets are the best view), no mention at all of inequality is a bit too much. It is a dated book as it deals with state capitalism as of 2008/9, which is notable but swept by further events already.
January 3, 2019
An excellent book centered around an excellent question. Does state capitalism as practiced around the world threaten global free markets? And to what extent are do various countries practice state capitalism? Will state capitalism drive world powers into conflict?
June 4, 2020
Read this book again. After 10 years of its publication, the author has been pretty accurate on his predictions of a G-zero world, with no leadership. Great argument on the state of capitalism and the rise of the State Capitalism and its impact on the global economy.
March 13, 2022
The text is a mess. State Capitalism? As in Socialism? Capitalism means the private ownership of the meas of production: the exact opposite of whatever State.
And the End of Free Market? As in the Free Markets that ended over a century ago, at the end of the 19th century?
And the End of Free Market? As in the Free Markets that ended over a century ago, at the end of the 19th century?
August 2, 2017
I feel like I learned a lot about the implications of, and differences between 'free market capitalism' and 'state capitalism'.
August 14, 2018
A good little primer on what "State capitalism" is and how it impacts the globe. Recommended for people who are uninitiated in the subject. For everyone else this will be old news and lacking depth.
April 2, 2022
It needs a revision after the COVID and more than ten years after the recession.
February 6, 2024
Audiobook
Although it is clearly biased towards American liberalism, very insightful into understanding the bases of state capitalism. The main issue I have with the author’s perspective is how are these institutions used. Clearly a political and control perspective is not desirable, but if they are put to the use of improving the general population’s wellbeing, they can be a great contribution to societies.
Although it is clearly biased towards American liberalism, very insightful into understanding the bases of state capitalism. The main issue I have with the author’s perspective is how are these institutions used. Clearly a political and control perspective is not desirable, but if they are put to the use of improving the general population’s wellbeing, they can be a great contribution to societies.
May 2, 2023
Standard mainstream market fundamentalism
July 1, 2018
Although published years ago, this book is more relevant than ever.
Bremmer's 2009 Foreign Affairs article was the impetus for the book, and worth reading instead. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...
"State capitalism" as Bremmer describes it, is rapidly threatening the so-called "free market" system dominated by U.S. and other multinationals.
The oil and gas sector is a keystone example. THREE QUARTERS of the world's remaining reserves are held by state-owned enterprises (SoEs). (or did - fracking has probably changed that). Western multinationals control just 10% of global reserves. Companies like Exxon profit by providing advanced offshore drilling technologies to SoE's like Rosneft and PEMEX, and partnering with SABIC (Saudi Arabia Basic Industries Company) on "downstream" operations like petrochemicals and LNG.
These businesses are not driven by ideological goals, even if these entities answer to governments and not shareholders. They are often less productive or competitive. But with subsidies they pose a threat to their rivals. Their strategy may be more political than economic. China, for example, dispatches its national oil company to find sources and lock in long-term agreements. China can extend loans for projects designed for exporting. By injecting politics and high-level corruption into markets, Bremmer argues, these players make markets inefficient.
So they negotiate their cartel arrangements openly (e.g. OPEC) or not at all. OPEC was a pioneer in the emergence of state capitalism. Since the early 1970s oil crisis, Governments have expanded their control over domestic extraction industries, and built state-owned enterprises that moved into other sectors with more advanced knowledge, engineering -- including aviation, electronics, Russia's phone and weapons monopolies, China's telecomms, etc. Emerging market countries with heavy histories of state involvement in their economies -- not just ex-communist countries -- but also countries like Brazil and Turkey -- only partially embraced free market principles. The leaders of these industries were formerly government bureaucrats.
State capitalism dominate the economies of many countries. Not just China. Russia. Venezuela. Saudi Arabia and other UAEs. Iran. Brazil (to a lesser degree).
Sovereign Wealth Funds - SWFs - account for 1 in 8 dollars invested globally. The Emriates, China, Norway are among the largest.
There's likely some convergence between state capitalist economies and western capitalist economies. Statism and social democracy makes government intervention more palatable in Europe than the US, but if you look at the 2009 bailouts and the significant dependence that many U.S. companies have on government support, including contracts and subsidies (esp. Defense giants like Lockheed, but even high tech companies), the distinction between "public" and "private" entities is more blurry than most political pundits suggest. And while SoE's are definitely more bureaucratic and directly controlled by governments, elites from both have more in common with each other than they do with their fellow citizens. (look at Davos).
