←back to thread

Italy Joins China's New Silk Road Project

(www.bbc.com)
132 points pseudolus | 2 comments | 23 Mar 19 13:13 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
vicpara ◴[23 Mar 19 15:24 UTC] No.19470826[source]▶
Centralised planning will beat democratised decision making if they indeed manage to respond in time to a changing environment. The advancements in tech and communication allows you today to be more effective than ever. Think about global corporations with offices around the world. They are effectively operating under a centralised model and they do it very well.

What China learnt in the past 4 decades was how to manage the beast, not behead the messenger and have an effective planning anchored in true market signals.

Another point worth mentioning is that the Four Tigers are working with a planning and investment horizon of 30-50 years. Since they don't have to justify every four years about what they've been up to, they can be more effective in chasing bigger investments that have a longer-term ROI such as research, education, strategic industrial branches.

Now how do you compete with that?

replies(8): >>19470853 #>>19470869 #>>19470871 #>>19470872 #>>19470879 #>>19470900 #>>19470933 #>>19470947 #
1. thetechlead ◴[23 Mar 19 15:57 UTC] No.19470947[source]▶
Some people still think China's economy is a centralized one. No it's not. It's a mix of state owned and private - the former really good at long-term planning for national strategic goals, maintaining economic stability and building infrastructures with no short term returns, AND vibrating private sectors that drive innovation and employment. How they keep the balance of the two is mythical to many. However the Chinese came to this mixed system not by design, but with some luck. It needs to be studied and whether it can be replicated elsewhere remains a question.
replies(1): >>19473871 #
2. chessturk ◴[24 Mar 19 02:47 UTC] No.19473871[source]▶
My understanding is that the Chinese economy is an "artificial" Free Market economy to bridge the gap between Maoism and here-to unforseen Communist Utopia. Hegelian/classical Marxist thinking requires a society to pass through a capitalist phase in order to industrialize to the point that the populace begins demanding socialist concessions.

It was my understanding that the Post-Mao creation of free-market-like conditions in China was an admission by Communist leadership that the Hegelian model of history could not be short circuited (as Lenin and Mao attempted), and capitalist style economics was required to industrialize, but that the capitalist economics was a temporary solution.

I could be mistaken though, and I'm curious why you thought they arrived there by luck.