6 ms·
> 3. Why Fred thinks China won't have the same short term self-interest that every other country does seems fanciful at best. I think the reason would be that
by pgodzin 7y ago
> 3. Why Fred thinks China won't have the same short term self-interest that every other country does seems fanciful at best.
I think the reason would be that most countries that make short-term decisions are ones that have democratic elections every few years and need to avoid pissing off too many people. China's authoritarian system may have more leeway with short-term pain for longer-term strategic initiatives not resulting in societal upheaval.
- redisman 7y agoPeople seem to overrate Xi's standing in the long-term. It is easy to keep a population docile with double digits economic growth. Once that trend terminates though...
- puranjay 7y agoOur evidence from the 20th century shows that the only countries that are successful are democratic. The list of authoritarian countries that crashed and burned is longer than the list of democratic countries that did the same.
- pgodzin 7y agoHappy to consider other examples, but it does feel like the combination of China's capitalistic reforms while maintaining its authoritarian rule and the state control of information is fairly unique in the 20th century. And any comparables likely failed due to war with democratic countries, and that seems unlikely given China's role in the globalization of trade as well as it being a nuclear power.
- saagarjha 7y agoQatar has been doing rather well, I’d say.
- puranjay 7y agoQatar and most middle eastern countries are anomalies in that they have access to the world's most important resource.
- kamaal 7y agoChina is a kind of democracy and a very meritorious one at that already. Just because they aren't copy cat 100% clone of US/UK democracy, it doesn't mean they aren't a democracy. Also countries like Great Britain, France and all other big European powers made bulk of their super power status when ruled by Monarchs. The democracies later carried the inertia of those eras. Which is understandable. Once you build a sound educational ecosystem, with a great economy with an industrialized economic base, democracy works like a charm. There is a long term supply of good leaders and educated masses to vote for them. Also democracy is not a process designed to produce good leaders. It's only a process that elects them in a system where they are already present, with a populace that can recognize.
- chillacy 7y agoSingapore is fairly authoritarian and they've had outsized success going from third world to first. I think the root cause is pretty simple: having no checks and balances lets you move faster, no matter what direction (either up or down), and it's a lot easier to mess things up than it is to do everything right.
- puranjay 7y agoAgain, countries like Singapore are poor models to follow simply because of their size and population. It is drastically easier to govern a country you can cycle across in a few hours, than a country like India or China.
- chillacy 7y agoI think that's certainly a factor but your initial claim was: > the only countries that are successful are democratic And you're supporting it by excluding all counter-examples. Maybe a more accurate statement would be "most successful countries are democratic". And since you mentioned China and India, India is a democracy, China is ruled by an authoritarian single-party. Both have huge populations, yet China has grown its GDP better? Assuming good economy = successful here. http://statisticstimes.com/economy/china-vs-india-economy.php http://statisticstimes.com/economy/china-vs-india-economy.ph... Let me present an alternative thesis: democracy has little to do with good governance. It acts as a buffer against discontent, it's in many ways moral, but it is not by itself sufficient to create prosperity.