6 ms·

The problem with the west is that it is largely leaderless. Actions happen due to some interest group getting their way. China on the other hand is very much l

by rapsey 6y ago

The problem with the west is that it is largely leaderless. Actions happen due to some interest group getting their way. China on the other hand is very much lead. I think the west constantly bringing up Chinese demographic and other issues is just the west being lazy and ignoring reality. China is becoming unstoppable. Democratic nations banding together or building new supply chains are pipe dreams.

malandrew 6y ago
> Actions happen due to some interest group getting their way. This is such a big reason. We no longer identify under a single identity. In America, that would be identifying as an American. In Europe, people still don't really identify as being European before they identify as English, French, German, etc. Between both America and Europe, we no longer identify with being Western. The fact that we now increasingly identify with some subgroup, means many of us focus on improving the success of the subgroup with which we align. That means that growing your piece of the pie means growing the size of the pie of your subgroup over growing the size of the pie for the larger group (European, American, Western, etc.) In China, on the other hand, the focus is on growing the size of the pie for China. It's going to be hard to compete with this unless we adopt the same mindset.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > In Europe, people still don't really identify as being European before they identify as English, French, German, etc. My impression is that that's a dividing line in many European countries. Some (mostly the elite) identifies as European and sees the single nations as backwards and vulgar, while others identify as their nationality and consider the EU as an elitist project to shift the power away from individual nations.
- throw51319 6y ago
  Yup, and you could say that's the strength of a well-lead homogenous country. That's why although i'm more left-leaning, the constant focus of the left on subgroups being wronged is laughable and such a distraction from the reality of the world. China and their technological superiority and increasing economic sphere doesn't care.
  - malandrew 6y ago
    I'm not even sure you need to be that well-lead when you're a homogenous country. Alignment tends to be self-evident and incentives are more likely to be shared/common. Emergent phenomena of the group aligns with the interest of the individual. Where you need good leadership is when you have heterogenous groups that lack coherent alignment and need to be brought together to establish consensus.
delfinom 6y ago
>Democratic nations banding together or building new supply chains are pipe dreams. New supply chains are in fact underway, even before Trump's horseshit. There was a inkling of migrating manufacturing to India and its only been accelerated further.
- danso 6y ago
  Apple started shifting its supply chain to Vietnam. Apparently as much as 30% of AirPods will be produced there: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-shifting-supply-chain-creates-210000612.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-shifting-supply-chain-c... https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/08/apple-airpods-being-built-in-vietnam---report.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/08/apple-airpods-being-built-in...
- wahern 6y ago
  They began moving years ago because wages were increasing in China, same reason those jobs left the U.S. decades ago. I'm tempted to say the process was accelerated in China, but then again the heyday of U.S. manufacturing was only 20-30 years, maybe 40-50 if you include 1920s appliances boom[1], as the shift to Japan was in full swing by the 1970s. China is at about the 30 year mark (1990-2020), so if we really wanted to take a long-term historical perspective none of the contemporary politics matters--industrialization dynamics are running their natural course and choosing our politicians based on how "tough" they are on China (regarding trade policy) is pointless. [1] Though I don't know if the industry's share of the labor market was significant, the U.S. dominated the appliances industry in the 1920s, so much so that it significantly contributed to the Great Depression. Not only did it directly inflate investment markets, the unbalanced trade with Europe, exacerbated by the gold standard, caused monetary deflation in European economies, which contributed to labor problems (stagnant wages, increasing unemployment), which in turn ultimately crashed foreign demand for both American appliances and investments. At least that's what I remember from reading Lords of Finance.
  - coredog64 6y ago
    This. I don’t have a link handy, but at present China’s superpower is effective final assembly. The common example is the iPhone, where once you subtract out the value from imported parts, China is only keeping something like $4. (From memory, so there may be some more recent and/or accurate numbers)
est31 6y ago
Authoritarianism has been tried out around the globe in the 20th century multiple times, but each attempt failed. In fact, moth western nations were kingdoms at the start of the 20th century, and WW1 and WW2 turned most of them into republics.
- landryraccoon 6y ago
  If you look at the past century, democracies have been more successful, but if you look at the past millennium, dictatorships have done just fine. The fact that Democracy has had a really good run for the past 100 years is nowhere near a guarantee that Authoritarianism won't rise again for the next 100.
