Wasteful Evolutions: The Hidden Costs of Capitalism and Geopolitics in a Fractured World

Wasteful Evolutions: The Hidden Costs of Capitalism and Geopolitics in a Fractured World

 

In an era where economic progress mimics nature's brutal trial-and-error, venture capital's spray-and-pray model and China's state-orchestrated overbuilds exemplify inevitable waste—billions lost in failed startups and ghost cities, yet birthing giants like Amazon and BYD. This evolutionary churn, as Schumpeter termed "creative destruction," demands directed capital for developing nations, where free market dogma acts as a millstone, stifling infant industries amid scarce resources. Geopolitically, alignment with the West trumps autonomy: sanctioned energy powerhouses like Iran (GDP shrunk 6-7% annually) and Venezuela (output halved) illustrate the peril, while India's hedging yields "two steps forward, one back." China alone masters engagement without surrender, but 2025's US tariffs (50% on Indian goods) and endless skirmishes squeeze the Global South—India's growth dips 0.3-0.8%, Brazil's agribusiness reels—heralding deglobalization's pessimistic shadow. Amid multipolar flux, resilience lies in savvy hybrids, not illusions of neutrality.

The spectacle of modern capitalism often dazzles with tales of overnight billionaires and gleaming megacities rising from rice paddies, but peel back the glamour, and you'll find a graveyard of squandered fortunes, shuttered dreams, and societies left to pick up the pieces. Picture this: in Silicon Valley, venture capitalists hurl billions at unproven startups like confetti at a parade, celebrating the rare unicorn while ignoring the 90% that crash and burn. It's a high-stakes casino where the house—Wall Street—always wins in the long run, but the losers? Displaced workers, evaporated savings, and innovations that fizzle into oblivion. As Harvard's Shikhar Ghosh starkly revealed, "as many as 75 percent of venture-backed companies never return cash to investors, with 30 to 40 percent of those liquidating assets where investors lose all of their money." This isn't mere misfortune; it's structural. Data from CB Insights paints a grim canvas: in 2023 alone, over 1,200 VC-backed firms folded, torching $50 billion in funding, from flashy flops like FTX's crypto empire to mundane misfires in biotech. Dileep Rao, a veteran VC strategist, laments, "Most VCs do poorly because early stage VCs fail on 80% of their ventures and there are few home runs to offset the many failures," underscoring how this "wasteful idea... [wastes] both financial capital and human potential." The dot-com bust of 2000 vaporized $5 trillion; WeWork's 2019 debacle alone incinerated $10 billion, leaving co-working zombies and laid-off baristas in its wake. Yet, from this detritus emerges adaptation—Google and Netflix survived the wreckage, their algorithms and streaming empires now integral to daily life. It's evolution in pinstripes: redundant experiments culled by market Darwinism, where only the fittest propagate.

Across the Pacific, China's decentralized state capitalism echoes this chaos on steroids, a symphony of state-directed experimentation where local governments chase GDP targets like hounds after hares. Envision vast steel mills humming in empty industrial parks, high-speed rails snaking through unpopulated hinterlands, and sprawling "ghost cities" like Ordos—once a $1 trillion mirage of luxury towers now half-haunted by dust and regret. Since 2009, hyperactive stimulus has birthed $6.8 trillion in "wasted investment," per Beijing's own researchers Xu Ce and Wang Yuan, who warn, "Investment efficiency has fallen dramatically... [causing] a lot of over-investment and waste." Overcapacity plagues sectors: solar panel production surged 300% from 2010-2020, flooding markets and bankrupting 500+ firms, while real estate bubbles left 64 million empty apartments by 2015, per Bloomberg data. Premier Li Qiang admitted in his 2024 report, "The foundation for China’s sustained economic recovery... [shows] overcapacity in some industries, weak public expectations, and many lingering risks." Zheng Zhajie of the NDRC echoes, "There are firms that are producing more but not increasing revenue or profit." Critics like Janet Yellen decry this as "production capacity untethered from global demand," an "inefficient waste of resources" that exports deflation and undercuts jobs worldwide. Yet, silver linings glint: Huawei clawed from subsidy-fueled trials to 5G dominance, and BYD's EV fleet now commands 30% global share, lifting 800 million from poverty since 1978 with 9% average GDP growth. As executives in green tech plead for an end to "blind investment" that craters prices, MIT's Sarah Williams likens ghost cities to a "Ponzi scheme," where "pockets of overinvestment... threaten the livelihoods of the people who purchased apartments," mirroring the 2008 U.S. crash but on a continental scale.

