9 ms·

That should be the sign for the sane investor to get out of China. Rulers that want to stay forever usually get to a high level of stagnation, corruption and su

by geff82 9y ago

That should be the sign for the sane investor to get out of China. Rulers that want to stay forever usually get to a high level of stagnation, corruption and suppression rather sooner than later. The status of a supreme leader can only be challenged by revolution, uprising and/or violence. The communist party already has absolutist power - now they get insane. Good luck with that.

tzahola 9y ago
So you’re saying the Linux kernel would get better if we overthrew Linus?
- JorgeGT 9y ago
  An operating system kernel and the lives and destinies of more than a billion people are very different things to manage.
- mtgx 9y ago
  Probably, at least from a security point of view.
  - AsyncAwait 9y ago
    Given the junk people wanted to merge and Linus shot down, I doubt it.
- tskaiser 9y ago
  We could do so at any time if the community decided it was for the better. Linux being open source means anyone can fork it if needed be. China is setting the stage for an actual dictator.
- aje403 9y ago
  Really?
- yorwba 9y ago
  The problem with dictators is not that they are all bad for their countries, it's that replacing a bad dictator is too difficult. If Linus were bad at his job, you'd only have to find someone better and start pulling your kernel source from them. No civil war necessary.
  - barrkel 9y ago
    It's not so simple - there are implicit institutions in the network of who knows who, and who makes decisions that get executed, vs just having opinions. The revolution would be in the form of a fork that would need to fight for attention, money, allies, etc. - not wholly unlike a real revolution.
    - devgrammy 9y ago
      that's a matter of 'forking' resource usage... For a nation-state level, it's going to be a lot dirtier (defaming, violence, and possible civil war)...
rainygold 9y ago
If anything, investors will be encouraged to invest in China due to this news. Xi has been a stable leader for the country. This news simply means more of the same.
- varjag 9y ago
  Who of the previous leaders of China have been unstable?
  - rainbowmverse 9y ago
    I doubt they meant to imply previous leaders were unstable. Stability is good for investment, and the current government is stable. A new leader could be any of the kinds of leader that make investors look elsewhere.
    - varjag 9y ago
      Of course they didn't mean to, but their argument bears this implication. Hard to argue for improvement when the status quo was just as good.
    - gurkendoktor 9y ago
      I think this subthread is arguing about which is larger: - The risk that a stable leader with increasingly unlimited power will lead to stagnation, deep corruption, or war. - The risk that a disruptive leader emerges after Xi and is not countered in time by government mechanisms (e.g. internal elections within the party). Historic consensus seems to be that the former is the bigger danger, which is why even the CCP previously put a limit on presidential terms.
    - rainygold 9y ago
      Yes this was the point I was trying to make. It is the status quo. That can only be good for business.
      - varjag 9y ago
isostatic 9y ago
Investors look at the short term. In the short term this works well. Even In the longer ter, individual investors may well personally do very well (be on the good side of the supreme ruler and the possibilities are very good).
frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
Actually I might put money into China off this news. Irrespective of other risks of China - the state capitalist model is working and Xi is going to hold to this implementation of it.
- fjsolwmv 9y ago
  If this system is working well (I'm not judging), and the only way to sustain it is to annoint a dictator for life (because the rest of the Communist Party won't support this system?) then something is dangerously wrong.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    No dictator for life has been appointed, they just repealed the presidential term limit. Xi has been in office five years, america had FDR for 12 years.
    - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
      FDR would have been 16 years, but he died after 13. But he didn't repeal a term limit. There was a two-term limit in precedent, but not in law, so FDR didn't have to repeal anything. But people saw that, and put a two-term limit in law. Any future FDR or Xi in the US will have to change the law. And yes, that will set off warning alarms in the US, if it ever happens.
      - liberte82 9y ago
        Warning alarms have been ringing since the start of the last US election, warnings won't be enough to stop it from happening.
        AnimalMuppet 9y ago
        > Warning alarms have been ringing since the start of the last US election... Agreed. > ... warnings won't be enough to stop it from happening. Here I disagree. For it to happen in the US now would require a constitutional amendment. I don't see any way that would happen now. Especially since seeking one would make the alarm bells ring much louder. Or, for it to happen now would take ignoring the constitution. I'm pretty sure that would trigger a civil war. Either way, in the US it's much harder than just having a party congress decide that it will be so.
Cw67NTN8F 9y ago