  - zepto 6y ago
    This is only true if the recent success of democracy is random, and not systematic.
    - landryraccoon 6y ago
      I'd like to believe that Democracy has systematic benefits, but we don't have enough data points to say that for sure. You can easily argue that the rise of Democracy in the 20th century is simply because the United States won world war 2 and the cold war, and all other countries adopted Democracy just to emulate the US. If Germany had discovered the atomic bomb before the US (which arguably could have happened if history were just slightly, randomly different), the world could be radically different. We could all be arguing right now that Democracy is just too weak to survive.
      - zepto 6y ago
        What? The US wasn’t the only country with democracy before World War 2.
        landryraccoon 6y ago
statquontrarian 6y ago
Clearly leadership isn't sufficient. Central planning leadership under Mao led to poor results. Deng Xiaoping's reformation was to reduce centralized leadership. Nor is central planning leadership necessary. The early United States overtook Great Britain as the largest economy with minimal central planning leadership.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  Central planning is not sufficient, but your comment doesn't show that it is not necessary. Markets are fundamentally pretty different from when the US overtook GB as largest economy.
  - statquontrarian 6y ago
    I've provided historical evidence, but you've just asserted something without evidence. A mercantilist in the 1700s could have made the same argument as you, and they would have been wrong. This is why political philosophy is important. The United States was largely an experiment in political philosophy and it succeeded... temporarily. Unfortunately, given that the modern world is largely run by either state-managed socialism or state-managed capitalism (neo-mercantilism), there will be no evidence to evaluate your hypothesis on Earth unless there is a mass depopulation (let's hope not). In my opinion, we will only have new political experimentation and innovation after we become a multi-planetary species. Political experimentation on Earth is too risky. Until then, pay your taxes to appease the increasingly dystopian and insatiable "leaders".
    - whimsicalism 6y ago
      Your characterization of the US as "centrally planned" seems incongruent enough with my starting assumptions that it's probably not worthwhile to have a conversation. There's no private property without "central planning" (as you characterize it) of some form.
      - statquontrarian 6y ago
bboygravity 6y ago
Could you or anybody elaborate on why you think the West (US) and China are that different in the big picture? The way I see it: in China politics/policy are largely steered by big money (companies) + the emperor. The only difference I see with the West is that the emperor of the West is less powerful than Xi. The "nice" thing about a totalitarian king/emperor/dictator is that improvements in prosperity come quickly. The disadvantage is that the fall also comes quickly (easy example: Mao). Aren't the root issues as simple as that? I mean this is not exactly the first time in history that we saw "The West" V.S. dictatorships. It's also not the first time that we saw a powerful Chinese totalitarian regime make the country very wealthy and then poor again. To clarify: regarding that last sentence I'm talking about the past 2500 years or so. Don't dictatorships by their nature come with massive corruption and eventual downfall. Or is that my - just world fallacy - talking?
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  > Aren't the root issues as simple as that? Not at all. The '"nice" thing about a totalitarian king/emperor/dictator is that improvements in prosperity come quickly' has historically almost never been the case. It is actually quite anomalous for a non-democracy to see these sorts of quality of life improvements. > easy example: Mao Mao is not such an easy example, given that there is a continuity of government from Mao to today. > also not the first time that we saw a powerful Chinese totalitarian regime make the country very wealthy and then unwealthy again. ??? No past Chinese regime has the numbers that the modern CCP is getting. Just look at the number in China in absolute poverty over the last 100 years. Honestly, your comment seems remarkably ill-informed.
  - bboygravity 6y ago
    > Just look at the number in China in absolute poverty over the last 100 years. Honestly, your comment seems remarkably ill-reformed. Last 100 years? I was thinking more towards the last 2500 years or so of Chinese and Western history. Will edit my previous comment to clarify. > It is actually quite anomalous for a non-democracy to see these sorts of quality of life improvements. Could you give some counter examples to these non-democracies that went from 0 to very powerful (in terms of geo-politics, economy and science and technology) in a matter of decades: various kingdoms before the year 0 (Syrians, Persians, Babylonians, etc), the Romans during and after Ceasar, the old world European exploring kingdoms (Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, English), old Chinese Dynasties, modern Singapore, China, USSR. So what do you mean "The '"nice" thing about a totalitarian king/emperor/dictator is that improvements in prosperity come quickly' has historically almost never been the case."??
steve76 6y ago
