4 ms·

>Authoritarian regimes are often highly efficient I would argue the opposite is usually true. Setting aside China, authoritarian regimes are usually NOT known

by alex_c 6y ago

>Authoritarian regimes are often highly efficient I would argue the opposite is usually true. Setting aside China, authoritarian regimes are usually NOT known for being efficient or well-run. I am not American, but I came back from my visits to China with a similar feeling to the grandparent comment. The West tends to stick their fingers in their ears and yell "Authoritarian regime, I can't hear you!" at the mere suggestion that China does certain things better and there may be something to learn there.

bpt3 6y ago
> I would argue the opposite is usually true. Setting aside China, authoritarian regimes are usually NOT known for being efficient or well-run. well run != efficient Authoritarian regimes are highly efficient at accomplishing what the people in charge want to do, long term consequences be damned. Frequently, the people in charge are primarily focused on retaining or even acquiring more power and wealth, which is generally not well aligned with what most people would consider a well run nation. > I am not American, but I came back from my visits to China with a similar feeling to the grandparent comment. The West tends to stick their fingers in their ears and yell "Authoritarian regime, I can't hear you!" at the mere suggestion that China does certain things better and there may be something to learn there. The issue here is that there isn't an agreement on what "better" means. Social harmony at the expense of individual freedoms isn't better. Technological advancement that is based on IP theft isn't better. Infrastructure improvement that causes long term harm to the global environment isn't better.
- alex_c 6y ago
  I agree with your points about what is and isn't "better", but that is not what I am arguing. Are you saying there are no lessons the West can learn from China's infrastructure projects without resorting to authoritarianism, IP theft, or environmental harm? That there is no way to pick apart and separate some positive learnings from the negatives? Are you saying THIS is the best we can do as a Western democracy? https://torontolife.com/city/transportation/tortured-history-torontos-discarded-subway-plans/ https://torontolife.com/city/transportation/tortured-history... To me, this kind of paralysis on infrastructure projects is not "better" by any definition you use. It's not an intentional tradeoff between infrastructure and environmental protection, or between public development and property rights. It's just indecision, waste, and stagnation. Every time a comparison to China's infrastructure comes up, the knee jerk reaction is to point out that it's an authoritarian regime so of course they can force through any infrastructure project they want. Which is fair enough, but it drowns out any discussion asking "Hey, CAN we do any better in the West than we are doing right now? Is what we have good enough?"
  - bpt3 6y ago
    > Are you saying there are no lessons the West can learn from China's infrastructure projects without resorting to authoritarianism, IP theft, or environmental harm? That there is no way to pick apart and separate some positive learnings from the negatives? Not at all. Every nation can always learn from others, or at least be motivated by the accomplishments of others to improve internally. > Are you saying THIS is the best we can do as a Western democracy? Maybe? Again, it depends on what your definition of "best" is. If not enough people in Toronto think it's important enough to have a robust public transit system, then it doesn't happen. I'm very confident Toronto has the resources required to complete an ambitious project if desired. > To me, this kind of paralysis on infrastructure projects is not "better" by any definition you use. It's not an intentional tradeoff between infrastructure and environmental protection, or between public development and property rights. It's just indecision, waste, and stagnation. If the project isn't a good use of resources, indecision and inaction is the better outcome. > Every time a comparison to China's infrastructure comes up, the knee jerk reaction is to point out that it's an authoritarian regime so of course they can force through any infrastructure project they want. Which is fair enough, but it drowns out any discussion asking "Hey, CAN we do any better in the West than we are doing right now? Is what we have good enough?" Unlike in China, these discussions already happen regularly, and the key difference between the status quo in China and the West is the decision making process, so that's where the conversation is focused.
    - alex_c 6y ago
      >Maybe? Again, it depends on what your definition of "best" is. If not enough people in Toronto think it's important enough to have a robust public transit system, then it doesn't happen. I'm very confident Toronto has the resources required to complete an ambitious project if desired. >If the project isn't a good use of resources, indecision and inaction is the better outcome. I wish I shared your confidence, but this suggests otherwise: https://toronto.citynews.ca/2018/09/26/transit-the-number-1-issue-for-toronto-voters-polls-find/ https://toronto.citynews.ca/2018/09/26/transit-the-number-1-... I find it difficult to accept that this is the best outcome by any metric I can think of. >Unlike in China, these discussions already happen regularly, and the key difference between the status quo in China and the West is the decision making process, so that's where the conversation is focused. Is it? The conversation is focused on how China is authoritarian, not on how the Western (I really should say North American) decision-making process often leads to poor outcomes and stagnation when it comes to public projects. This IS getting pretty far off-topic from the actual article, so I'll stop here.

