I’m not convinced by your comparison to Russia and China. I don’t think either of them really have anything to do with Reagan or Thatcher. I dislike them but I think their influence outside the western world is minimal.
The privatization of Russia was done before the soviet union even collapsed and was just wealth being consolidated under a different system by those in power. There was never a free market.
China was able to become the powerhouse because in the 90s Deng Xiaoping eased communist policies to allow private businesses and they entered the WTO. Even so, there has never been a free market in China either.
Reagan and Thatcher are just figureheads of the movement, not really the source. Wealthy entrenched powerful people were the source, that used them as spring boards in their respective economies. It’s not even an organized movement, just a large group of wealthy people converging on shared goals. Reagan and Thatcher are what happens when they win, not what caused them to win.
I suppose if were talking about people just being selfish assholes then yeah I feel what you’re saying. My only gripe is comparing economic outcomes of very different countries with different historical context.
Reagan and Thatcher have become practically synonymous with austerity and privatization in leftist circles, so their names get invoked pretty frequently even when talking about things they had nothing to do with.
I agree with you. This is such a narrow look at two very complex countries through one itty bitty lens. China has demographic and geographic strengths that Russia doesn’t. China also has comparable amounts of corruption or more, but it isn’t as visible to the west.
I’m not convinced by your comparison to Russia and China. I don’t think either of them really have anything to do with Reagan or Thatcher. I dislike them but I think their influence outside the western world is minimal.
The privatization of Russia was done before the soviet union even collapsed and was just wealth being consolidated under a different system by those in power. There was never a free market.
China was able to become the powerhouse because in the 90s Deng Xiaoping eased communist policies to allow private businesses and they entered the WTO. Even so, there has never been a free market in China either.
Otherwise, I don’t disagree.
Reagan and Thatcher are just figureheads of the movement, not really the source. Wealthy entrenched powerful people were the source, that used them as spring boards in their respective economies. It’s not even an organized movement, just a large group of wealthy people converging on shared goals. Reagan and Thatcher are what happens when they win, not what caused them to win.
I suppose if were talking about people just being selfish assholes then yeah I feel what you’re saying. My only gripe is comparing economic outcomes of very different countries with different historical context.
Reagan and Thatcher have become practically synonymous with austerity and privatization in leftist circles, so their names get invoked pretty frequently even when talking about things they had nothing to do with.
I agree with you. This is such a narrow look at two very complex countries through one itty bitty lens. China has demographic and geographic strengths that Russia doesn’t. China also has comparable amounts of corruption or more, but it isn’t as visible to the west.