Heads of state can mess up. Heads of state don't get to tell other people how not to mess up. They can't pass laws saying they themselves can communicate perfectly or point everyone in the right direction or group the right people together. So they can't pass laws telling you how to communicate perfectly or assemble or perceive the world the right way. And that's not "shouldn't" or "won't", they can't. It's impossible. Might as well plan for the sun rising in the west or water running uphill. Lost in the USA vs China debate are many international companies who are loyal only to themselves and have absolutely no awareness of geopolitical issues. And the capability is incredible, stronger than both combined. Best to leave them alone. The best way is to be invisible. The cure for cancer always wins because it doesn't exist. That's what nature does, how it's undefeated since the start. If you are afraid of past mistakes or present problems, don't worry. The horror capable within future conflicts puts all of that to shame, such as war where we don't kill people but keep them alive, forever. Like that head transplant doctor, or what they are doing with genetics. It's best not to dwell on such distractions. Nothing good can come from it.
lobotryas 6y ago
Even more precisely the vast majority of Chinese people are unified. They are patriots who think China is the best country ever and all the rest are just jealous of their success. Downvote me if you want, but that’s certainly the look that CCP is happy to push. Comparatively the People of the West are divided. Not just the US but also Europe. They are divided not just by politics, but also by their world view, and few have anything good to say about their home countries. This right here is the biggest wedge China can exploit. If they move as one while the West gets mired in debates then China will win.
- oefrha 6y ago
  > Even more precisely the vast majority of Chinese people are unified. They are patriots who think China is the best country ever and all the rest are just jealous of their success. That’s out group homogeneity (or maybe just propaganda-driven thinking — Western media certainly portrays China that way) and not even remotely true to anyone who can read the Chinese language to some extent. Go to allegedly tightly controlled Weibo and check out comments under most sociopolitical news — I mean actual news, not “happy 71st birthday PRC” kind of stuff, and witness the shouting match between different groups, with an astonishing amount of “unpatriotic” opinions everywhere (astonishing if you think the Chinese should have one voice, that is). There are also a substantial group of people who quite literally worship developed countries — ironically more prevalent among people who have never set foot outside the country, I’d say — and will quickly label any domestic problem as uniquely Chinese, even when they’re not. There’s even a Chinese saying about this, “the moon is rounder in foreign lands” (everything is better in foreign countries). Even different group of patriots can be seen warring against each other sometimes over political issues. People on the opposite side of the world aren’t nearly as different once you get to know them.
- crazybones 6y ago
  Emm. As a Chinese, I disagree. Most Chinese don't think China is the best country. Just look at how many people wants to migrate to other countries. It does seem like Western media is trying to depict Chinese as patriots though.
yongjik 6y ago
I think it's the other way: the strength of the West is that it's largely leaderless, and its "regional" leaders regularly gets switched out, so even a bad leader cannot leave much long-lasting harm. China is at the mercy of bad decisions made by its single unopposed leader - in a quest to command fear, it's needlessly antagonizing pretty much all its neighbors, which seems to me like a result of flawed leadership.
- justicezyx 6y ago
  > China is at the mercy of bad decisions made by its single unopposed leader How bad a decision can Xi (just use it as an example) make? The Chinese system is bad. But it cannot make the same mistake as what US is making right now. Even during SARS, that worse version of the Chinese system did not make things as bad as what US is currently making. > the strength of the West is that it's largely leaderless, and its "regional" leaders regularly gets switched out, so even a bad leader cannot leave much long-lasting harm. This is hilariously illogical thinking. The selection of leader is through merits and competency. If the pool of candidates were bad, swapping out frequently did nothing to help the situation. The strength of the west is that its rationale thinking and openness to debate and challenges have helped the nations to collectively think out and plot the optimal path to future. Swapping out "bad" leaders is not even relevant in the context of open debate and collaborative thinking. In such a system, it's not possible to have "bad" leader. Xi takes advises more openly from intellectuals than probably any world leader. Examples: Xi asked his leadership group to study Block-chain and Quantum tech [1,2]. Can you imagine Trump keep silence in such a meeting without claiming he knows the subject better than anyone else?! [1] http://www.xinhuanet.com/politics/leaders/2019-10/25/c_1125153665.htm http://www.xinhuanet.com/politics/leaders/2019-10/25/c_11251... [2] http://www.xinhuanet.com/politics/2020-10/17/c_1126623288.htm http://www.xinhuanet.com/politics/2020-10/17/c_1126623288.ht...
  - yongjik 6y ago
    > Xi asked his leadership group to study Block-chain and Quantum tech The internet was originally a DoD project, after all. Every industrial country tries to take a slice in the next big technology, but of course the predictions are hit-and-miss. I mean, blockchain, really?

