Discussion about this post

User's avatar
elm's avatar

"After all, the really existing socialist economies were, to a kremlin, authoritarian: they, theoretically, at least, had no difficulty in suppressing consumption to promote investment. And the world as of 1990 was still a very capital-scarce one, with a high marginal return on investment.—at least in potential."

I would like to note here that the US has been in a universe of high-capital availability and a decade+ of reduced consumption (aggregate demand falling short) and that this has NOT resulted in massive economic growth in the United States. If the schema (lots of investment, drastically reduced demand) doesn't work well in a capitalist economy, why in God's name would it work in a economy with nothing but state-controlled companies?

elm

efficiency paradox

Expand full comment
gregory byshenk's avatar

Rana Faroohar's piece from the FT is paywalled, so I can't see the argument. But I do wonder what the US is "reacting" to in this view, and if that (whatever it is) is not itself a reaction to the actions of the US over the last several years (such as the previous blocking of advanced tech sales to China).

Expand full comment
13 more comments...

No posts