Protectionism and heavy tariffs didn't start with Trump. Many countries have policies that protect domestic countries from foreign takeover (France), or high tariffs on specific goods. (S. Korea - cars). The multilateral system is weaker because of these, but the argument that consumers are hurt is debatable.
Smoot-Hawley deepened and lengthened the depression. It's a lesson Trump critics say he should learn. Bremmer would probably agree.
Bremmer thinks the long-term prospect of state capitalism is limited, and that the litmus test with be Russia's ability to diversify (which Bremmer argues must come through free market reforms rather than state creation of other sector industries), and especially China (its ability to sustain its growing population). China's investment in other countries is the result. And the need to protect their investments in countries like the US will mean they have a stake in U.S. stability and growth.
Bremmer's 2009 Foreign Affairs article was the impetus for the book, and worth reading instead. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...
"State capitalism" as Bremmer describes it, is rapidly threatening the so-called "free market" system dominated by U.S. and other multinationals.
The oil and gas sector is a keystone example. THREE QUARTERS of the world's remaining reserves are held by state-owned enterprises (SoEs). (or did - fracking has probably changed that). Western multinationals control just 10% of global reserves. Companies like Exxon profit by providing advanced offshore drilling technologies to SoE's like Rosneft and PEMEX, and partnering with SABIC (Saudi Arabia Basic Industries Company) on "downstream" operations like petrochemicals and LNG.
These businesses are not driven by ideological goals, even if these entities answer to governments and not shareholders. They are often less productive or competitive. But with subsidies they pose a threat to their rivals. Their strategy may be more political than economic. China, for example, dispatches its national oil company to find sources and lock in long-term agreements. China can extend loans for projects designed for exporting. By injecting politics and high-level corruption into markets, Bremmer argues, these players make markets inefficient.
So they negotiate their cartel arrangements openly (e.g. OPEC) or not at all. OPEC was a pioneer in the emergence of state capitalism. Since the early 1970s oil crisis, Governments have expanded their control over domestic extraction industries, and built state-owned enterprises that moved into other sectors with more advanced knowledge, engineering -- including aviation, electronics, Russia's phone and weapons monopolies, China's telecomms, etc. Emerging market countries with heavy histories of state involvement in their economies -- not just ex-communist countries -- but also countries like Brazil and Turkey -- only partially embraced free market principles. The leaders of these industries were formerly government bureaucrats.
State capitalism dominate the economies of many countries. Not just China. Russia. Venezuela. Saudi Arabia and other UAEs. Iran. Brazil (to a lesser degree).
Sovereign Wealth Funds - SWFs - account for 1 in 8 dollars invested globally. The Emriates, China, Norway are among the largest.
There's likely some convergence between state capitalist economies and western capitalist economies. Statism and social democracy makes government intervention more palatable in Europe than the US, but if you look at the 2009 bailouts and the significant dependence that many U.S. companies have on government support, including contracts and subsidies (esp. Defense giants like Lockheed, but even high tech companies), the distinction between "public" and "private" entities is more blurry than most political pundits suggest. And while SoE's are definitely more bureaucratic and directly controlled by governments, elites from both have more in common with each other than they do with their fellow citizens. (look at Davos).
Protectionism and heavy tariffs didn't start with Trump. Many countries have policies that protect domestic countries from foreign takeover (France), or high tariffs on specific goods. (S. Korea - cars). The multilateral system is weaker because of these, but the argument that consumers are hurt is debatable.
Smoot-Hawley deepened and lengthened the depression. It's a lesson Trump critics say he should learn. Bremmer would probably agree.
Bremmer thinks the long-term prospect of state capitalism is limited, and that the litmus test with be Russia's ability to diversify (which Bremmer argues must come through free market reforms rather than state creation of other sector industries), and especially China (its ability to sustain its growing population). China's investment in other countries is the result. And the need to protect their investments in countries like the US will mean they have a stake in U.S. stability and growth.
December 27, 2018
Although published years ago, this book is more relevant than ever.
Bremmer's 2009 Foreign Affairs article was the impetus for the book, and worth reading instead. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...
"State capitalism" as Bremmer describes it, is rapidly threatening the so-called "free market" system dominated by U.S. and other multinationals.
