And now for one of the greatest mysteries of our age: markets and democracies are failing hither and thither while the economy governed by a single party is flourishing! Most of the economist in the so-called west will do their utmost to support the markets buttressed by liberal politics, but the Chinese success across the board is left in the dark. Economic policy based on the rule of a small minority underpinned by a vast party structure is undeniably more successful than the glorified capitalist model of yesteryear. How is it possible that not a single economist of renown in America or Europe is interested in this contradiction of their beliefs going back quite a few centuries? How is it possible that Chinese success is not understood in terms of the country’s economics, sociology, and politics? As it turns out, a small minority supported by a good number of professionals in economic planning and policy can outperform the vast majority left to the shenanigans of markets and bamboozling voting conventions. Economics needs an overhaul going all the way to its roots.

Addendum I (August 25, 2025)

Alas, a few more words need to be added to this piece of writing, and without any delay! To begin with, I am not an advocate of China. Far from it. More important, I am not an advocate of communist parties, either. All I am trying to say is that markets cannot lead entire economies, as well as that democracy is for the birds. The bulk of humans are incompetent. Of limited intelligence, they can be manipulated with great ease. A small number of competent humans must run their countries, but they must be guided by advice from those who are knowledgeable about economics, sociology, and politics, as well as other domains of importance. On top of that, there must exist a large organization directed by the small group at the top. This organization must reach into every nook and cranny of society to ensure that decisions made on top are obeyed by all and sundry. Those who disobey need to be castigated without much ado. At this stage of evolution, humans cannot function without such a social arrangement, and China is my witness. As I have argued over and over again, humans are primates that function well only in tribes of no more than two-hundred members. And this is how things will remain for millions upon millions of years, for evolution is painfully slow. Amen.

Addendum II (August 26, 2025)

Returning to economic planning and policy, and on a somewhat personal note, these subjects were perfectly plausible at both Harvard and MIT in the Seventies, where and when I undertook my graduate studies with all the zeal I could muster. Back then, I became a veritable planner, too. With the help of several leading economists in America and Europe, though, this changed in the Eighties. Markets turned sacrosanct. Both Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher did their best to shove economic planning and policy under the rug. Besides, the collection of data required by these pursuits was ditched, as well. Much of my doctoral achievements at MIT became utterly useless in the so-called west under the new circumstances. And my doctoral adviser at MIT quickly turned to China, where economic planning and policy were blossoming at the time. One of the economic models I developed back then most likely had found ardent support in China. Over the years, the Chinese economic planners and policy makers must have extended my model and furnished it with all the data it would require to guide their country to its present marvels. Of course, they will keep mum about such things, but all the benefits of sturdy economics will still be theirs. From my personal point of view, America and Europe have been on the perilous path for quite a few decades already. And changing their course in any plausible way is nigh unimaginable right now. But my fellow economists will keep bungling their way as though everything in sight is hunky-dory. Actually, flawless.