Is Excessive Government Regulation Different from State Ownership?

I have a strong liking for Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve Chairman under Reagan, both Bush's, and Clinton's terms. In addition to being sound in his financial policy he is also a music enthusiast who studied at Julliard. And, since being a financial/political expert and having musical prowess are both aspiring characteristics in my eyes and not so common, I am a fan.

In his biography, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, Alan made some remarkable comments in regard to China's policies that I believe are important for the U.S. current situation.

"Socialists in the West, adjusting to the failure of Marxist economics, have redefined socialism to no longer require that all the means of production be owned by the state. Some simply advocate government regulation rather than state ownership to foster societal well-being."

But also, according to, Mr. Greenspan, the Chinese government suggested that "the system [referring to the Communist Party] holds together because each official is beholden to the person directly above him. This is the source of political power. This is how the Party governs. However if market pricing is substituted for any level of the pyramid, political control is lost."

Then Alan notes, "You cannot have both market pricing and political control. One precludes the other." And, I would suggest, that even though China is now a republic, it is yet to be seen if they can give up the concept of indebtedness to the political power hierarchy.

And as Alan suggests referring to Marxist policies that "the cheer of new affluence rapidly fades and, with time, becomes the base from which additional, even higher, expectations evolve." When installing new government regulations, I would ask the Western Socialists, how is overwhelming government regulations any different from state ownership? And, how can one guarantee that there will not be a need for more? They can't. There WILL be a need for more...more dependency.