by alex_c 6y ago

bpt3 6y ago

> I would argue the opposite is usually true. Setting aside China, authoritarian regimes are usually NOT known for being efficient or well-run. well run != efficient Authoritarian regimes are highly efficient at accomplishing what the people in charge want to do, long term consequences be damned. Frequently, the people in charge are primarily focused on retaining or even acquiring more power and wealth, which is generally not well aligned with what most people would consider a well run nation. > I am not American, but I came back from my visits to China with a similar feeling to the grandparent comment. The West tends to stick their fingers in their ears and yell "Authoritarian regime, I can't hear you!" at the mere suggestion that China does certain things better and there may be something to learn there. The issue here is that there isn't an agreement on what "better" means. Social harmony at the expense of individual freedoms isn't better. Technological advancement that is based on IP theft isn't better. Infrastructure improvement that causes long term harm to the global environment isn't better.

alex_c 6y ago
I agree with your points about what is and isn't "better", but that is not what I am arguing. Are you saying there are no lessons the West can learn from China's infrastructure projects without resorting to authoritarianism, IP theft, or environmental harm? That there is no way to pick apart and separate some positive learnings from the negatives? Are you saying THIS is the best we can do as a Western democracy? https://torontolife.com/city/transportation/tortured-history-torontos-discarded-subway-plans/ https://torontolife.com/city/transportation/tortured-history... To me, this kind of paralysis on infrastructure projects is not "better" by any definition you use. It's not an intentional tradeoff between infrastructure and environmental protection, or between public development and property rights. It's just indecision, waste, and stagnation. Every time a comparison to China's infrastructure comes up, the knee jerk reaction is to point out that it's an authoritarian regime so of course they can force through any infrastructure project they want. Which is fair enough, but it drowns out any discussion asking "Hey, CAN we do any better in the West than we are doing right now? Is what we have good enough?"
- bpt3 6y ago
  > Are you saying there are no lessons the West can learn from China's infrastructure projects without resorting to authoritarianism, IP theft, or environmental harm? That there is no way to pick apart and separate some positive learnings from the negatives? Not at all. Every nation can always learn from others, or at least be motivated by the accomplishments of others to improve internally. > Are you saying THIS is the best we can do as a Western democracy? Maybe? Again, it depends on what your definition of "best" is. If not enough people in Toronto think it's important enough to have a robust public transit system, then it doesn't happen. I'm very confident Toronto has the resources required to complete an ambitious project if desired. > To me, this kind of paralysis on infrastructure projects is not "better" by any definition you use. It's not an intentional tradeoff between infrastructure and environmental protection, or between public development and property rights. It's just indecision, waste, and stagnation. If the project isn't a good use of resources, indecision and inaction is the better outcome. > Every time a comparison to China's infrastructure comes up, the knee jerk reaction is to point out that it's an authoritarian regime so of course they can force through any infrastructure project they want. Which is fair enough, but it drowns out any discussion asking "Hey, CAN we do any better in the West than we are doing right now? Is what we have good enough?" Unlike in China, these discussions already happen regularly, and the key difference between the status quo in China and the West is the decision making process, so that's where the conversation is focused.
  - alex_c 6y ago
    >Maybe? Again, it depends on what your definition of "best" is. If not enough people in Toronto think it's important enough to have a robust public transit system, then it doesn't happen. I'm very confident Toronto has the resources required to complete an ambitious project if desired. >If the project isn't a good use of resources, indecision and inaction is the better outcome. I wish I shared your confidence, but this suggests otherwise: https://toronto.citynews.ca/2018/09/26/transit-the-number-1-issue-for-toronto-voters-polls-find/ https://toronto.citynews.ca/2018/09/26/transit-the-number-1-... I find it difficult to accept that this is the best outcome by any metric I can think of. >Unlike in China, these discussions already happen regularly, and the key difference between the status quo in China and the West is the decision making process, so that's where the conversation is focused. Is it? The conversation is focused on how China is authoritarian, not on how the Western (I really should say North American) decision-making process often leads to poor outcomes and stagnation when it comes to public projects. This IS getting pretty far off-topic from the actual article, so I'll stop here.