4 ms·
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
by 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 agoOf 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 agoI 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 agoYes this was the point I was trying to make. It is the status quo. That can only be good for business.
- varjag 9y agoThe status quo was a stable political system that is now changed for a dictatorship.
- myrandomcomment 9y agoYour account is 4 days old and only comments are pro-China party comments. Hum.
- thisacctforreal 9y agoSample size = 2.
- mtgx 9y agoHow 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.