>It's extremely nonobvious, because you're not making an argument from a position of fact but from a position of principle. Which is my point. It is not obviou

>It's extremely nonobvious, because you're not making an argument from a position of fact but from a position of principle. Which is my point. It is not obvious because it would require a person reading many pages of dense economic data. Obviously the average voter is not going to do that. >but I don't know how interventionism is clearly bad when interventionist governments like China have been growing so aggressively. China's economic growth increased substantially after it instituted pro-market reforms in the early 1980s. It also imposes far lower levels of income redistribution in the form of social welfare spending as a percentage of GDP.