In a sense they have a "permanent ruler," the Politburo. But in reality the leader is 99%, unless he makes sudden /unpopular moves. But then, he's 64, he has another 5 legit years, so he'll be 69 when his 2 terms end. He might not have that much time. But who knows...
stevenh 9y ago
I can't tell whether the people in this thread claiming this will be the downfall of China are serious. Do you really believe that, or do you just want it to be true because you're afraid of China?
- taway483 9y ago
  Probably both. Everyone, including and especially China's own citizens, should be very afraid of the current regime and its path towards a surveillance state. I don't think anyone in this thread actually expects China to fall within a few years, but it isn't unjustified to believe that this will be the downfall of China, and that we should be very worried about an upcoming war.
  - greggarious 9y ago
    >it isn't unjustified to believe that this will be the downfall of China, and that we should be very worried about an upcoming war. Why - will such a civil war spill beyond China's borders?
    - CogitoCogito 9y ago
      Personally I'm afraid it could result in China attempting an invasion of Taiwan. This could lead to war between the US (as well as other countries) and China.
      - dpark 9y ago
        I doubt the US would actually go to war with China for an invasion of Taiwan. We happily gave Taiwan’s UN seat to China to establish relations and no longer have official relations with Taiwan at all. I don’t think we’d sacrifice the relationship with our largest trading partner over Taiwan. Nor do I think our politicians would sign up for a war against China except in the face of an existential threat.
        seanmcdirmid 9y ago
ezVoodoo 9y ago
Rulers that want to stay forever... such as the King of Saudi Arabia?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
chvid 9y ago
All the modern Asian success stories: Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan ... had the same rulers/ruling party for decades.
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  Those leaders had mandates from the people in any case, via elections they could lose. Unless you are talking about the Taiwan and South Korea dictators of Mao’s era.
  - chvid 9y ago
    Yes. I was in particular refering to how these countries were ruled during their "growth period". The Chinese communist obviously don't have a democratic mandate. But I think it would be a mistake to think that they don't have widespread popular support.
    - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
      I don't think Mao's time could be considered very equivalent to today. There were a lot of dictators around after WW2, but many gave way to stable democracies, and those that didn't weren't prosperous. The problem with the CCP is that there is no real feedback loop. Their support is very fragile, and it would just take one recession to break it (they have no "lets throw the turkey's out" pressure valve).
      - chvid 9y ago
        I think it is quite relevant. China is undergoing today what Japan went thru at Mao's time. My guess is that CCP is going to be popular and safe at the realm as long as growth is strong (so maybe we agree there).
        seanmcdirmid 9y ago
        Growth isn't going to always be strong. Economic cycles are inevitable, even if they manage to kick the can of a correction down the road today, it will just come back worse in the future. People in China can only express their discontent by rioting (which happens in China, a lot). They have no other real way of communicating with officials, they can't even make sneaky jokes on the internet anymore to express their dissatisfaction. That alone is a very dangerous situation.
pdog 9y ago
The performance of the economy has nothing to do with investment returns. Paradoxically, the correlation between economic growth and stock market returns is actually negative[1][2][3]. Investors can do well in stagnating economies. Also, the anti-corruption campaign[4] happening in China right now is probably the farthest reaching since its imperial days. [1]: https://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2014/02/growth-and-markets https://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2014/02/growth-an... [2]: https://www.ft.com/content/8b5ae298-a065-11e2-a6e1-00144feabdc0 https://www.ft.com/content/8b5ae298-a065-11e2-a6e1-00144feab... [3]: http://www.moneyobserver.com/opinion/gdp-makes-stocks-grow-fishers-financial-mythbusters http://www.moneyobserver.com/opinion/gdp-makes-stocks-grow-f... [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-corruption_campaign_under_Xi_Jinping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-corruption_campaign_under...
- coliveira 9y ago
  The economic explanation for this is quite simple: huge growth in the stock market means that money is being taken from productive and moved into speculative vehicles. The higher the growth in the stock market, the higher the desire to move more money into stock (the phenomenon of "chasing returns"). So, contrary to what most economists say, a high growth in the stock market is a primary indicator that the real economy is lacking investment. Of course the result is that a huge recession follows, which is "explained away" by economists as the "normal investment cycle".

by geff82 9y ago

tzahola 9y ago

So you’re saying the Linux kernel would get better if we overthrew Linus?

