But in spite of communism's dismal failure, the leaders of both nations remain unwilling to give up the power inherent in state economic control.
Accordingly, they have now both turned to a quasi-Fascist form of governance, which increasingly (and not coincidentally) appears to be the socioeconomic model of choice for Obama Administration.
Trillion dollars a year in deficits alone, on top of the budget, and what tangible results have we received? A man on Mars? A new Hoover dam? Rural electrification? Heck ANY evidence of economic activity?
I don't even see "more" roads being repaired, and that's already been paid for by state taxes.
Another overlooked idea is the implicit assumption that any government spending is stimulus and the belief in the government multiplier. From an Austrian perspective government spending can have the same effect as central planning and cause more mal-investment by investing in a bad capital structure. This is one of the primary effects of bail-outs. It keeps the economy from correcting and just prolongs the agony of mal-investment. Even the idea of using interest rates overlooks the inflation tax and its cost to the economy.
Sadly, despite the evidence of the depression, and the communist countries you site, the fallacies of Keynesian economist is overlooked in academia. No other theory of economics giver government the role of savior and guide.
Let the market work out it's problems, everything every thing else will follow.