Is state funded capitalism better than free market capitalism?

All in all, no. Why was Google founded in the United States and not in China?

@mattbrowne
We all know scenarios are summed up by one hand picked event by you not even linked to state funded capitalism.

There is no such thing as free market capatilism. The state sets the value of the money, makes the trade rules, enforces trade laws, and provides the infrastructure. In fact, without the state overseeing the market you have anarchy. When the market sets the rules, it becomes free wheeling, totally despotic, and highly corrupt as seen in the latest market cause depression.

Whenever you hear a politician talking about supporting the “free market” you should avoid him at all costs because he is either highly deluded or, more likely, working for the enemies of democracy.

By the way, China is doing a much better job of protecting their market and their citizens than the U.S. Ultimately, they are likely to end up more democratic than the U.S.

In what way is China’s capitalism state funded? I was under the impression that people started up businesses there on their own in the same way as Western democracies. The difference is that China is ruled by an oligarchy that can intervene in the market more quickly than democracies can. It will be interesting to see how the Chinese model plays out. The danger in their model is that a small number of people can make an incorrect decision that would be difficult to recover from.

@LostInParadise China’s capitalism is funded in much the same way ours was. The state sets the rules, regulates corporations, sets tariffs, regulates imports and exports, builds infrastructure.

I do a lot of business all over the world. The only place I saw the effects of “free trade” is in the U.S. unrestricted imports. Our exports are still closely regulated and tarriffed by our partners, even Canada. If you don’t believe me try going through the border and tell them you have trade goods and are going to do a little work up there.

China is more lenient when we go there on a project but every trip has to be pre-approved. Import repair parts still have difficulty going through customs.

Singapore has no problem with this, mostly because they are a corporatocracy already. They import labor on a strict contract basis and labor is sent back when the contract expires.

Brazil has a strict Brazilian content rule. Sometimes it is easier to build the equipment, to our specifications, in Brazil rather than attempt to import it.

Absolutely free trade is a complete friction and leads to corporations dictating their ideas of democracy to us. The WTO is a good example of corporation take over of governments and making them a slave to corporations regardless of the suffering of the people.

@quilm I believe you will find that @Ron_C is right about how China’s growing capitalism is funded. State ownership of the means of production is defined as socialism and is also common to the Chinese system of communism. China is transitioning from communism to capitalism because they find that state planning is poor at predicting market demand, whereas market economy is good at that. Also, when the state owns all enterprise there is no incentive for individual workers to innovate. Change is often seen by the state as a bother, and is punished. Workers soon reason that effort is unrewarded. Lazy sandbaggers are paid just as highly as the most industrious. Soon, everyone decides to let the other guy do it.

It seems the best system is capitalism with reasonable regulation to prevent unsafe practices, harm to the greater good, and monopoly; and with well conceived social programs to build a safety net under society.. Pure free-market laissez-faire capitalism is plagued by those three evils; and with the “I’ve got mine, screw you.” philosophy of King of the Mountain gamesmanship.

http://www.suntimes.com/business/savage/2464546,CST-NWS-savage05.savagearticle
This made me laugh.

they are synonymous, in countries such as America, as has already been mentioned, the State creates an infrastructure that is predominately market oriented with minimal emphasis on social services.

I don’t know, but whenever the word ‘state’ and ‘capitalism’ are used together, its usually a failing oxymoron.

@Maximillian: not at all. In most places, the state is usually as active as a player in the marketplace as any “private” agent.

Actually, the term mostly abused is socialism to refer to subsidizing.

I agree. Usually though the state oversteps its persona a ‘private’ agent, using its public agency to enhance it private agency.