JorgeGT 9y ago
An operating system kernel and the lives and destinies of more than a billion people are very different things to manage.
mtgx 9y ago
Probably, at least from a security point of view.
- AsyncAwait 9y ago
  Given the junk people wanted to merge and Linus shot down, I doubt it.
tskaiser 9y ago
We could do so at any time if the community decided it was for the better. Linux being open source means anyone can fork it if needed be. China is setting the stage for an actual dictator.
aje403 9y ago
Really?
yorwba 9y ago
The problem with dictators is not that they are all bad for their countries, it's that replacing a bad dictator is too difficult. If Linus were bad at his job, you'd only have to find someone better and start pulling your kernel source from them. No civil war necessary.
- barrkel 9y ago
  It's not so simple - there are implicit institutions in the network of who knows who, and who makes decisions that get executed, vs just having opinions. The revolution would be in the form of a fork that would need to fight for attention, money, allies, etc. - not wholly unlike a real revolution.
  - devgrammy 9y ago
    that's a matter of 'forking' resource usage... For a nation-state level, it's going to be a lot dirtier (defaming, violence, and possible civil war)...

rainygold 9y ago

If anything, investors will be encouraged to invest in China due to this news. Xi has been a stable leader for the country. This news simply means more of the same.

varjag 9y ago
Who of the previous leaders of China have been unstable?
- rainbowmverse 9y ago
  I doubt they meant to imply previous leaders were unstable. Stability is good for investment, and the current government is stable. A new leader could be any of the kinds of leader that make investors look elsewhere.
  - varjag 9y ago
    Of course they didn't mean to, but their argument bears this implication. Hard to argue for improvement when the status quo was just as good.
  - gurkendoktor 9y ago
    I think this subthread is arguing about which is larger: - The risk that a stable leader with increasingly unlimited power will lead to stagnation, deep corruption, or war. - The risk that a disruptive leader emerges after Xi and is not countered in time by government mechanisms (e.g. internal elections within the party). Historic consensus seems to be that the former is the bigger danger, which is why even the CCP previously put a limit on presidential terms.
  - rainygold 9y ago
    Yes this was the point I was trying to make. It is the status quo. That can only be good for business.
    - varjag 9y ago

isostatic 9y ago

Investors look at the short term. In the short term this works well. Even In the longer ter, individual investors may well personally do very well (be on the good side of the supreme ruler and the possibilities are very good).

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

Actually I might put money into China off this news. Irrespective of other risks of China - the state capitalist model is working and Xi is going to hold to this implementation of it.

fjsolwmv 9y ago
If this system is working well (I'm not judging), and the only way to sustain it is to annoint a dictator for life (because the rest of the Communist Party won't support this system?) then something is dangerously wrong.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  No dictator for life has been appointed, they just repealed the presidential term limit. Xi has been in office five years, america had FDR for 12 years.
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    FDR would have been 16 years, but he died after 13. But he didn't repeal a term limit. There was a two-term limit in precedent, but not in law, so FDR didn't have to repeal anything. But people saw that, and put a two-term limit in law. Any future FDR or Xi in the US will have to change the law. And yes, that will set off warning alarms in the US, if it ever happens.
    - liberte82 9y ago
      Warning alarms have been ringing since the start of the last US election, warnings won't be enough to stop it from happening.
      - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
        > Warning alarms have been ringing since the start of the last US election... Agreed. > ... warnings won't be enough to stop it from happening. Here I disagree. For it to happen in the US now would require a constitutional amendment. I don't see any way that would happen now. Especially since seeking one would make the alarm bells ring much louder. Or, for it to happen now would take ignoring the constitution. I'm pretty sure that would trigger a civil war. Either way, in the US it's much harder than just having a party congress decide that it will be so.