by rapsey 6y ago

malandrew 6y ago

> Actions happen due to some interest group getting their way. This is such a big reason. We no longer identify under a single identity. In America, that would be identifying as an American. In Europe, people still don't really identify as being European before they identify as English, French, German, etc. Between both America and Europe, we no longer identify with being Western. The fact that we now increasingly identify with some subgroup, means many of us focus on improving the success of the subgroup with which we align. That means that growing your piece of the pie means growing the size of the pie of your subgroup over growing the size of the pie for the larger group (European, American, Western, etc.) In China, on the other hand, the focus is on growing the size of the pie for China. It's going to be hard to compete with this unless we adopt the same mindset.

luckylion 6y ago
> In Europe, people still don't really identify as being European before they identify as English, French, German, etc. My impression is that that's a dividing line in many European countries. Some (mostly the elite) identifies as European and sees the single nations as backwards and vulgar, while others identify as their nationality and consider the EU as an elitist project to shift the power away from individual nations.
throw51319 6y ago
Yup, and you could say that's the strength of a well-lead homogenous country. That's why although i'm more left-leaning, the constant focus of the left on subgroups being wronged is laughable and such a distraction from the reality of the world. China and their technological superiority and increasing economic sphere doesn't care.
- malandrew 6y ago
  I'm not even sure you need to be that well-lead when you're a homogenous country. Alignment tends to be self-evident and incentives are more likely to be shared/common. Emergent phenomena of the group aligns with the interest of the individual. Where you need good leadership is when you have heterogenous groups that lack coherent alignment and need to be brought together to establish consensus.

delfinom 6y ago

>Democratic nations banding together or building new supply chains are pipe dreams. New supply chains are in fact underway, even before Trump's horseshit. There was a inkling of migrating manufacturing to India and its only been accelerated further.

danso 6y ago
Apple started shifting its supply chain to Vietnam. Apparently as much as 30% of AirPods will be produced there: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-shifting-supply-chain-creates-210000612.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-shifting-supply-chain-c... https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/08/apple-airpods-being-built-in-vietnam---report.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/08/apple-airpods-being-built-in...
wahern 6y ago
They began moving years ago because wages were increasing in China, same reason those jobs left the U.S. decades ago. I'm tempted to say the process was accelerated in China, but then again the heyday of U.S. manufacturing was only 20-30 years, maybe 40-50 if you include 1920s appliances boom[1], as the shift to Japan was in full swing by the 1970s. China is at about the 30 year mark (1990-2020), so if we really wanted to take a long-term historical perspective none of the contemporary politics matters--industrialization dynamics are running their natural course and choosing our politicians based on how "tough" they are on China (regarding trade policy) is pointless. [1] Though I don't know if the industry's share of the labor market was significant, the U.S. dominated the appliances industry in the 1920s, so much so that it significantly contributed to the Great Depression. Not only did it directly inflate investment markets, the unbalanced trade with Europe, exacerbated by the gold standard, caused monetary deflation in European economies, which contributed to labor problems (stagnant wages, increasing unemployment), which in turn ultimately crashed foreign demand for both American appliances and investments. At least that's what I remember from reading Lords of Finance.
- coredog64 6y ago
  This. I don’t have a link handy, but at present China’s superpower is effective final assembly. The common example is the iPhone, where once you subtract out the value from imported parts, China is only keeping something like $4. (From memory, so there may be some more recent and/or accurate numbers)

est31 6y ago

Authoritarianism has been tried out around the globe in the 20th century multiple times, but each attempt failed. In fact, moth western nations were kingdoms at the start of the 20th century, and WW1 and WW2 turned most of them into republics.

