Re: government, markets, and material well-being

["Henry C.K. Liu" <hliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Allan, by now it is not surprising though still aggravating that you and I always
draw the opposite conclusion on any given data.

The local Chinese authorities behaved in a certain manner because of market
financial pressure.  The French went through the same scandal with tinted blood as
you may recall.

Also, comparing the Deng era and the Mao era, you cannot ignore US total embargo on
China which cause most of the hardship you cited.  I had a running debate with Brad
Delong on the great leap forward controversy on another list.  There is certainly
more poverty in China today, as the term is used in Western macroeconomics, than
there was under Mao.  The false prosperity in China today so admired by neo-liberals
are all in the form of speculative real estate and imported cars while the
population is deprived of free health care, education, retirement pension and
housing, including heat and electricity.  All those expenditures went to high rise
office and apartment buildings in Shanghai, not to mention corruption and legalized
robbing of the poor.  Two of the richest man in china celebrated by Forbes has been
indicted for corruption and fraud.  The Chairman and CEO of the Bank of China was
also indicted for economic crimes.  Under Mao, no such corruption existed and Bare
Foot Doctors were the most admired health delivery system is the world.  Bare Foot
Doctors are gone in China and people are forced to commit fraud and corruption to
pay for medical expenses of their aging parents.

There is one topic that I am unequivocally more authoritatively informed than you:
China.

Henry

Alan G Isaac wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 11:54:16 -0400 "Henry C.K. Liu" <hliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > That is what you get with a market economy.  If blood is
> > not bought and sold like a commodity, aids in China would
> > be uncontrol.  Also, if the Chinese government were to
> > free itself from US neo-liberals, the Chinese people would
> > be better off.
>
> Henry,
>
> That is precisely a conclusion that cannot be drawn of
> course, if one bothers to read the article.  From the
> article one learns about government involvement in the blood
> collection stations, false government claims about the
> safety of blood collection, and government efforts to seal
> off the flow of information that is crucial to dealing with
> the epidemic now that it exists.
>
> Only the naive and the disingenuous emphasize market failure
> and fail to discuss government failure.
>
> As for the general question about the desirability of the
> commodification of blood collection---which is quite
> separate from issues of reliance on markets, although you
> seem to wish to conflate them---I have not taken that up.
> If you really want to think about it consider Richard
> Titmuss's famous study.  I actually believe you will find
> it congenial.
>
> Finally, as for the role of neoliberalism in China, you have
> your own strange story but most analysts accept that the
> death of Mao and the market oriented reforms of Deng
> Xiaoping brought great blessings for the Chinese people.
> Of course these benefits have not been spread evenly, but
> can we please remember that 10%/year growth causes doubling
> every seven years!
>
> Alan