This wasteful ballet isn't random; it's the economic echo of nature's forge. Joseph Schumpeter, the oracle of creative destruction, proclaimed, "The changes in the economic process brought about by innovation... we shall designate by the term Economic Evolution," a perpetual gale where static equilibria shatter under dynamic gales—no blueprint, just variation, selection, and retention. Thorstein Veblen, the institutional provocateur, railed in 1898, "[T]he science [of economics] stands in need of rehabilitation... helplessly behind the times," demanding an "evolutionary economics... a theory of a cumulative sequence of economic institutions stated in terms of the process itself." Richard Nelson and Sidney Winter formalized this in 1982, positing firms as "organizational routines" akin to genes—units of selection in a Darwinian market where "competitive adaptations... do not necessarily have to be understood as a deliberate, optimizing choice." Schumpeter warned, "no dynamic equilibrium exists. Economic development... is a disturbance of the existing static equilibrium," and Veblen saw "economic evolution... as a dynamic process of cumulative causation, changing the economic system continuously from within." Nature wastes 99% of species to extinction; economies discard 75-90% of ventures, from VC duds to Chinese steel ghosts. But here's the rub: ecosystems evolve blindly; nation-states can't. Developing economies, with fragile grids and hungry populations, lack the luxury of mass extinctions. Enter directed capital—the state's deft hand guiding the evolutionary stream.

Chalmers Johnson, architect of developmental state theory, envisioned governments as "gardeners" pruning for national bloom, not laissez-faire weeds. Though direct quotes on capital are sparse, his ethos shines: "When war becomes the most profitable course... we can certainly expect more of it," a caution against unchecked markets favoring arms over equity. South Korea's chaebols, force-fed loans in the 1960s-80s, rocketed GDP from $500 to $80,000 per capita; Singapore's state firms funneled R&D into biotech hubs. Data from the World Bank: East Asian tigers averaged 7-10% growth via protectionism, while Latin America's 1980s neoliberal "lost decade" saw debt crises slash GDPs 20-30%. Ha-Joon Chang skewers free market myths: "The United States was one of the most protectionist countries in the world," its 19th-century tariffs nurturing steel barons. Joseph Stiglitz blasts, "The advocates of free markets... say that crises are rare events, though we now know they are not," their dogma a "millstone" for the Global South, where IMF austerity starves industries before they walk. Nehru, non-alignment's father, affirmed, "To become part of a power bloc means giving up the right to have a policy of our own," echoing Sampooran Singh's "non-alignment as... maximum independence in national decision-making." Yet, as T.N. Kaul noted, it was "a bridge between two hostile ideological blocs," not a moat against market fundamentalism's floods.

But evolution doesn't unfold in a vacuum; it's shaped by predators. Post-WWII, the West's unipolar grip made alignment a survival tax, non-alignment a luxury for the strong. John Foster Dulles sneered at Nehru's stance as "immoral," while Stalin barked, "those who are not with us are against us." Energy titans learned the hard way: Iran's oil exports cratered from 2.5 to 0.5 million bpd post-2018, GDP contracting 6-7% yearly, hyperinflation at 40%, per IMF. Vali Nasr observes, sanctions "work in ways that we don’t want it to work," bolstering regimes while pauperizing middles—20% of Iran's fell below poverty, 80% now on handouts. Narges Bajoghli adds, they pressure "society to rise up against the state," but instead forge resilience, producing 96% of medicines domestically. Venezuela's PDVSA output halved from 2.5 to 0.3 million bpd by 2020, GDP halved, 7.7 million fled, per Congressional Research—yet Ambassador Giuseppe Yoffreda calls it a "boomerang," spurring internal strength. Russia's Urals crude trades at discounts, growth shaved 2.5-3% yearly, but Oleg Barabanov notes, sanctions are "a striking example... that being tied to the United States is no longer safe," pivoting Moscow to Asia. UN's Idriss Jazairy thunders, "Regime change through economic measures... likely to lead to... starvation has never been an accepted practice," violating human rights and sovereignty. Sanctions, per CNAS, "push Venezuela and Iran further into the arms of traditional U.S. adversaries," backfiring spectacularly.