The oil and gas sector is a keystone example. THREE QUARTERS of the world's remaining reserves are held by state-owned enterprises (SoEs). (or did - fracking has probably changed that). Western multinationals control just 10% of global reserves. Companies like Exxon profit by providing advanced offshore drilling technologies to SoE's like Rosneft and PEMEX, and partnering with SABIC (Saudi Arabia Basic Industries Company) on "downstream" operations like petrochemicals and LNG.
These businesses are not driven by ideological goals, even if these entities answer to governments and not shareholders. They are often less productive or competitive. But with subsidies they pose a threat to their rivals. Their strategy may be more political than economic. China, for example, dispatches its national oil company to find sources and lock in long-term agreements. China can extend loans for projects designed for exporting. By injecting politics and high-level corruption into markets, Bremmer argues, these players make markets inefficient.
So they negotiate their cartel arrangements openly (e.g. OPEC) or not at all. OPEC was a pioneer in the emergence of state capitalism. Since the early 1970s oil crisis, Governments have expanded their control over domestic extraction industries, and built state-owned enterprises that moved into other sectors with more advanced knowledge, engineering -- including aviation, electronics, Russia's phone and weapons monopolies, China's telecomms, etc. Emerging market countries with heavy histories of state involvement in their economies -- not just ex-communist countries -- but also countries like Brazil and Turkey -- only partially embraced free market principles. The leaders of these industries were formerly government bureaucrats.
State capitalism dominate the economies of many countries. Not just China. Russia. Venezuela. Saudi Arabia and other UAEs. Iran. Brazil (to a lesser degree).
Sovereign Wealth Funds - SWFs - account for 1 in 8 dollars invested globally. The Emriates, China, Norway are among the largest.
There's likely some convergence between state capitalist economies and western capitalist economies. Statism and social democracy makes government intervention more palatable in Europe than the US, but if you look at the 2009 bailouts and the significant dependence that many U.S. companies have on government support, including contracts and subsidies (esp. Defense giants like Lockheed, but even high tech companies), the distinction between "public" and "private" entities is more blurry than most political pundits suggest. And while SoE's are definitely more bureaucratic and directly controlled by governments, elites from both have more in common with each other than they do with their fellow citizens. (look at Davos).
Protectionism and heavy tariffs didn't start with Trump. Many countries have policies that protect domestic countries from foreign takeover (France), or high tariffs on specific goods. (S. Korea - cars). The multilateral system is weaker because of these, but the argument that consumers are hurt is debatable.
Smoot-Hawley deepened and lengthened the depression. It's a lesson Trump critics say he should learn. Bremmer would probably agree.
Bremmer thinks the long-term prospect of state capitalism is limited, and that the litmus test with be Russia's ability to diversify (which Bremmer argues must come through free market reforms rather than state creation of other sector industries), and especially China (its ability to sustain its growing population). China's investment in other countries is the result. And the need to protect their investments in countries like the US will mean they have a stake in U.S. stability and growth.
Bremmer's 2009 Foreign Affairs article was the impetus for the book, and worth reading instead. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...
"State capitalism" as Bremmer describes it, is rapidly threatening the so-called "free market" system dominated by U.S. and other multinationals.
The oil and gas sector is a keystone example. THREE QUARTERS of the world's remaining reserves are held by state-owned enterprises (SoEs). (or did - fracking has probably changed that). Western multinationals control just 10% of global reserves. Companies like Exxon profit by providing advanced offshore drilling technologies to SoE's like Rosneft and PEMEX, and partnering with SABIC (Saudi Arabia Basic Industries Company) on "downstream" operations like petrochemicals and LNG.
These businesses are not driven by ideological goals, even if these entities answer to governments and not shareholders. They are often less productive or competitive. But with subsidies they pose a threat to their rivals. Their strategy may be more political than economic. China, for example, dispatches its national oil company to find sources and lock in long-term agreements. China can extend loans for projects designed for exporting. By injecting politics and high-level corruption into markets, Bremmer argues, these players make markets inefficient.
So they negotiate their cartel arrangements openly (e.g. OPEC) or not at all. OPEC was a pioneer in the emergence of state capitalism. Since the early 1970s oil crisis, Governments have expanded their control over domestic extraction industries, and built state-owned enterprises that moved into other sectors with more advanced knowledge, engineering -- including aviation, electronics, Russia's phone and weapons monopolies, China's telecomms, etc. Emerging market countries with heavy histories of state involvement in their economies -- not just ex-communist countries -- but also countries like Brazil and Turkey -- only partially embraced free market principles. The leaders of these industries were formerly government bureaucrats.