landryraccoon 6y ago
If you look at the past century, democracies have been more successful, but if you look at the past millennium, dictatorships have done just fine. The fact that Democracy has had a really good run for the past 100 years is nowhere near a guarantee that Authoritarianism won't rise again for the next 100.
- zepto 6y ago
  This is only true if the recent success of democracy is random, and not systematic.
  - landryraccoon 6y ago
    I'd like to believe that Democracy has systematic benefits, but we don't have enough data points to say that for sure. You can easily argue that the rise of Democracy in the 20th century is simply because the United States won world war 2 and the cold war, and all other countries adopted Democracy just to emulate the US. If Germany had discovered the atomic bomb before the US (which arguably could have happened if history were just slightly, randomly different), the world could be radically different. We could all be arguing right now that Democracy is just too weak to survive.
    - zepto 6y ago
      What? The US wasn’t the only country with democracy before World War 2.
      - landryraccoon 6y ago

statquontrarian 6y ago

Clearly leadership isn't sufficient. Central planning leadership under Mao led to poor results. Deng Xiaoping's reformation was to reduce centralized leadership. Nor is central planning leadership necessary. The early United States overtook Great Britain as the largest economy with minimal central planning leadership.

whimsicalism 6y ago
Central planning is not sufficient, but your comment doesn't show that it is not necessary. Markets are fundamentally pretty different from when the US overtook GB as largest economy.
- statquontrarian 6y ago
  I've provided historical evidence, but you've just asserted something without evidence. A mercantilist in the 1700s could have made the same argument as you, and they would have been wrong. This is why political philosophy is important. The United States was largely an experiment in political philosophy and it succeeded... temporarily. Unfortunately, given that the modern world is largely run by either state-managed socialism or state-managed capitalism (neo-mercantilism), there will be no evidence to evaluate your hypothesis on Earth unless there is a mass depopulation (let's hope not). In my opinion, we will only have new political experimentation and innovation after we become a multi-planetary species. Political experimentation on Earth is too risky. Until then, pay your taxes to appease the increasingly dystopian and insatiable "leaders".
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    Your characterization of the US as "centrally planned" seems incongruent enough with my starting assumptions that it's probably not worthwhile to have a conversation. There's no private property without "central planning" (as you characterize it) of some form.
    - statquontrarian 6y ago

bboygravity 6y ago

Could you or anybody elaborate on why you think the West (US) and China are that different in the big picture? The way I see it: in China politics/policy are largely steered by big money (companies) + the emperor. The only difference I see with the West is that the emperor of the West is less powerful than Xi. The "nice" thing about a totalitarian king/emperor/dictator is that improvements in prosperity come quickly. The disadvantage is that the fall also comes quickly (easy example: Mao). Aren't the root issues as simple as that? I mean this is not exactly the first time in history that we saw "The West" V.S. dictatorships. It's also not the first time that we saw a powerful Chinese totalitarian regime make the country very wealthy and then poor again. To clarify: regarding that last sentence I'm talking about the past 2500 years or so. Don't dictatorships by their nature come with massive corruption and eventual downfall. Or is that my - just world fallacy - talking?

whimsicalism 6y ago
> Aren't the root issues as simple as that? Not at all. The '"nice" thing about a totalitarian king/emperor/dictator is that improvements in prosperity come quickly' has historically almost never been the case. It is actually quite anomalous for a non-democracy to see these sorts of quality of life improvements. > easy example: Mao Mao is not such an easy example, given that there is a continuity of government from Mao to today. > also not the first time that we saw a powerful Chinese totalitarian regime make the country very wealthy and then unwealthy again. ??? No past Chinese regime has the numbers that the modern CCP is getting. Just look at the number in China in absolute poverty over the last 100 years. Honestly, your comment seems remarkably ill-informed.
- bboygravity 6y ago
  > Just look at the number in China in absolute poverty over the last 100 years. Honestly, your comment seems remarkably ill-reformed. Last 100 years? I was thinking more towards the last 2500 years or so of Chinese and Western history. Will edit my previous comment to clarify. > It is actually quite anomalous for a non-democracy to see these sorts of quality of life improvements. Could you give some counter examples to these non-democracies that went from 0 to very powerful (in terms of geo-politics, economy and science and technology) in a matter of decades: various kingdoms before the year 0 (Syrians, Persians, Babylonians, etc), the Romans during and after Ceasar, the old world European exploring kingdoms (Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, English), old Chinese Dynasties, modern Singapore, China, USSR. So what do you mean "The '"nice" thing about a totalitarian king/emperor/dictator is that improvements in prosperity come quickly' has historically almost never been the case."??

