Comments by Konker

I don't think it makes sense for America to bring back high volume low value manufacturing......BUT this has been America's advantage since Ford invented the production line. That is what America has owned in the past.

Remember that America will struggle to elevate the quality and value of its manufacturing to compete with the Northern Europeans e.g. Germany and North East Asians such as Japan because a liberal de-regulated and very flexible labor market is inherently less skilled than one in which the state subsidises companies to invest in training (where the free market under-invests) and supports companies to retain staff during downturns, so encouraging companies to invest in their employees.

It is a difficult problem. Being outcompeted by China in low-skilled manufacturing and not having the labour market structure to compete with the value and quality players of Europe and Asia.

Also since China is aware of the need to increase its value-add - going upstream and expanding the chunk of the value chain it owns - its is now investing hugely in skills development and R&D as well as protecting its own indigenous companies. It may be hard for China to capture large parts of existing established global supply chains like Apple's, but don't be surprised in future if these chains change to have Chinese companies occupying the high value segments and defining many of the rules of he manufacturing game...as well as doing the manufacturing. It will get harder not easier for the likes of the USA.

"They counted among their supporters Marine Le Pen, presidential candidate for the far-right National Front in France; Nigel Farage, leader of the anti-EU UK Independence Party; and David Icke, a British former television sports presenter who argues that members of the British royal family and American presidents are descended from alien reptiles"

That is a very funny line! For those that know of David Icke you wonder how the sentence could end when you see his name. It ends well. I knew he feels that the world resonates to the colour purple, but not about the reptiles.

Banyan could have included right wing whack nuts Douglass Carswell, William Hague and John Redwood who are perhaps the alien reptiles that David Icke has in mind.

"As Conservative MP Douglas Carswell so memorably put it, Britain has "shackled [itself] to a corpse"."

Remember Douglas Carswell is an extreme Right wing ultra nationalist diagonal mouthed twerp who wants Europe to fail and for Britain to be on its own like in the 1800s when there were few competitors in the world. Carswell has no alternatives to offer except for Britain to shift further away from every country. His polices are illogical and incredibly badly Judged. Cameron should reign him and his like in or throw them over to the extreme right wing UKIP.

Trading countries always trade more with countries close to them. There is nothing about 'shackles' it is just common sense. It doesn't prevent British exporters looking for additional markets as well as Europe. Why not build relationships with the BRICS too. Perhaps Carswell can drop his Chinese fear mongering and let British exporters know how to do that?

Curious how each animal gives such different returns. Is it because there are so few data points. Or because Chinese mythology is superior to western religions?

"Some migrants, at least, had good news to boast about on their return home for the Spring Festival holiday"

How wonderful to hear some good news. The Chinese have made conscious efforts to increase the wages of migrant workers. Its not just because the supply was lower.

If you want to hold the Olympics in say London, the government has to be involved to make sure the public good is the primary objective, to maximise social returns, to make finance available to the private sector, to co-ordinate investment, help with infrastructure development, to make sure the right skills are available for development. The government could corruptly siphon off much of the investment and line their pockets but with good governance and effective transparent institutions it doesn't have to. Same with say industrial innovation, clusters, development of nascent industries, supporting R&D, potentially risky capital investment, infrastructure and skills development in other industries...areas where the market on its own is inadequate because it undersupplies, doesn't have the right information, cannot co-ordinate between multiple agents etc.

Because China has one of the lowest proportions of people who call themselves religious in the world. The communist government has restricted religion and promoted atheism. In contrast to the USA which has received masses of religious whack jobs from Europe over the last 500 years and despite the formal split of church and state still maintain huge influence. See the 60% evangelicals in South Carolina. China's whole developmental objectives are based on 'scientific rational development'....see the 5 year plans. The US in contrast is one nation under God, whose people have been granted freedoms by their creator that makes their country exceptional....apparently etc etc etc. That would be why!

It would be very helpful to see Germany take the lead and embarque on deregulation of some sectors. Retail, Pharmacies, Bar and Restaurants and Tourism related businesses are ripe.

Going on a near starvation diet gives a double whammy. Not only do you live longer, but being almost starved for the rest of your life makes it feel a heck of a lot longer.

"“Troubling trends" that Asia spends as much on R&D as America and will spend much more in future.

However this will benefit us all as the article says. Whether US companies in Asia or Asian ones are doing the spending is irrelevant. China has prioritised R&D in its latest 5 year plan so no doubt it will receive a state-led bump in funding. This will benefit us all.

It is shocking, but interesting, to see America being overtaken in so many areas just 12 years into Karl Rove's American century. I recommend that America continues to match the spending of China on everything, up to about 2050 or 2080, so that it doesn't get overtaken.

The bizarre conclusion that emerges from this analysis is that The Economist believes that governments are a force for ill and that when the government is removed from the market, a level playing field is revealed that is fair to all and maximises wealth.

Such naive, simplistic, wrong and very out of date assumptions are off the mark in so many ways and would be out of place in a year 1 undergraduate piece of work.

For example, reading that state capitalism inevitably leads to the cronyism and corruption seen in Mubarak's Egypt (as the Leader states) must make the more honest / recently or broadly educated staff of The Economist cringe. Its a Krugman FOF (Fool or Fraud) statement like 'Obama is a socialist' or 'Obama is a muslim'. Is the author a fool or a fraud on this issue of state capitalism? My guess is 80% fool 20% fraud.

