whythawk ratings: measuring effective development

NOTE: To use the advanced features of this site you need javascript turned on.

home arrow aloft: the whythawk blog
About Module

Did you know that emerging markets are lucrative investments?

 

Ask Whythawk.

Announce Module
Learn more Introduction to Unlocking the Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid
Report a comment

Thank you for taking the time to report the following comment to the administrator of this site.
Please complete this short form and click the submit button to process your report.

Name
 
E-mail
 
Reason for reporting comment
 
 
 

Comment in question

...

By: Gavin Chait on 12 July 2007

Walton, it's been a while. Here's a definition for you from dictionary.com: capitalism is "an economic system based on private ownership of capital". None of this "the concentration of economic power in the hands of the few" doodoo that you bang on about. 
 
There is a great new book you'd do yourself a favour to read. "Good capitalism, bad capitalism" by William Baumol, et al (Yale University). They identify four types of capitalism: 
 
1) State-guided - government "guides" the market; so France and Germany with their state "champions" 
2) Oligarchic - where the bulk of the power and wealth is held by a small number of individuals and families; Russia 
3) Big-firm - most of the economy exists in a few large corporations; South Africa 
4) Entrepreneurial - most of the economy is controlled by small firms; er, no-one actually, maybe the UK 
 
Countries have some blend of two. Russian moving from oligarchic to state-led. The US moving from entrepreneurial to big-firm. Oligarchic tends to be the worst performer and possibly the one you don't like. It really does act to concentrate wealth in the hands of the few. 
 
To keep it brief, the best performer is a balanced big-firm/entrepreneurial economy. It allows for easy market access for new firms and new ideas, as well as rapidly removing dead-wood large firms cluttering up the place. 
 
The reason the US has done so well and dominates the world economy is because they're in this category (although, the writers suggest that they do themselves no favours by moving towards an unbalanced big-firm economy). China is using a mix of State-guided and entrepreneurial and is rapidly catching up. 
 
If anti-capitalists want to be part of the conversation on the shape of future markets then they need to learn the language. Tramping through 1960s world-communist jargon is equivalent to discussing genetics from the point of view of Lamarck's theory of acquired inheritance. Mostly it's just an oddity.

 

» Report this comment to administrator

» Reply to this comment...

»  Go back to the article