State capitalism dominate the economies of many countries. Not just China. Russia. Venezuela. Saudi Arabia and other UAEs. Iran. Brazil (to a lesser degree).
Sovereign Wealth Funds - SWFs - account for 1 in 8 dollars invested globally. The Emriates, China, Norway are among the largest.
There's likely some convergence between state capitalist economies and western capitalist economies. Statism and social democracy makes government intervention more palatable in Europe than the US, but if you look at the 2009 bailouts and the significant dependence that many U.S. companies have on government support, including contracts and subsidies (esp. Defense giants like Lockheed, but even high tech companies), the distinction between "public" and "private" entities is more blurry than most political pundits suggest. And while SoE's are definitely more bureaucratic and directly controlled by governments, elites from both have more in common with each other than they do with their fellow citizens. (look at Davos).
Protectionism and heavy tariffs didn't start with Trump. Many countries have policies that protect domestic countries from foreign takeover (France), or high tariffs on specific goods. (S. Korea - cars). The multilateral system is weaker because of these, but the argument that consumers are hurt is debatable.
Smoot-Hawley deepened and lengthened the depression. It's a lesson Trump critics say he should learn. Bremmer would probably agree.
Bremmer thinks the long-term prospect of state capitalism is limited, and that the litmus test with be Russia's ability to diversify (which Bremmer argues must come through free market reforms rather than state creation of other sector industries), and especially China (its ability to sustain its growing population). China's investment in other countries is the result. And the need to protect their investments in countries like the US will mean they have a stake in U.S. stability and growth.
Read
January 7, 2025Read this book again in consideration of the selectorate theory relationship between public taxation/debt and the form of government. Autocratic (state capitalist) states should rely less on taxation for revenue and instead use state ownership of industries, natural resource rents, and sovereign wealth funds to ensure elite loyalty and minimum public support whereas democratic (actually liberal) states rely more on taxation and public debt and accordingly spend more on public as opposed to private goods. But we may also understand free market vs state capitalism as fiscal independence or dependence of elites.
State capitalism began as a pejorative for state socialism on the left but here refers to an authoritarian version of capitalism that uses state ownership and control of the economy for political ends, however according to selectorate theory democracies are also subject to political considerations but loyalty is more distributed while elites are more independent of rulers who rely on their fiscal support. These two factors, public support and elite independence, are not mutually inclusive and belong respectively to democracy and liberalism. State capitalist mechanisms allow the benefits of capitalist management and markets but subordinate to political interests. The free market model evolved from the European feudal system of weak central governments and strong private ownership in the hands of lords whom the government had to gain the financial support of until the rise of cities. State capitalist autocracy occur when the central state is able to finance itself independently and make elites dependent or subordinate to the state. It seems this is why absolutism did not ultimately succeed in western Europe but gained a foothold as mercantilism/protectionism which are directly born by foreign competitors.
There are some major obstacles for neoliberals most fundamentally the decline of US hegemony and rise of non-western powers and the continual dependence on extractive industries held by authoritarian governments who coordinate prices as OPEC+ and export industries in general. So long as these factors continue state capitalism will continue as a viable model and they have since the book was published. But also problematic for the neoliberal model is that free trade and mass migration are generally unpopular with wide swathes of the population such as organized labor and the non college educated even if gdp goes up it is distributed unevenly according to demography and geography. Foreign intervention also becomes widely unpopular without immediate success or a clear goal and it is easier for democratic leaders to buy off autocratic states. This has led to greater need for informational control under a ‘managed democracy.’ The fiscal problems of governments due to aging populations and wealth inequality lead to calls for greater redistribution and regulation of industry, but the general unpopularity of taxation could lead to creative means of redistribution. Norway and US states Alaska and Texas have sovereign wealth funds from natural resource revenues which are used to fund public pensions, universities, or cash transfers respectively and North Dakota has a state bank so the mechanisms of state capitalism exist in democracies even if not the dominant mode of industry in liberal democracy.