Cw67NTN8F 9y ago

In a sense they have a "permanent ruler," the Politburo. But in reality the leader is 99%, unless he makes sudden /unpopular moves. But then, he's 64, he has another 5 legit years, so he'll be 69 when his 2 terms end. He might not have that much time. But who knows...

stevenh 9y ago

I can't tell whether the people in this thread claiming this will be the downfall of China are serious. Do you really believe that, or do you just want it to be true because you're afraid of China?

taway483 9y ago
Probably both. Everyone, including and especially China's own citizens, should be very afraid of the current regime and its path towards a surveillance state. I don't think anyone in this thread actually expects China to fall within a few years, but it isn't unjustified to believe that this will be the downfall of China, and that we should be very worried about an upcoming war.
- greggarious 9y ago
  >it isn't unjustified to believe that this will be the downfall of China, and that we should be very worried about an upcoming war. Why - will such a civil war spill beyond China's borders?
  - CogitoCogito 9y ago
    Personally I'm afraid it could result in China attempting an invasion of Taiwan. This could lead to war between the US (as well as other countries) and China.
    - dpark 9y ago
      I doubt the US would actually go to war with China for an invasion of Taiwan. We happily gave Taiwan’s UN seat to China to establish relations and no longer have official relations with Taiwan at all. I don’t think we’d sacrifice the relationship with our largest trading partner over Taiwan. Nor do I think our politicians would sign up for a war against China except in the face of an existential threat.
      - seanmcdirmid 9y ago

ezVoodoo 9y ago

Rulers that want to stay forever... such as the King of Saudi Arabia?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

chvid 9y ago

All the modern Asian success stories: Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan ... had the same rulers/ruling party for decades.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago
Those leaders had mandates from the people in any case, via elections they could lose. Unless you are talking about the Taiwan and South Korea dictators of Mao’s era.
- chvid 9y ago
  Yes. I was in particular refering to how these countries were ruled during their "growth period". The Chinese communist obviously don't have a democratic mandate. But I think it would be a mistake to think that they don't have widespread popular support.
  - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
    I don't think Mao's time could be considered very equivalent to today. There were a lot of dictators around after WW2, but many gave way to stable democracies, and those that didn't weren't prosperous. The problem with the CCP is that there is no real feedback loop. Their support is very fragile, and it would just take one recession to break it (they have no "lets throw the turkey's out" pressure valve).
    - chvid 9y ago
      I think it is quite relevant. China is undergoing today what Japan went thru at Mao's time. My guess is that CCP is going to be popular and safe at the realm as long as growth is strong (so maybe we agree there).
      - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
        Growth isn't going to always be strong. Economic cycles are inevitable, even if they manage to kick the can of a correction down the road today, it will just come back worse in the future. People in China can only express their discontent by rioting (which happens in China, a lot). They have no other real way of communicating with officials, they can't even make sneaky jokes on the internet anymore to express their dissatisfaction. That alone is a very dangerous situation.

pdog 9y ago

The performance of the economy has nothing to do with investment returns. Paradoxically, the correlation between economic growth and stock market returns is actually negative[1][2][3]. Investors can do well in stagnating economies. Also, the anti-corruption campaign[4] happening in China right now is probably the farthest reaching since its imperial days. [1]: https://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2014/02/growth-and-markets https://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2014/02/growth-an... [2]: https://www.ft.com/content/8b5ae298-a065-11e2-a6e1-00144feabdc0 https://www.ft.com/content/8b5ae298-a065-11e2-a6e1-00144feab... [3]: http://www.moneyobserver.com/opinion/gdp-makes-stocks-grow-fishers-financial-mythbusters http://www.moneyobserver.com/opinion/gdp-makes-stocks-grow-f... [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-corruption_campaign_under_Xi_Jinping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-corruption_campaign_under...

coliveira 9y ago
The economic explanation for this is quite simple: huge growth in the stock market means that money is being taken from productive and moved into speculative vehicles. The higher the growth in the stock market, the higher the desire to move more money into stock (the phenomenon of "chasing returns"). So, contrary to what most economists say, a high growth in the stock market is a primary indicator that the real economy is lacking investment. Of course the result is that a huge recession follows, which is "explained away" by economists as the "normal investment cycle".