2 ms·

Letting people start businesses and reap the rewards is probably all that is needed. A great deal of business in China is either state owned or heavily invested

Letting people start businesses and reap the rewards is probably all that is needed. A great deal of business in China is either state owned or heavily invested by the state (which are effectively the same). The banking sector that could power an entrepreneurial caste doesn't exist. Credit in China is extremely bad. Opening China to foreign banks would help a lot. The first consumer banks move into China on 2009, I think, but that might be pushed back. People are smart there. Given the choice between a state owned bank which had 25% non-performing loans just a few years ago, and a citibank, they will choose the citibank almost every time. This transition could be blocked by the people on top.

anamax 19y ago
> Letting people start businesses and reap the rewards is probably all that is needed. My poorly-expressed point is that that's not really a "push" so much as it is a pulling back by the leader's organization, a giving up of power. Worse yet, it's allowing potentially competitive powers. Orgs and their leaders gain power by controlling. Creating by giving up power is very different.
- ivankirigin 19y ago
  All real booms in history have to do with people in power stepping back and letting it happen. Even government sponsored R&D requires a free market to blossom. Of course growth of truly creative forces requires a pull back of power. Put another way, you'll never get dynamic distributed growth through top-down decision making. Yes, they need to give up power. If they don't, the change won't happen.