India embodies the hedger's lament: two steps forward, one yanked back. Nehru's idealism—"each country has... the right to decide its own policy"—clashed with 1962's China debacle, tilting to Soviet arms, while 1991 reforms unlocked growth but exposed rural rifts. From $1.7 trillion GDP in 2014 to $3.5 trillion by 2025, yet QUAD alignments grate against Russian oil buys and NAM nostalgia. Subrahmanyam Jaishankar concedes, "India made the adjustments required on stressful occasions... but whenever crises receded, India went back to the middle path," a "posture of abstention" now "multi-alignment," per C. Raja Mohan, risking "opportunism." As Politics for India quips, "India was trying to gain the best of both worlds... there is no free lunch." M.C. Chagla defended, "non-alignment did not mean neutrality... aligned to... anti-communalism, apartheid," but Ashok Kapur saw it as "low-risk" influence amid weakness.

China, the phoenix, defies: post-1978, WTO entry and FDI inflows ballooned it to second-largest economy without bases or fealty. Xi Jinping pledges, "China supports the strategic autonomy of the EU," courting Macron's "third way" amid U.S. tensions. Wang Yi affirms, "China supports the European side to enhance its strategic autonomy," viewing EU fractures as openings. MERICS notes Chinese skeptics see war's fallout "expos[ing] the EU’s weakness... [intensifying] desire to develop... autonomy," yet trapped by "four curses": ideological fog, capability gaps, U.S. reliance, divisions. Bruegel urges "co-existence with China, while staying true to... values," as "Chinese and EU economies will continue to be entangled." Beijing's Belt and Road—$1 trillion invested—woos without vassalage, meeting "Made in China 2025" in EVs despite tariffs.

But September 2025's tempests darken the horizon. Trump's 2.0 unleashes 50% tariffs on Indian imports—textiles, pharma, IT—slashing $80 billion exports, dipping GDP 0.3-0.8%, rupee down 5%. Goldman Sachs' Santanu Sengupta sighs, "At a 50% tariff, it is very difficult to export," rendering goods "uncompetitive" vs. Vietnam, per FIEO's SC Ralhan. A senior official laments, "Trump has blown it... it probably won’t happen until Trump is out," while Michael Kugelman tallies "own goals with a top bilateral partner." Brazil's soy and steel face 50% walls, eroding $40 billion surplus, 1-2% GDP hit amid floods. Atlantic Council warns of "strategic standoff," inconsistent with QUAD. Endless wars—Ukraine's $100 billion drain, Red Sea spikes (shipping +300%)—and chip bans widen divides. UNCTAD forecasts 2.3% global growth, "below... recessionary phase," with LICs in "perfect storm" of debt (35/68 distressed), borrowing diverting from needs. Brookings frets "uncomfortably elevated" debts, climate records, "tumultuous" rivalries fragmenting cooperation. UN's mid-2025: 2.4% slowdown hits developing hard.

The Global South, caught in this vise, sees friend-shoring to Mexico/Vietnam exclude them, FDI down 15% YoY. Alexander Stubb envisions a "triangle of power" tilting against the unaligned. Socialist China's lens: West traps periphery in "cycle of dependency," China challenging via BRICS semi-periphery ascent. Foreign Policy asserts, "the global south will not give up on China," as Celso Amorim rebuffs binary threats, reinforcing BRICS diversification. A U.S.-China bargain? Mixed: steadier chains, but eroded leverage, sovereignty "subject to... hegemons." Deglobalization's blade carves unevenly—EM Asia "catch[es] down," LatAm fiscal woes loom.

Navigating the Evolutionary Abyss Toward Resilient Multipolarity

As we survey this tapestry of waste and warfare, a sobering truth emerges: economic evolution, for all its ingenuity, is a double-edged sword, sharpened by geopolitics into a blade that often slices deepest into the Global South's veins. The VC bonfire and China's concrete colossi remind us that progress is paved with failures—$6.8 trillion squandered, 75% of startups extinct—yet they underscore a vital lesson: undirected markets, romanticized as engines of liberty, falter where capital is king and the poor lack crowns. Free market purism, as Stiglitz excoriates, breeds crises "not rare events," a millstone chaining developing economies to commodity traps while tigers like Korea leap via state leashes. Directed capital isn't panacea—cronyism lurks, as Venezuela's oil woes attest—but hybrids, blending market vigor with sovereign steer, offer lifelines: Vietnam's Doi Moi, India's semiconductor subsidies.