We can imagine two additional varieties of political-economy besides statist-autocracy and liberal-democracy: statist-populist and liberal autocracy. The former are exemplified by Bolivarian states in Latin America that engage in heavy public redistribution with state ownership and have populist politics while the latter exemplified by Caudillo type regimes like Pinochet’s Chile and arguably a milder form in Bukele’s El Salvador and Millei’s Argentina who use strong executives to crack down on crime and implement market reforms. This is akin to the left/right and libertarian/authoritarian quadrants on the political compass.
State capitalism began as a pejorative for state socialism on the left but here refers to an authoritarian version of capitalism that uses state ownership and control of the economy for political ends, however according to selectorate theory democracies are also subject to political considerations but loyalty is more distributed while elites are more independent of rulers who rely on their fiscal support. These two factors, public support and elite independence, are not mutually inclusive and belong respectively to democracy and liberalism. State capitalist mechanisms allow the benefits of capitalist management and markets but subordinate to political interests. The free market model evolved from the European feudal system of weak central governments and strong private ownership in the hands of lords whom the government had to gain the financial support of until the rise of cities. State capitalist autocracy occur when the central state is able to finance itself independently and make elites dependent or subordinate to the state. It seems this is why absolutism did not ultimately succeed in western Europe but gained a foothold as mercantilism/protectionism which are directly born by foreign competitors.
There are some major obstacles for neoliberals most fundamentally the decline of US hegemony and rise of non-western powers and the continual dependence on extractive industries held by authoritarian governments who coordinate prices as OPEC+ and export industries in general. So long as these factors continue state capitalism will continue as a viable model and they have since the book was published. But also problematic for the neoliberal model is that free trade and mass migration are generally unpopular with wide swathes of the population such as organized labor and the non college educated even if gdp goes up it is distributed unevenly according to demography and geography. Foreign intervention also becomes widely unpopular without immediate success or a clear goal and it is easier for democratic leaders to buy off autocratic states. This has led to greater need for informational control under a ‘managed democracy.’ The fiscal problems of governments due to aging populations and wealth inequality lead to calls for greater redistribution and regulation of industry, but the general unpopularity of taxation could lead to creative means of redistribution. Norway and US states Alaska and Texas have sovereign wealth funds from natural resource revenues which are used to fund public pensions, universities, or cash transfers respectively and North Dakota has a state bank so the mechanisms of state capitalism exist in democracies even if not the dominant mode of industry in liberal democracy.
We can imagine two additional varieties of political-economy besides statist-autocracy and liberal-democracy: statist-populist and liberal autocracy. The former are exemplified by Bolivarian states in Latin America that engage in heavy public redistribution with state ownership and have populist politics while the latter exemplified by Caudillo type regimes like Pinochet’s Chile and arguably a milder form in Bukele’s El Salvador and Millei’s Argentina who use strong executives to crack down on crime and implement market reforms. This is akin to the left/right and libertarian/authoritarian quadrants on the political compass.
October 1, 2010
It has been an interesting month of reading. After Bill McKibben's "Eaarth" about overheated consumption's impact on the planet and Daniel Quinn's "Ishmael" speaking on the toll modern day "Taker" culture has on society, and a viewing of Michael Moore's "Capitalism: A Love Story", I thought a book on the free market may provide some balance.
"The End of the Free Market" is actually a fascinating book. I enjoy learning areas that I have little or no knowledge of. Economics is certainly one of those areas. This book is specific to the influence state owned corporations have on the free market.
The balancing actions that autocratic governments must employ using nationalized corporations and industries to protect political power at the state level is a huge responsibility. It requires providing for the people so they are content while keeping them productive and in check. When state corporations are competing in the global market the entire economy is on the state's shoulders when markets tank.
We have entered a state of mutually assured economic destruction. The global economy is intertwined so that when China manipulates the value of their currency it effects the value their investment in US debt.
I really did enjoy this book. I don't have the knowledge to argue economics. In my gut, I'm a bit more protectionist than Bremmer. Of course, I'm mostly speaking of my role as a consumer. I like to circulate my money in the local community by spending with businesses that support local producers. I know that is impossible, but I do what I can to avoid multinational corporations.