steve76 6y ago

Heads of state can mess up. Heads of state don't get to tell other people how not to mess up. They can't pass laws saying they themselves can communicate perfectly or point everyone in the right direction or group the right people together. So they can't pass laws telling you how to communicate perfectly or assemble or perceive the world the right way. And that's not "shouldn't" or "won't", they can't. It's impossible. Might as well plan for the sun rising in the west or water running uphill. Lost in the USA vs China debate are many international companies who are loyal only to themselves and have absolutely no awareness of geopolitical issues. And the capability is incredible, stronger than both combined. Best to leave them alone. The best way is to be invisible. The cure for cancer always wins because it doesn't exist. That's what nature does, how it's undefeated since the start. If you are afraid of past mistakes or present problems, don't worry. The horror capable within future conflicts puts all of that to shame, such as war where we don't kill people but keep them alive, forever. Like that head transplant doctor, or what they are doing with genetics. It's best not to dwell on such distractions. Nothing good can come from it.

lobotryas 6y ago

Even more precisely the vast majority of Chinese people are unified. They are patriots who think China is the best country ever and all the rest are just jealous of their success. Downvote me if you want, but that’s certainly the look that CCP is happy to push. Comparatively the People of the West are divided. Not just the US but also Europe. They are divided not just by politics, but also by their world view, and few have anything good to say about their home countries. This right here is the biggest wedge China can exploit. If they move as one while the West gets mired in debates then China will win.

oefrha 6y ago
> Even more precisely the vast majority of Chinese people are unified. They are patriots who think China is the best country ever and all the rest are just jealous of their success. That’s out group homogeneity (or maybe just propaganda-driven thinking — Western media certainly portrays China that way) and not even remotely true to anyone who can read the Chinese language to some extent. Go to allegedly tightly controlled Weibo and check out comments under most sociopolitical news — I mean actual news, not “happy 71st birthday PRC” kind of stuff, and witness the shouting match between different groups, with an astonishing amount of “unpatriotic” opinions everywhere (astonishing if you think the Chinese should have one voice, that is). There are also a substantial group of people who quite literally worship developed countries — ironically more prevalent among people who have never set foot outside the country, I’d say — and will quickly label any domestic problem as uniquely Chinese, even when they’re not. There’s even a Chinese saying about this, “the moon is rounder in foreign lands” (everything is better in foreign countries). Even different group of patriots can be seen warring against each other sometimes over political issues. People on the opposite side of the world aren’t nearly as different once you get to know them.
crazybones 6y ago
Emm. As a Chinese, I disagree. Most Chinese don't think China is the best country. Just look at how many people wants to migrate to other countries. It does seem like Western media is trying to depict Chinese as patriots though.

yongjik 6y ago

I think it's the other way: the strength of the West is that it's largely leaderless, and its "regional" leaders regularly gets switched out, so even a bad leader cannot leave much long-lasting harm. China is at the mercy of bad decisions made by its single unopposed leader - in a quest to command fear, it's needlessly antagonizing pretty much all its neighbors, which seems to me like a result of flawed leadership.

justicezyx 6y ago
> China is at the mercy of bad decisions made by its single unopposed leader How bad a decision can Xi (just use it as an example) make? The Chinese system is bad. But it cannot make the same mistake as what US is making right now. Even during SARS, that worse version of the Chinese system did not make things as bad as what US is currently making. > the strength of the West is that it's largely leaderless, and its "regional" leaders regularly gets switched out, so even a bad leader cannot leave much long-lasting harm. This is hilariously illogical thinking. The selection of leader is through merits and competency. If the pool of candidates were bad, swapping out frequently did nothing to help the situation. The strength of the west is that its rationale thinking and openness to debate and challenges have helped the nations to collectively think out and plot the optimal path to future. Swapping out "bad" leaders is not even relevant in the context of open debate and collaborative thinking. In such a system, it's not possible to have "bad" leader. Xi takes advises more openly from intellectuals than probably any world leader. Examples: Xi asked his leadership group to study Block-chain and Quantum tech [1,2]. Can you imagine Trump keep silence in such a meeting without claiming he knows the subject better than anyone else?! [1] http://www.xinhuanet.com/politics/leaders/2019-10/25/c_1125153665.htm http://www.xinhuanet.com/politics/leaders/2019-10/25/c_11251... [2] http://www.xinhuanet.com/politics/2020-10/17/c_1126623288.htm http://www.xinhuanet.com/politics/2020-10/17/c_1126623288.ht...
- yongjik 6y ago
  > Xi asked his leadership group to study Block-chain and Quantum tech The internet was originally a DoD project, after all. Every industrial country tries to take a slice in the next big technology, but of course the predictions are hit-and-miss. I mean, blockchain, really?