State capitalism doesn't mean that the state necessarily owns corporations. Rather it means that the state is heavily involved in shaping the relevant market by defining institutional rules and norms. Traditionally the state has tended to sit at the top of vertically integrated companies or industries or control/heavily influence financing to such industries. But not all industries are suited to the top-down control that say extractive or automotive sectors can benefit from.

More dynamic, innovative industries such as high tech and tourism are reliant on SMEs, horizontal relationships like in the cluster model. Here the state has a role to play in things such as overcoming co-ordination failures, helping with infrastructure and skills needs, facilitating horizontal relationships and information availability and access to capital if it is scarce etc. The challenge will be for states to develop the capacity to lead the development of such sectors to improve on the weaknesses of the market alone in such cases.

I don't know why the author thinks there are only three significant events in the rise of state capitalism...in Singapore, China and Russia.

Why is the role of Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry in constructing Japan's industrial capacity after WWII ignored. This was arguably the seminal East Asian model. Why are Korea's industrialisation and international economic expansion, and Taiwan ignored too?

It's true that every developed nation has gone through a period of state-led industrialisation (except perhaps Britain), and that the argument is that nascent indigenous industries need state help and protection until they are able to compete with overseas incumbents that have benefitted from years of learning and scale economies etc...........If this argument is correct it is a disgrace that the USA and other liberal economics mouthpieces expects developing countries to forego indigenous development today and simply open their doors to US corporations in the name of 'fairness' and 'ensuring a level playing field'. This playing field is tilted in favour of large US incumbents. There is no fairness.

The Economists guiding principles of liberal economics from the 1800s need updating to reflect modern theories in economics that say governments are needed to shape markets where markets are inadequate on their own...which is pretty much everywhere

Look at these OLD tropes....could have been written in the 1970s (was this when the author was educated)

"It depends on government to pick winners" No it doesn't. It relies on a strategic partnership between government and the private sector to improve economic development. Resources are used in line with development needs and objectives. If oil generates wealth as in Saudi, you would expect investment to be there. If high tech, aerospace and defence are important as in the USA, you would expect a lot of government involvement there...and there is.

"And state capitalism is plagued by cronyism and corruption". No it isn't. Singapore? Taiwan? Japan? Korea? How is cronyism and corruption in these places worse than that in Italy or the USA not to mention India. With good governance and institutions, state capitalism can be as free from corruption and cronyism as liberal capitalism AND can perform much better.

"How can you ensure a fair trading system if some companies enjoy the support, overt or covert, of a national government?" This question is irrelevant. It erroneously assumes a liberal free market presents a level playing field. In truth, large established corporations with deep pockets stifle nascent competition and in a globalised world can swamp local indigenous development. If together the government and private sector can do better than the private sector alone why is it unfair to allow that? We wouldn't have Boeing or Airbus in there current forms (to mention 2 of hundreds of examples) without state support and we would all be worse off.

The US and UK will be the last bastions of liberal capitalism but these countries are already showing signs of government involvement in for example industry policy in certain sectors so that they don't get left behind by the more forward thinking and capable nations. The government standing back, holding its hands in the air and shrugging its shoulders over economic development is no longer acceptable in a competitive world.

Woaahh. Look at Britain - 507%. If I didn't know, I'd say banks have been lending money they didn't have to people who couldn't afford to pay it back. And some people, like the Economist continue to say....just leave it up to the market.

France, Germany would be very happy with Scottish independence I would think. Britain loses 5m head and a chunk of land. It becomes smaller and weaker and its belligerence in Europe becomes much easier to ignore whilst Scotland is so small it will just toe the line

80m Germans over 60m French (and a similar number of Italians). All three countries with much bigger economies than the new smaller Britain. Britain will certainly be in the second tier of European countries along with Spain and Poland.

If Cameron wants to avoid this he needs his cabinet to be filled with people who like people and who like to build relationships. At the moment he is surrounded by 'sons of Thatcher' such as Hague, the foreign secretary, who believe in British superiority and are incapable of building relationships.

"There is no reason to suppose that Americans are any different from anyone else in this respect; they just have more opinion surveys"

Who says! Where is the evidence? I would hypothesise that they are different. For several reasons which include the nature of education, culture and society. It shouldn't be hard to test. Which other nations do politicians need to act as fools or frauds to the same degree to get votes.

Perry perhaps isn't dumb but he is a bit dim. He certainly isn't on top of his brief. He is not sharp enough. More hope over experience from E.G. Perhaps that's the root of the misjudgment. Experience.

Haven't these debates about abortion been done yet? Secular democracies in the West decided these issues half a century ago. Why won't these supernaturalists move on!

Also, since education and science underpins development in China and much of Asia and is a priority in Europe, would these medievalists see America left behind along with the more extremist muslims in the middle East?

The reason they don't like education and science is because it creates people like J.F. who is prepared to highlight the nonsense that is spoken by these people. They want to take the world back to an unenlightened state. What can be done?

"One Conservative MP, Douglas Carswell, has complained that it is like being “shackled to a corpse”.

Carswell only says that because he is a rabid nationalist British supremacist who has always viewed strong European countries such as Germany and France as a threat to Britain's pre-eminence. In truth he hates all foreign countries.