Ian Bremmer is thoughtful and thought provoking and has an incredible grasp on his subject. He kept the reins rigid on the topic and raised a lot of points that I would like to hear him expound on. In this book he talked about how state officials are placed in executive positions in state run or state favored "national champion" corporations to help manipulate markets as needed for the political power of the state autocracy. I would like to hear Bremmer's take on the other end of the spectrum, the revolving door in America where corporate executives buy position or set up shop in the US government to change laws and reduce regulations in order to manipulate competitive advantage in the market place. How about a chapter on the Supreme Court.
I would also like to read his ideas for a green economy, free market style.
I do believe I'll be looking into more books by Bremmer.
"The End of the Free Market" is actually a fascinating book. I enjoy learning areas that I have little or no knowledge of. Economics is certainly one of those areas. This book is specific to the influence state owned corporations have on the free market.
The balancing actions that autocratic governments must employ using nationalized corporations and industries to protect political power at the state level is a huge responsibility. It requires providing for the people so they are content while keeping them productive and in check. When state corporations are competing in the global market the entire economy is on the state's shoulders when markets tank.
We have entered a state of mutually assured economic destruction. The global economy is intertwined so that when China manipulates the value of their currency it effects the value their investment in US debt.
I really did enjoy this book. I don't have the knowledge to argue economics. In my gut, I'm a bit more protectionist than Bremmer. Of course, I'm mostly speaking of my role as a consumer. I like to circulate my money in the local community by spending with businesses that support local producers. I know that is impossible, but I do what I can to avoid multinational corporations.
Ian Bremmer is thoughtful and thought provoking and has an incredible grasp on his subject. He kept the reins rigid on the topic and raised a lot of points that I would like to hear him expound on. In this book he talked about how state officials are placed in executive positions in state run or state favored "national champion" corporations to help manipulate markets as needed for the political power of the state autocracy. I would like to hear Bremmer's take on the other end of the spectrum, the revolving door in America where corporate executives buy position or set up shop in the US government to change laws and reduce regulations in order to manipulate competitive advantage in the market place. How about a chapter on the Supreme Court.
I would also like to read his ideas for a green economy, free market style.
I do believe I'll be looking into more books by Bremmer.
April 18, 2014
This is an incredibly dumb book and it’s very boring. It lacks clarity and decent research to back up it’s point, whatever it is. For example, the author implies that the Smoot-Hawley Act was responsible for the depth of the Great Depression, yet all academic studies show that the act had little impact on the severity of the Great depression. On top of that, Bremmer argues that modern nations don’t attack each other much, but “In 2010, the US troops are still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they’re struggling to overcome militants and insurgents, not foreign military powers.”
How brain dead can one get? The United States was not invited by the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan to help them against militants and insurgents. Apparently, Ian Bremmer doesn’t know the United States invaded and occupied those nations. That’s how profoundly stupid this book is.
The central argument of the book is that Wall Street is good, although he doesn’t say for what, and that free trade is good, although he doesn’t say for what. All Wall Street needs is more regulation. As if Wall Street would want that.
An accompanying argument is that foreign governments own corporations that compete with private US corporations. And they do this for political purposes. Duh! But the author’s ignorance is so enormous that he cannot comprehend that US corporations own the US government, lock, stock and barrel. For example, agents of the Monsanto corporation wrote the recently passed Monsanto Protection Act that congress passed and President Obama signed. Wall Street investment banks don’t want more regulation, and so the government of which they are the primary shareholders via their investments in politicians, such as Wall Street Senator Ron Wyden, isn’t going to regulate them.
Bremmer is woefully ignorant on too many levels to be taken seriously. He doesn’t comprehend how free trade treaties, for example, redistribute income from the 99 to the 1 percent and wreck the economy in the process. According the Federal Reserve, over 27 million US jobs have been off shored since Nafta. The difference between the old higher wages and the new lower wages gets redistributed into the pockets of the rich via higher corporate earnings, rising share prices and more dividends.
This book doesn’t even deserve one star because it reads like an apology and justification for Wall Street and the many crimes committed by its CEO’s, lawyers, traders and others.
It’s pure pointless propaganda with a weak central argument.
How brain dead can one get? The United States was not invited by the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan to help them against militants and insurgents. Apparently, Ian Bremmer doesn’t know the United States invaded and occupied those nations. That’s how profoundly stupid this book is.
The central argument of the book is that Wall Street is good, although he doesn’t say for what, and that free trade is good, although he doesn’t say for what. All Wall Street needs is more regulation. As if Wall Street would want that.
