6 ms·

In 2016, they put an end to the one child policy. In 2017, they are offering women free removal of IUDs. Under the one child policy, women were forcibly fitted

by sseth 8y ago

In 2016, they put an end to the one child policy. In 2017, they are offering women free removal of IUDs. Under the one child policy, women were forcibly fitted with IUDs after the first child, and were forced to undergo sterilization after two. This has led to a ridiculous situation highlighted in the New York Times, where a woman forcibly fitted with IUDs in 2012, is now being offered free removal of the same IUD. This is what happens when policy is made centrally, detached from ground realities. I don't know whether there are enough people or not in China - the point was more about the issues with central planning. Similar U-turns can be seen in the stock market. The government was exhorting people to invest in the stock market as a patriotic duty, creating a huge bubble. When it burst, they tried to manage the stock market by punishing investors who were selling shares! No wonder the stock market has tanked - would you put your money in a stock market where you could be punished for selling? I agree the Chinese government with its Orwellian-like control of the population can get away with a lot. But they get a lot wrong as well.

seanmcdirmid 8y ago
The same thing happened in Korea and Singapore, however, it isn’t like China was alone in being wrong in how population control can backfire.
- simonh 8y ago
  Sure, but the point is that while totalitarianism provides enormous scope for rapid action, those actions are not informed by a full and frank public debate and there’s no mechanism for society as a whole to force a change of direction via an election. That means the ruling power, which has huge political capital tied up in their policies cannot be removed, and so tend to cling in to those policies until long, long after it’s become blatantly obvious they are doing serious harm. Democracies do have less scope for action due to checks and balances, but on the other hand if they pursue a mistaken policy, every 5 years the voters get the chance to force a change. The fact this is so means the current rulers have a strong incentive to course correct themselves as well either executively, or through an internal coup in the party in the case of parliamentary democracies. They are enormously more flexible. The Chinese governments back handed handling of their stock market is a good example. They exercised powers far beyond those available to democratic leaders, but they were wrong headed and they persisted with them long after it was obvious they were harmful. And the same people that made these grave errors are still in charge and faced no consequences. This is a better system?
  - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
    I don’t disagree with your conclusion, I just think population control is a bad example as that was more of a regional trend and not a symptom of totalitarianism. Also, after Mao’s excesses (also a regional thing) in the opposite direction, the one child policy was probably necessary, the only problem being that they let it continue too long.
  - fspeech 8y ago
    Not sure how your stock market example reflects what you are saying. Stock market actions are merely the aggregate of its individual participants and all participants are "voting". This is particularly true in China where small investors actually make up a larger share of stock market activities.
    - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
      The Chinese periodically pumps money into the market to prop it up (then they try to drain it, mostly unsuccessfully). They also encourage patriotic investing by locking up stock sales at tech companies, for example. Finally, the small investors are mostly trying to catch waves from a few whales who have lots of inside information, where many of the whales are actually princelings who are our to make money on fooling the very numerous small investors. Not a healthy market at all.
      - fspeech 8y ago
        That may be true but most of the price actions are merely noises. The cataclysmic ones show how mass hysteria can easily form and that is rather independent of the existence of manipulations. The problem is really that too much of capital allocation in China is still done through bank loans. And banks are not particularly good at spotting and adapting to new trends.
    - simonh 8y ago
      The Chinese government aggressively intervene in the stock market. It’s a long way from a free market, such as by providing incentives and promoting investing leading to bubbles, punishing release of accurate information about stocks and market activity that they don’t want people to know, even information that in western markets would be required to be published as an investors right, and preventing or punishing people selling during down swings. As another poster pointed out, how comfortable would you be investing if the government might decide to threaten to punish you if you try to sell?

by sseth 8y ago

seanmcdirmid 8y ago

The same thing happened in Korea and Singapore, however, it isn’t like China was alone in being wrong in how population control can backfire.

simonh 8y ago
Sure, but the point is that while totalitarianism provides enormous scope for rapid action, those actions are not informed by a full and frank public debate and there’s no mechanism for society as a whole to force a change of direction via an election. That means the ruling power, which has huge political capital tied up in their policies cannot be removed, and so tend to cling in to those policies until long, long after it’s become blatantly obvious they are doing serious harm. Democracies do have less scope for action due to checks and balances, but on the other hand if they pursue a mistaken policy, every 5 years the voters get the chance to force a change. The fact this is so means the current rulers have a strong incentive to course correct themselves as well either executively, or through an internal coup in the party in the case of parliamentary democracies. They are enormously more flexible. The Chinese governments back handed handling of their stock market is a good example. They exercised powers far beyond those available to democratic leaders, but they were wrong headed and they persisted with them long after it was obvious they were harmful. And the same people that made these grave errors are still in charge and faced no consequences. This is a better system?
- seanmcdirmid 8y ago
  I don’t disagree with your conclusion, I just think population control is a bad example as that was more of a regional trend and not a symptom of totalitarianism. Also, after Mao’s excesses (also a regional thing) in the opposite direction, the one child policy was probably necessary, the only problem being that they let it continue too long.
- fspeech 8y ago
  Not sure how your stock market example reflects what you are saying. Stock market actions are merely the aggregate of its individual participants and all participants are "voting". This is particularly true in China where small investors actually make up a larger share of stock market activities.
  - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
    The Chinese periodically pumps money into the market to prop it up (then they try to drain it, mostly unsuccessfully). They also encourage patriotic investing by locking up stock sales at tech companies, for example. Finally, the small investors are mostly trying to catch waves from a few whales who have lots of inside information, where many of the whales are actually princelings who are our to make money on fooling the very numerous small investors. Not a healthy market at all.
    - fspeech 8y ago
      That may be true but most of the price actions are merely noises. The cataclysmic ones show how mass hysteria can easily form and that is rather independent of the existence of manipulations. The problem is really that too much of capital allocation in China is still done through bank loans. And banks are not particularly good at spotting and adapting to new trends.
  - simonh 8y ago
    The Chinese government aggressively intervene in the stock market. It’s a long way from a free market, such as by providing incentives and promoting investing leading to bubbles, punishing release of accurate information about stocks and market activity that they don’t want people to know, even information that in western markets would be required to be published as an investors right, and preventing or punishing people selling during down swings. As another poster pointed out, how comfortable would you be investing if the government might decide to threaten to punish you if you try to sell?