The NYT does not support the Chinese model, which is more or less unregulated capitalism, with small exceptions made for state-owned enterprises. It’s spent a lot of time criticizing the Chinese for labor issues because the Chinese don’t have enough government regulations for the NYT’s taste. The NYT wants Swedish-style socialism, not communism. The raw capitalism that’s part of the Chinese economic scene is why its nominal per capita GDP is 4x India’s and reflected by annual car sales that are just over 6x India’s.
Kinda hard to attack the NYT for being Liberal when you are cheerleading for the Communist Chinese, dontcha think?
By the way...all that “free market in Communist China” stuff has brought their per capita GDP to around half of what Mexico’s is....and look at all the Illegal Aliens we get from Mexico!
I don't have a problem with their economic system - capitalism works. The NYT dislikes that economic system precisely because it's capitalist.
That China's GDP per capita is 50% of Mexico's is a modern miracle. In 1979, when the China's economic reforms started, after the meeting with Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew, its GDP was less than 5% of Mexico's. That's another way of saying that relative to Mexico, Chinese incomes have gone up 10x. Any way you look at it, that's quite a feat.
In that time frame, China's GDP per capita went from 20% less than India's to 4x India's. That blistering growth happened precisely because of China's turn to capitalism. And that turn to unregulated capitalism in many industries is both the cause of its growth and the liberal media complex's unending critiques of Chinese economic policies.
When was the last time you heard any media criticisms of Iran's Marxist economic policies? Yes, the amusing thing about Iran is that its theocrats combine a Leninist model of government with a Marxist economic policy. The Chinese still have a Leninist model of government*, but the economic system, with partial exceptions for Party-owned sectors, is unfiltered capitalism.
* The Leninist phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a fancy way of saying the Party's non-hereditary self-appointed kings-in-all-but-name get to appoint the aristocracy-in-all-but-name that runs day-to-day operations, all in the name of the "proletariat".