Ideal Taxes Association

Raymond Richman       -       Jesse Richman       -       Howard Richman

 Richmans' Trade and Taxes Blog

National Capitalism, Rather than Mixed Economy or Socialism, Best Describes Economic System
Raymond Richman, 2/11/2019

Norman S. B. Gras, Professor of Business History at Harvard in 1940, described  FDR’s New Deal as an example of "national capitalism" similar to that in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany in an article published in the Harvard Business Review. National capitalism is "a system of business based upon private enterprise publicly controlled." Because Nazism and Fascism used totalitarian methods and ruthlessly killed so many people, the term “national capitalism” should be used instead of fascism to accommodate economic systems that are more democratic and avoid the use of brute force. Gras’s description of the system as national capitalism ought to have been widely adopted by economists and business majors as well as the general public.

Economists are fond of describing economic systems as “capitalist”, “socialist”, “free enterprise”, “private enterprise”, etc. but they tend to avoid calling a system “fascist”, which is to be expected because of the odious character of the Hitler regime and Mussolini’s alliance with Germany. They avoid calling attention to the Japanese economy at all although historically it was equally odious and the Japanese government still plays a substantial role in directing and controlling the economy. The post-WWII American domination of the world has eliminated most attempts to distinguish between economic systems although the Cuban and North Korean economy are often represented as “communist”   

Look about you. There are hundreds of thousands of objects in the room you find yourself, where you live, where you work, where you travel, for sale in retail stores and on line and throughout the world. Who invented these objects? Who manufactured them? Whom are they made for? Nearly all of them were invented and produced by private persons without government assistance. Socialists tend to criticize capitalism as greedy. But as Adam Smith noted in the 18th century, everyone acting in his own interest in a capitalist economy ends up acting in the interest of all.

That is not to say that governments have not contributed to invention and innovation. We have patent and copyright laws to encourage private invention and creativity and governments have made important contributions to science, discovery and invention. Governments have built utilities like dams, roads, railroads, and power plants. But government attempts to produce most of the goods and services we use, an economic system called socialism, have failed wherever they have been tried. And where socialism has been tried, governments had to use force, killing and forcing the migration of millions of people as in the USSR.

Most governments play a role in directing their country’s economy. Nearly all governments employ monetary and fiscal counter-cyclical policies designed to control macroeconomic fluctuations using monetary and fiscal policies. They have to do that since nearly all recessions are caused by government policies. Every country has some government enterprises and some communist-dominated countries tolerate some private enterprises. Most economists would describe most economies as “mixed”. But the degree of government involvement is important. That and the use of force and terror is what has distinguished fascist economies from mixed economies

The degree of government involvement in the economy is important. The more that government is involved in business decisions the more like fascism it necessarily becomes. China is directed by a Communist party. It has a high degree of government involvement in the economy, including wage and price controls, operating the central bank and operates a large number of government enterprises. In the USA, governments have engaged in rent controls, minimum wage laws, and other price controls but comes nowhere near to China in the number of production units. The Federal Reserve System, an independent agency created by the government, controls the money supply and interest rates and has assumed responsibility for counter cyclical policy. But it is easier for the Fed to buy government securities and expand the money supply that it is to reverse the process during a recovery. The central bank, independent or not, has to be counted in determining the degree of national capitalism.

The grant of patents and copyrights by governments is universal. Their purpose is to provide incentives to invention and innovation. A USA patent or copyright guarantees monopoly in the USA market, not beyond its borders unless there is a treaty requiring each country to respect the patents of the other.

China has been accused of not respecting patents, copyrights, and secret industrial practices but it is hard to justify a single country’s patents, copyright and business practices as having the right to international enforcement of the monopoly legally granted by patents and copyrights. As for copying secret business practices, successful competition requires alert competitors to learn such practices. It is hard to justify the USA’s criticism of China’s efforts in this regard. Top of Form

Socialism is misnamed. Its true name is fascism, a name so vile we have to call it by another name that it is not, namely socialism. It is simply a system that forces private enterprises to obey government decisions. Both Hitler and Mussolini recognized the New Deal for what it was, fascistic, what we would now call a high degree of national capitalism. The only true socialist state was the USSR and it collapsed. “National capitalism” describes the economies of different countries better than “mixed economy”. The multi-national companies that dominate the world economy would prefer “international capitalism” but national states still exist and decide the role of corporations that operate within their boundaries.

Your Name:

Post a Comment:

  • Richmans' Blog    RSS
  • Our New Book - Balanced Trade
  • Buy Trading Away Our Future
  • Read Trading Away Our Future
  • Richmans' Commentaries
  • ITA Working Papers
  • ITA on Facebook
  • Contact Us

    Dec 2021
    Nov 2021
    Oct 2021
    Sep 2021
    May 2021
    Apr 2021
    Feb 2021
    Jan 2021
    Dec 2020
    Nov 2020
    Oct 2020
    Jul 2020
    Jun 2020
    May 2020
    Apr 2020
    Mar 2020
    Dec 2019
    Nov 2019
    Oct 2019
    Sep 2019
    Aug 2019
    Jun 2019
    May 2019
    Apr 2019
    Mar 2019
    Feb 2019

    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    Book Reviews
    Capital Gains Taxation
    Corporate Income Tax
    Consumption Taxes
    Economy - Long Term

    Economy - Short Term
    Environmental Regulation
    Last 100 Years
    Real Estate Taxation

    Outside Links:

  • American Economic Alert
  • American Jobs Alliance
  • Angry Bear Blog
  • Economy in Crisis
  • Econbrowser
  • Emmanuel Goldstein's Blog
  • Levy Economics Institute
  • McKeever Institute
  • Michael Pettis Blog
  • Naked Capitalism
  • Natural Born Conservative
  • Science & Public Policy Inst.
  • Votersway Blog
  • Watt's Up With That


  • [An] extensive argument for balanced trade, and a program to achieve balanced trade is presented in Trading Away Our Future, by Raymond Richman, Howard Richman and Jesse Richman. “A minimum standard for ensuring that trade does benefit all is that trade should be relatively in balance.” [Balanced Trade entry]

    Journal of Economic Literature:

  • [Trading Away Our Future] Examines the costs and benefits of U.S. trade and tax policies. Discusses why trade deficits matter; root of the trade deficit; the “ostrich” and “eagles” attitudes; how to balance trade; taxation of capital gains; the real estate tax; the corporate income tax; solving the low savings problem; how to protect one’s assets; and a program for a strong America....

    Atlantic Economic Journal:

  • In Trading Away Our Future   Richman ... advocates the immediate adoption of a set of public policy proposal designed to reduce the trade deficit and increase domestic savings.... the set of public policy proposals is a wake-up call... [February 17, 2009 review by T.H. Cate]