An accompanying argument is that foreign governments own corporations that compete with private US corporations. And they do this for political purposes. Duh! But the author’s ignorance is so enormous that he cannot comprehend that US corporations own the US government, lock, stock and barrel. For example, agents of the Monsanto corporation wrote the recently passed Monsanto Protection Act that congress passed and President Obama signed. Wall Street investment banks don’t want more regulation, and so the government of which they are the primary shareholders via their investments in politicians, such as Wall Street Senator Ron Wyden, isn’t going to regulate them.
Bremmer is woefully ignorant on too many levels to be taken seriously. He doesn’t comprehend how free trade treaties, for example, redistribute income from the 99 to the 1 percent and wreck the economy in the process. According the Federal Reserve, over 27 million US jobs have been off shored since Nafta. The difference between the old higher wages and the new lower wages gets redistributed into the pockets of the rich via higher corporate earnings, rising share prices and more dividends.
This book doesn’t even deserve one star because it reads like an apology and justification for Wall Street and the many crimes committed by its CEO’s, lawyers, traders and others.
It’s pure pointless propaganda with a weak central argument.
August 1, 2015
It seems that a tsunami of business books have swept across the media radar in the aftermath of the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Some offer entertaining, informative or outraged calls-to-arms, such as the books by Michael Lewis, who clearly has set the bar high when it comes to writing popular non-fiction about High Finance. Other authors, such as Prof. Nouriel Roubini, seem to have used the Collapse of Lehman Brothers as an opportunity to trot out recycled lectures from Economics 020 on vicious cycles in business. This entry by Ian Bremmer takes a rather intriguing premise that fails to boost the reader's interest to "escape velocity."
The premise is intriguing. The author is present at a meeting with high-level Chinese officials. One of them asks a rhetorical question: How do you feel now that capitalism has been proven a failure? From here, Bremmer focuses on the sovereign wealth fund, which is largely a pool of investment capital with ties to a given government, that can exert great influence over entire industries.
Bremner is doing us a service here; he is making up for woefully negligent reporting on behalf of TV journalists who barely bothered to explain in detail what made sovereign hedge funds so powerful. For helping us to visualize the size and influence of these financial behemoths, he deserves our thanks.
The initial chapters are promising, but it is not developed; there is no narrative and very little investigation. The narrator does not tell us much that we couldn't get from a series of surveys in The Economist. He divides the world into regions and recites statistics about how important their sovereign wealth funds are -- but there are no anecdotes, no characterizations that stick in the mind, and no real evidence that Bremmer even left his apartment. The result is a repetitive read that fails to show how sovereign wealth funds affect (presumably in a negative way) the lives of individuals in the peasant and working classes around the world who are without influence. One feels, when reading this book, like one is memorizing information for a university economics test, and that makes for a dull book, even if the information is reliable.
The premise is intriguing. The author is present at a meeting with high-level Chinese officials. One of them asks a rhetorical question: How do you feel now that capitalism has been proven a failure? From here, Bremmer focuses on the sovereign wealth fund, which is largely a pool of investment capital with ties to a given government, that can exert great influence over entire industries.
Bremner is doing us a service here; he is making up for woefully negligent reporting on behalf of TV journalists who barely bothered to explain in detail what made sovereign hedge funds so powerful. For helping us to visualize the size and influence of these financial behemoths, he deserves our thanks.
The initial chapters are promising, but it is not developed; there is no narrative and very little investigation. The narrator does not tell us much that we couldn't get from a series of surveys in The Economist. He divides the world into regions and recites statistics about how important their sovereign wealth funds are -- but there are no anecdotes, no characterizations that stick in the mind, and no real evidence that Bremmer even left his apartment. The result is a repetitive read that fails to show how sovereign wealth funds affect (presumably in a negative way) the lives of individuals in the peasant and working classes around the world who are without influence. One feels, when reading this book, like one is memorizing information for a university economics test, and that makes for a dull book, even if the information is reliable.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Read
September 30, 2016I gave this book the 3.5 stars, because although it's well researched and makes some interesting points, there are number of places in which the argument is more of a stretched and awkward in the definitions used. This appears to be an attempt to support "free markets", but quickly changes to a book that compares free markets (Western version) to State run capitalism (Emerging dictatorship economies) with comparisons drawn in a bit of a static sense. As a result, the book really misses the historical perspective that could flesh out the point that is trying to be made.
