6 ms·

The reason China will outperform the west is because it's not a democracy. In a democracy, politicians rent the country. In China, the leaders own it. People

The reason China will outperform the west is because it's not a democracy. In a democracy, politicians rent the country. In China, the leaders own it. People care more about their property if they have a long term interest in it. "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

papaf 16y ago
A counter argument can be found in the book "The end of history and the last man". It puts forward the idea that technology improves at the greatest rate in a free market democracy because the professional classes are at their most effective. Link to the book: http://www.amazon.com/End-History-Last-Man/dp/0743284550/ http://www.amazon.com/End-History-Last-Man/dp/0743284550/ I disagreed with parts of the book but it stimulated the way I think about such subjects.
cabalamat 16y ago
> The reason China will outperform the west is because it's not a democracy. You may be right. On the other hand, there are plenty of autocracies that show no sign of outperforming the west.
- ebaysucks 16y ago
  Indeed, the statement is contingent, not necessarily true. The leaders of the autocracies need to be benevolent and think long term. It all comes down to respect of property rights. Democracies respect property rights to a limited but non-zero extent. Chinese leaders now respect private property more than most Western democracies.
  - gte910h 16y ago
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/08/AR2007030800083.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03... "As long as the problem of landownership is not solved, conflicts on unfair land seizure cannot be avoided. Since land is in the hand of the government, a developer can bribe an official and make the official claim that the land is seized for public use," said Liu Xiaobo, a leading political dissident. "If the developer could get the approval from the official, he is legally entitled to seize the land."
    - ebaysucks 16y ago
      I agree China is far from perfect - central government, even with the best intentions, will always be inhuman and inefficient. However, sometimes less so than under mob rule.
Arun2009 16y ago
My own expectation is that China will become a Singapore with 1 billion people. The west stands no chance.
- Scott_MacGregor 16y ago
  China has a very different culture than Singapore. I do not think that just because they are in close proximity and are both Asian that it means the people are moving in the exact same direction. To me China seems much more blue collar heavy industry than Singapore, and Singapore seems much more western looking in a lot of ways than China.
ABrandt 16y ago
In a democracy, politicians rent the country. In China, the leaders own it. People care more about their property if they have a long term interest in it. This may be true, but you're also classifying human beings as property with this statement. What happens when 1 billion people realize they're mere puppets of their leaders. Benevolent or not, Man typically rebels against his owner. I also think the entire comparison of China to a large business is fascinating. A corporations primary duty is to generate wealth for its shareholders. Who are China's shareholders? The typical worker living off $1000 a year, or the far wealthier upper class? Running businesses like a business is great, but I have my doubts on how the strategies translate to running a country.
- mmaro 16y ago
  There's a big difference between being a subject and being owned. Only a really dysfunctional government would act as if they owned their citizens. Some ways to determine whether you're owned: do you-the-asset-itself appear on a balance sheet? Is your tax rate 100%? Might you get sold to a new owner? Some heuristics to determine China's shareholders: who receives the government's income in cash or cash equivalents? Who decides who belongs in the politburo?
  - GFischer 16y ago
    I don't believe I'm "owned", but I sometimes feel like one of the characters in an Ayn Rand novel(1) "do you-the-asset-itself appear on a balance sheet? " Er, yes, on the IRS equivalent (DGI) "Is your tax rate 100%?" Nope, about 60% (they don't want me to starve, they just want to relieve me of my "excess" wealth). About my "owners", why, it's the Government itself, it's about 8% of the working population but about 50% of the population depends indirectly on it, so it has the voting power to perpetuate itself. (1) I'm not an uncritical Ayn Rand reader, her ideas are too extreme and her characters were almost a parody, but I do agree with some parts
stavrianos 16y ago
China is like a sociopath in a room full of schizophrenics.
gscott 16y ago
The problem with one entity running everything is that eventually they will make that one mistake that will bring it all crashing down.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

papaf 16y ago

A counter argument can be found in the book "The end of history and the last man". It puts forward the idea that technology improves at the greatest rate in a free market democracy because the professional classes are at their most effective. Link to the book: http://www.amazon.com/End-History-Last-Man/dp/0743284550/ http://www.amazon.com/End-History-Last-Man/dp/0743284550/ I disagreed with parts of the book but it stimulated the way I think about such subjects.

cabalamat 16y ago

> The reason China will outperform the west is because it's not a democracy. You may be right. On the other hand, there are plenty of autocracies that show no sign of outperforming the west.

ebaysucks 16y ago
Indeed, the statement is contingent, not necessarily true. The leaders of the autocracies need to be benevolent and think long term. It all comes down to respect of property rights. Democracies respect property rights to a limited but non-zero extent. Chinese leaders now respect private property more than most Western democracies.
- gte910h 16y ago
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/08/AR2007030800083.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03... "As long as the problem of landownership is not solved, conflicts on unfair land seizure cannot be avoided. Since land is in the hand of the government, a developer can bribe an official and make the official claim that the land is seized for public use," said Liu Xiaobo, a leading political dissident. "If the developer could get the approval from the official, he is legally entitled to seize the land."
  - ebaysucks 16y ago
    I agree China is far from perfect - central government, even with the best intentions, will always be inhuman and inefficient. However, sometimes less so than under mob rule.

Arun2009 16y ago

My own expectation is that China will become a Singapore with 1 billion people. The west stands no chance.

Scott_MacGregor 16y ago
China has a very different culture than Singapore. I do not think that just because they are in close proximity and are both Asian that it means the people are moving in the exact same direction. To me China seems much more blue collar heavy industry than Singapore, and Singapore seems much more western looking in a lot of ways than China.

ABrandt 16y ago

In a democracy, politicians rent the country. In China, the leaders own it. People care more about their property if they have a long term interest in it. This may be true, but you're also classifying human beings as property with this statement. What happens when 1 billion people realize they're mere puppets of their leaders. Benevolent or not, Man typically rebels against his owner. I also think the entire comparison of China to a large business is fascinating. A corporations primary duty is to generate wealth for its shareholders. Who are China's shareholders? The typical worker living off $1000 a year, or the far wealthier upper class? Running businesses like a business is great, but I have my doubts on how the strategies translate to running a country.

mmaro 16y ago
There's a big difference between being a subject and being owned. Only a really dysfunctional government would act as if they owned their citizens. Some ways to determine whether you're owned: do you-the-asset-itself appear on a balance sheet? Is your tax rate 100%? Might you get sold to a new owner? Some heuristics to determine China's shareholders: who receives the government's income in cash or cash equivalents? Who decides who belongs in the politburo?
- GFischer 16y ago
  I don't believe I'm "owned", but I sometimes feel like one of the characters in an Ayn Rand novel(1) "do you-the-asset-itself appear on a balance sheet? " Er, yes, on the IRS equivalent (DGI) "Is your tax rate 100%?" Nope, about 60% (they don't want me to starve, they just want to relieve me of my "excess" wealth). About my "owners", why, it's the Government itself, it's about 8% of the working population but about 50% of the population depends indirectly on it, so it has the voting power to perpetuate itself. (1) I'm not an uncritical Ayn Rand reader, her ideas are too extreme and her characters were almost a parody, but I do agree with some parts

stavrianos 16y ago

China is like a sociopath in a room full of schizophrenics.

gscott 16y ago

The problem with one entity running everything is that eventually they will make that one mistake that will bring it all crashing down.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]