6 ms·

That's not a bad thing, but it means that you can't help the economy without helping the party. It's either both or neither.

gdy 7y ago
But if a party policies help economy grow, why is it bad to help party?
- TearsInTheRain 7y ago
  I mean if you really dont know, China is an incredibly oppressive totalitarian regime that maintains their power through violence and censorship. Political opponents are routinely disappeared and murdered
  - gdy 7y ago
    Why do you call it "incredibly oppressive"? It's nothing like Mao's China or Stalin's USSR or Pol Pot's Cambodia or Hitler's Germany. Saudi Arabia comes to mind with their executions of political opponents and whatnot. If you really don't know, CCP's regime through economic growth has lifted from extreme poverty over 700 million people [0]. It's the same economic growth HN's well-wishers are lamenting about. Extreme poverty is not inability to buy the latest iPhone, it's malnutrition, lack of medical care, hard work, illnesses and likely early death. You care about people who, you say, disappeared because of CCP's regime and at the same time absolutely don't care about hundreds of millions, most of whom would've still been suffering from extreme poverty and accompanying excessive mortality. The statistics of democratic India are lagging behind by very big margin and give an estimation of what could've been China's alternative reality [1]. [0] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/peoples-daily-online/opinion/poverty-reduction/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/peoples-daily-online/opinion/pov... [1] https://qz.com/india/1385642/after-china-india-pulled-most-people-out-of-poverty-since-1990/ https://qz.com/india/1385642/after-china-india-pulled-most-p...
    - __sy__ 7y ago
      I wish people would stop arguing that democracy and lifting millions out of poverty are mutually exclusive. They're not. Taiwan. South Korea. Japan. Though the first 2 were fairly authoritarian in the 1950s, they all progressively marched toward democracy. CCP is taking China the other way. Meanwhile India, which is the CCP's favorite parrot for justifying their means, actually has lifted out of abject poverty just about as many people as the CCP.
      - gdy 7y ago
        That is a straw man. The point is that democracy doesn't automatically mean economic growth and the best example falls short of China's success. In case of China, CCP's policies worked spectacularly well and you need a reason that outweighs economic growth to wish for its demise. "just about as many" The second link specifically says that it is not so.
        __sy__ 7y ago
        Sorry, you are correct; what I had in mind and should have written was more along the lines of "within the same order of magnitude." I'm guessing/hoping India will be caught up by 2035-2040. Anyways, I'm not denying that there are benefits to top-down, non-democratic planning in the early stages of economic development. Again Taiwan, and its use of eminent domain in the 1970s, 80s. But I don't think long-term it leads to the most stable & innovative society. Last but not least, I don't agree with your assertion that the "best democratic examples have fallen short of China's success." How are we measuring that? GPD per capita? Life expectancy? General happiness? Anecdotally, I've spent enough time in the PRC these past few years to tell you that on what I'd consider all the relevant dimensions, Taiwan, Japan, or South Korea respectively just crush the average quality of life & wealth levels you get in China's Tier 1 cities today.
        gdy 7y ago
        "I don't agree with your assertion" I meant the reduction of extreme poverty in China vs. India.

gdy 7y ago

But if a party policies help economy grow, why is it bad to help party?

TearsInTheRain 7y ago
I mean if you really dont know, China is an incredibly oppressive totalitarian regime that maintains their power through violence and censorship. Political opponents are routinely disappeared and murdered
- gdy 7y ago
  Why do you call it "incredibly oppressive"? It's nothing like Mao's China or Stalin's USSR or Pol Pot's Cambodia or Hitler's Germany. Saudi Arabia comes to mind with their executions of political opponents and whatnot. If you really don't know, CCP's regime through economic growth has lifted from extreme poverty over 700 million people [0]. It's the same economic growth HN's well-wishers are lamenting about. Extreme poverty is not inability to buy the latest iPhone, it's malnutrition, lack of medical care, hard work, illnesses and likely early death. You care about people who, you say, disappeared because of CCP's regime and at the same time absolutely don't care about hundreds of millions, most of whom would've still been suffering from extreme poverty and accompanying excessive mortality. The statistics of democratic India are lagging behind by very big margin and give an estimation of what could've been China's alternative reality [1]. [0] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/peoples-daily-online/opinion/poverty-reduction/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/peoples-daily-online/opinion/pov... [1] https://qz.com/india/1385642/after-china-india-pulled-most-people-out-of-poverty-since-1990/ https://qz.com/india/1385642/after-china-india-pulled-most-p...
  - __sy__ 7y ago
    I wish people would stop arguing that democracy and lifting millions out of poverty are mutually exclusive. They're not. Taiwan. South Korea. Japan. Though the first 2 were fairly authoritarian in the 1950s, they all progressively marched toward democracy. CCP is taking China the other way. Meanwhile India, which is the CCP's favorite parrot for justifying their means, actually has lifted out of abject poverty just about as many people as the CCP.
    - gdy 7y ago
      That is a straw man. The point is that democracy doesn't automatically mean economic growth and the best example falls short of China's success. In case of China, CCP's policies worked spectacularly well and you need a reason that outweighs economic growth to wish for its demise. "just about as many" The second link specifically says that it is not so.
      - __sy__ 7y ago
        Sorry, you are correct; what I had in mind and should have written was more along the lines of "within the same order of magnitude." I'm guessing/hoping India will be caught up by 2035-2040. Anyways, I'm not denying that there are benefits to top-down, non-democratic planning in the early stages of economic development. Again Taiwan, and its use of eminent domain in the 1970s, 80s. But I don't think long-term it leads to the most stable & innovative society. Last but not least, I don't agree with your assertion that the "best democratic examples have fallen short of China's success." How are we measuring that? GPD per capita? Life expectancy? General happiness? Anecdotally, I've spent enough time in the PRC these past few years to tell you that on what I'd consider all the relevant dimensions, Taiwan, Japan, or South Korea respectively just crush the average quality of life & wealth levels you get in China's Tier 1 cities today.
        gdy 7y ago
        "I don't agree with your assertion" I meant the reduction of extreme poverty in China vs. India.