Geopolitically, the West's "rules-based order" reveals its selective fangs—sanctions starving Iran's middles, Venezuela's millions fleeing, Russia's pivot east—proving alignment's cruel arithmetic. India's eternal hedge, Jaishankar's "middle path," buys time but extracts tolls: 50% tariffs eviscerating exports, growth stuttered. China's outlier—Xi's autonomy overtures, $1 trillion BRI webs—hints at multipolarity's promise, but 2025's tempests, from Ukraine's quagmire to Taiwan's simmer, portend fragmentation. UNCTAD's "perfect storm" for LICs—debt distress in half, ODA slashed 18%—and Brookings' "tumultuous" rivalries signal no easy dawn; deglobalization's chill (trade down 18% in forecasts) freezes the unaligned in amber.

Yet, despair yields to agency. The Global South's BRICS bulwark—$50 billion non-dollar swaps eyed—forges South-South sinews, echoing Veblen's cumulative causation. As Stubb's triangle tilts, mid-powers must wield "low-risk" diplomacy, per Kapur, not Nehru's idealism alone. Reflection demands action: reform multilaterals for fairer flows, green tech pacts transcending blocs, debt jubilees unshackling the periphery. Evolution favors the adaptable; in this great power scrum, resilience isn't neutrality but nimble navigation—hedging not as hesitation, but as the forge of true autonomy. The endgame? Not predestined doom, but a multipolar mosaic where the squeezed dictate terms, turning waste into wisdom, wars into wary peace. The die is weighted, but the players can reroll.

References

Harvard Business School News. (2012). Why Most Venture-Backed Companies Fail. Rao, D. (2023). Forbes. Unlock Success: 8 Proven Strategies... American Affairs Journal. (2021). The Crisis of Venture Capital... U.S. Treasury. (2024). Remarks by Jay Shambaugh... MERICS. (2025). Beyond Overcapacity... Atlantic Council. (2024). Breaking Down Janet Yellen's Comments... CNBC. (2014). China Has ‘Wasted’ $6.8 Trillion... Newsweek. (2025). What Happened to China's 'Ghost Cities?' PMC. (2016). J.A. Schumpeter and T.B. Veblen... Springer. (2008). What is Specific About Evolutionary Economics? A-Z Quotes. Chalmers Johnson Quotes. Johns Hopkins. (2024). Do Sanctions Actually Work? Conversable Economist. (2024). Economic Sanctions on Russia... Columbia CGEP. (2023). How U.S. Sanctions Can Backfire. CNAS. (n.d.). How Harsh U.S. Sanctions... Brasil de Fato. (2024). Iran, Russia and Venezuela... OHCHR. (2019). US Sanctions Violate Human Rights... Politics for India. (2023). Non-Alignment as Indian Foreign Policy. Carnegie Endowment. (2021). Non-Allied Forever... MP-IDSA. (2020). In Defence of Non-Alignment. OUP. (2023). How China Perceives European Strategic Autonomy. ECFR. (2023). Behind the Buzzwords... MERICS. (n.d.). How China Views the EU... Bruegel. (2024). Updating the EU Strategy on China... The Guardian. (2025). Trump Imposes 50% Tariff on India... Reuters. (2025). Trump's Doubling of Tariffs Hits India... Atlantic Council. (2025). The Trump Administration Needs... Friends of Socialist China. (2025). JD Vance Admits... China US Focus. (2023). The Global South... Foreign Policy. (2025). Why the Global South Won’t Give Up... China Global South. (2025). U.S.–China Grand Bargain... Brookings. (2024). Year-End Reflections... UNCTAD. (2025). Trade and Development Foresights 2025... UN DESA. (2025). World Economic Situation... BrainyQuote. Ha-Joon Chang Quotes. WEA Pedagogy. (2018). Quotes Critical of Economics.