"In 1944, Friedrich A. Hayek suggested that the spontaneous order of markets was inherently superior to the supposedly dynamism-draining totalitarian order of communist or fascist regimes. The ensuing decades – when free-market economies thrived, and the Soviet Union’s centrally planned economy imploded – seemed to vindicate him. Then along came China.
The metrics of China’s phenomenal economic rise are well known: three decades of double-digit GDP growth; some 700 million people lifted out of poverty; an infrastructure boom; the emergence of innovative tech giants; and a comprehensive blueprint for continued (sustainable) growth and development.

China’s success has eroded the belief that free markets represent the best development strategy for everyone, to the point that even the International Monetary Fund – long a leading champion of free-market ideology – has been rethinking its own orthodoxy. Yet Chinese-style central planning is still viewed with disdain in the West, where observers disparage it for its supposed opacity and repressiveness.

But is China’s system really diametrically opposed to that of, say, the United States? In a word: no."

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/free-markets-central-planning-chinese-governance-by-andrew-sheng-and-xiao-geng-2021-05

The article argues at China's central planning system when are other
countries also have the same central planning system too.

A combination of free market open system and central planning system is
already in practice in countries, too.

Every country should have a combinations and also including the US, too.

The author of the article targets China but not other countries.

Hence, the central planning makes internal planning and regulations for
commodity of products and services in a planned readiness in providing them
to the people.

"ltlee1" wrote in message
news:8c442aae-303a-44c3-b57a-72ea988d3fa0n@googlegroups.com...

"In 1944, Friedrich A. Hayek suggested that the spontaneous order of markets
was inherently superior to the supposedly dynamism-draining totalitarian
order of communist or fascist regimes. The ensuing decades – when
free-market economies thrived, and the Soviet Union’s centrally planned
economy imploded – seemed to vindicate him. Then along came China.
The metrics of China’s phenomenal economic rise are well known: three
decades of double-digit GDP growth; some 700 million people lifted out of
poverty; an infrastructure boom; the emergence of innovative tech giants;
and a comprehensive blueprint for continued (sustainable) growth and
development.

China’s success has eroded the belief that free markets represent the best
development strategy for everyone, to the point that even the International
Monetary Fund – long a leading champion of free-market ideology – has been
rethinking its own orthodoxy. Yet Chinese-style central planning is still
viewed with disdain in the West, where observers disparage it for its
supposed opacity and repressiveness.

But is China’s system really diametrically opposed to that of, say, the
United States? In a word: no."

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/free-markets-central-planning-chinese-governance-by-andrew-sheng-and-xiao-geng-2021-05

On Thursday, May 27, 2021 at 2:39:14 PM UTC-4, woozy wrote:
> The article argues at China's central planning system when are other
> countries also have the same central planning system too.
>
> A combination of free market open system and central planning system is
> already in practice in countries, too.
>
> Every country should have a combinations and also including the US, too.
>
> The author of the article targets China but not other countries.
>
> Hence, the central planning makes internal planning and regulations for
> commodity of products and services in a planned readiness in providing them
> to the people.
>
>
>
>
> "ltlee1" wrote in message
> news:8c442aae-303a-44c3...@googlegroups.com...
> "In 1944, Friedrich A. Hayek suggested that the spontaneous order of markets
> was inherently superior to the supposedly dynamism-draining totalitarian
> order of communist or fascist regimes. The ensuing decades – when
> free-market economies thrived, and the Soviet Union’s centrally planned
> economy imploded – seemed to vindicate him. Then along came China..
> The metrics of China’s phenomenal economic rise are well known: three
> decades of double-digit GDP growth; some 700 million people lifted out of
> poverty; an infrastructure boom; the emergence of innovative tech giants;
> and a comprehensive blueprint for continued (sustainable) growth and
> development.
>
> China’s success has eroded the belief that free markets represent the best
> development strategy for everyone, to the point that even the International
> Monetary Fund – long a leading champion of free-market ideology – has been
> rethinking its own orthodoxy. Yet Chinese-style central planning is still
> viewed with disdain in the West, where observers disparage it for its
> supposed opacity and repressiveness.
>
> But is China’s system really diametrically opposed to that of, say, the
> United States? In a word: no."
>
> https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/free-markets-central-planning-chinese-governance-by-andrew-sheng-and-xiao-geng-2021-05

1. 世有伯乐，然后有千里马。千里马常有，而伯乐不常有。
Friedrich Hayek is right in the sense that free market is the 伯乐 and innovation is the 千里马.
Theoretically speaking, manufacturers/service providers on one side and consumers on the other side could and should form an ascending double helix
with free market capitalism. Each side causes the other side to improve themselves. That is, manufacturers and service providers would constantly improve
their products and consumers would become more discriminating buyers of goods and services.

But Hayek failed to distinguish between innovation retail and innovation wholesale. The market in general work well in handling small and graduate innovations.
The market, however, cannot handle large, disruptive, and winner-take-all innovations. Monopoly and Oligopoly would tend to block dissemination and
realization of innovative ideas. Under this situation, state capitalism would be more advantageous.

2. Political culture and the government's capability into handling very large and multi-faceted projects.
China is blessed with its Confucianist tradition as well as meritocracy.

Free market capitalism and state capitalism are not mutually exclusive. Rather, they complement each other.