5 ms·

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 s

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
      The status quo was a stable political system that is now changed for a dictatorship.
    - myrandomcomment 9y ago
      Your account is 4 days old and only comments are pro-China party comments. Hum.
      - thisacctforreal 9y ago
        Sample size = 2.
  - mtgx 9y ago
    How can you have stability when you're at the whims of a dictator. Having a dictator is quite different from a single-party rule that changes its leaders. It's more about an institution vs a single man.
- odiroot 9y ago
  Jiang Zemin?
adventured 9y ago
Assuming we're talking about foreign investors. Quite simply that's going to depend on the policies, not whether Xi is in there or not. As a party dictatorship with routinely transitioned politicians, China's government has been fairly stable in recent times. Xi clearly isn't necessary in any regard, he's trying to make himself necessary. Hu Jintao was a stable leader that oversaw one of the fastest economic expansions in world history. He also wasn't necessary, in terms of remaining perpetually in power. Xi inherited that nicely built-up economic position. It's the policies that Xi follows/implements that will determine investor confidence, just as it was for Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin (also a stable leader that didn't need to remain in power perpetually). Xi is properly replaceable like the others, insofar as he doesn't implement political changes that forcibly make him otherwise. The power move that Xi appears to be going for, is all down to his personality, rather than necessity, which is in stark contrast with the prior two Presidents.
seanmcdirmid 9y ago
Peaceful power transitions are great for stability.
xir78 9y ago
More of the same would be keeping the term limit, this signals a regression to the worst tendencies in humanity, eroding the laws that are designed to prevent them. Even if Xi is a stable leader for the next 30 years, will the next leader to take advantage of the removal of term limits be the same?
- tonylinn80 9y ago
  Worry about that after 30 years then. I don't pretend i can predict what's going to happen at that time frame. Isn't AI supposed to take over everything by then?
- manicdee 9y ago
  If you want to see regression to the worst tendencies in humanity look no further than democratically elected Tony Abbott going on an ideological crusade to undo everything Julia Gillard’s government achieved. The same is playing out with Trump dismantling everything the Obama Administration accomplished.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

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
    The status quo was a stable political system that is now changed for a dictatorship.
  - myrandomcomment 9y ago
    Your account is 4 days old and only comments are pro-China party comments. Hum.
    - thisacctforreal 9y ago
      Sample size = 2.
- mtgx 9y ago
  How can you have stability when you're at the whims of a dictator. Having a dictator is quite different from a single-party rule that changes its leaders. It's more about an institution vs a single man.
odiroot 9y ago
Jiang Zemin?

adventured 9y ago

Assuming we're talking about foreign investors. Quite simply that's going to depend on the policies, not whether Xi is in there or not. As a party dictatorship with routinely transitioned politicians, China's government has been fairly stable in recent times. Xi clearly isn't necessary in any regard, he's trying to make himself necessary. Hu Jintao was a stable leader that oversaw one of the fastest economic expansions in world history. He also wasn't necessary, in terms of remaining perpetually in power. Xi inherited that nicely built-up economic position. It's the policies that Xi follows/implements that will determine investor confidence, just as it was for Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin (also a stable leader that didn't need to remain in power perpetually). Xi is properly replaceable like the others, insofar as he doesn't implement political changes that forcibly make him otherwise. The power move that Xi appears to be going for, is all down to his personality, rather than necessity, which is in stark contrast with the prior two Presidents.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago

Peaceful power transitions are great for stability.

xir78 9y ago

More of the same would be keeping the term limit, this signals a regression to the worst tendencies in humanity, eroding the laws that are designed to prevent them. Even if Xi is a stable leader for the next 30 years, will the next leader to take advantage of the removal of term limits be the same?

tonylinn80 9y ago
Worry about that after 30 years then. I don't pretend i can predict what's going to happen at that time frame. Isn't AI supposed to take over everything by then?
manicdee 9y ago
If you want to see regression to the worst tendencies in humanity look no further than democratically elected Tony Abbott going on an ideological crusade to undo everything Julia Gillard’s government achieved. The same is playing out with Trump dismantling everything the Obama Administration accomplished.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]