The book does describe the manner in which Saudi Arabia and China have used a hybrid form of capitalism to weird certain political power throughout the world. It then discusses how these countries have a morality that is contrary to the US and would therefore be a bit of a threat to the march of moral progress in the world. It does so with a bit less harsh language; but at the same time, it really doesn't do a good job explaining why the hegemony of another country would be worse than the historical results that the US has created among the nations of its imperial sphere.
Second, doesn't quite appear to appreciate the manner in which exchanges between nation change and adjust the manner in which each nation sees the other. Completely missing are theories of how human rights and environmental concerns generally occur at different stages of development and the massive amounts of evidence that exist in a variety of developing nations as fairly positive proof that this will be the future. Instead, there are examples of the negatives in the stretch of upcoming emerging nations.
The book does describe the manner in which Saudi Arabia and China have used a hybrid form of capitalism to weird certain political power throughout the world. It then discusses how these countries have a morality that is contrary to the US and would therefore be a bit of a threat to the march of moral progress in the world. It does so with a bit less harsh language; but at the same time, it really doesn't do a good job explaining why the hegemony of another country would be worse than the historical results that the US has created among the nations of its imperial sphere.
Second, doesn't quite appear to appreciate the manner in which exchanges between nation change and adjust the manner in which each nation sees the other. Completely missing are theories of how human rights and environmental concerns generally occur at different stages of development and the massive amounts of evidence that exist in a variety of developing nations as fairly positive proof that this will be the future. Instead, there are examples of the negatives in the stretch of upcoming emerging nations.
March 31, 2016
A warning to the rights of individual that state-capitalism threatens free market economics. State run companies, or companies that the government has a majority stake in, has special privileges that impede efficient use of resources. Reduction of competition and little feedback from public scrutiny. The resources governments obtain via state run companies usually have an incentive to be maleficent as the politician's way of getting more power. State owned companies are often provided with more privileges than other companies with additional barrier to potential competitors. There are many tools that a government operating state-capitalism has, the tools can be sovereign wealth funds and control of industries, the tool can be used for proper or inefficient use. The book is not difficult to read and stress on different property rights allocation is appropriate. Only a short analysis is done about various nations. An issue with the book is that the examples provided are usually discussing the energy sector. The biggest logical fallacy is to suppose that anything the U.S. starts to lack or becomes threatened, whether competitive edge, reserve currency, or relative military power, that it is bad for the world. Free market economics works because it creates the best allocation of resources, it does not matter if it is the U.S. or China or Russia that would hold the competitive edge over a particular resource.
January 15, 2011
ISBN-10: 1591843014
He does a good job of listing the issues with “State Capitalism” mostly using China, India, Venezuela, and Brasil as examples. The flaw of which is picking winners to support political power. Ultimately, this works early in the cycle..while the economy’s growing and there’s enough benefits to buy off opposition. BUT, as the system matures corruption/inefficiency shows, and you wake up one day to find the people in charge are not willing to do the things required to realign the economy.
Bottom Line: State Capitalist will always choose whatever path leaves them on top. Faced with the choice of growing the total pie and taking a smaller percentage, or remaining in charge of a smaller pie… they will always choose the smaller pie with control.
What he doesn’t answer is… how do high wage, regulation, and rule-of-law countries trade/interface with ones that don’t believe in the same ethics? He answers by saying the West should open it’s borders, but that’s not an answer…. Then again he’s a consultant that gets paid shipping jobs away.
He does a good job of listing the issues with “State Capitalism” mostly using China, India, Venezuela, and Brasil as examples. The flaw of which is picking winners to support political power. Ultimately, this works early in the cycle..while the economy’s growing and there’s enough benefits to buy off opposition. BUT, as the system matures corruption/inefficiency shows, and you wake up one day to find the people in charge are not willing to do the things required to realign the economy.
Bottom Line: State Capitalist will always choose whatever path leaves them on top. Faced with the choice of growing the total pie and taking a smaller percentage, or remaining in charge of a smaller pie… they will always choose the smaller pie with control.
What he doesn’t answer is… how do high wage, regulation, and rule-of-law countries trade/interface with ones that don’t believe in the same ethics? He answers by saying the West should open it’s borders, but that’s not an answer…. Then again he’s a consultant that gets paid shipping jobs away.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 59 reviews