Tending Our Own Garden Is More Important Than Finger-Pointing at Marxist Economies

Regarding Allan H. Meltzer’s Times Board of Economists column on Jan. 8, “The Model is Market, Not Marxism”:

While it is certainly true that in many respects capitalism “has worked, not perfectly, just better than any alternative,” this is hardly a justification for the questionable assertions made and self-congratulatory tone struck by Meltzer throughout his essay.

First, Meltzer repeatedly refers to the “Marxist system” and applauds the fact that it is now in seeming decline--at least in the nations he chooses to discuss. But what does he mean by the “Marxist system?”

If he means simply “planned economies,” then why does he not speak of the Danish, French, Norwegian and Swedish economies? Why not speak of Japan and its systematic integration of government agencies with investment banks and export industries? Aren’t these all examples of planning?

The point here obviously is not that Soviet-style planning hasn’t been a failure in many cases. It certainly has. But how can one generalize from that experience to all other planning efforts, as Meltzer tries to do?

Second, if the economies of Hong Kong, Taiwan, and South Korea have been such successes relative to East Germany, North Korea, and Poland, among others, does Meltzer seriously wish to suggest that those successes have not, in many cases, also involved enormous human costs? If the workers of Hong Kong have incomes 20 times higher than their counterparts on the mainland, why does Meltzer not point out how those incomes compare to those achieved, say, in France, Japan, Sweden or even the United States?

Why so heavy on the self-congratulations and so fast to condemn? Why not spend more time tending our own gardens and dealing with our own problems, rather than pointing the finger at others who are often doing the best they can?

MICHAEL A. BERNSTEIN

La Jolla

The writer is an associate professor of history at UC-San Diego.