5 ms·

How influential and trustworthy are corporate and governments in China, US etc.

MichaelZuo 6y ago
I was asking a genuine question, I imagine very few people outside of India know anything about the situation there, to actually have a honest discussion would require discussing that. Without the background on the relative strengths of these organizations mentioned by the poster, we cannot assess what the poster wrote.
- dirtyid 6y ago
  Strong enough, AKA more than zero. India is attempting to do an Asian Tiger FDI development model as a democracy in the age of social media where political organization is easy. Reality is, _zero_ countries have totally developed under democracy. Ever. Modern India is the first to attempt. You need a certain level of authoritarian / state controlled industrial policy and violent enforcement initially to entice FDI with stability. Conditions and bargaining power naturally improves after gaining increasing leverage once investors has commited sufficient sunk cost + creating supply chain inertia. Democracy and corporate/colonial trauma has caused India to squandered many opportunities to industrialize due to lack of infrastructure, redtape bureaucracy and grassroots organization. Meanwhile, increasing complexity in manufacturing mean instead of abusing peasants you're abusing engineers with professional degrees. Automation is around the corner, India doesn't have many chances left. Their trump card is potential market size and tariffs, but that's predicated on actually developing enough consumers to middle-income in the first place. It's a bad hand.
  - areoform 6y ago
    > Reality is, _zero_ countries have totally developed under democracy. Ever. Modern India is the first to attempt. Zero countries other than, post-WWII West Germany (and then re-unified Germany) under the Marshall plan. The US of A, Canada, the UK post-WWII's devastation etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_and_economic_growth#Effects_of_democracy_on_economic_growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_and_economic_growth#... There is a strong correlation between democracy and long-term political growth, > Democratization of a country from a non-democratic regime is usually preceded by a fall in GDP, and a volatile but expected growth in the long run, While on the other hand authoritarian regimes experience significant growth at the beginning and decline in the long run.[4] The cause of such behavior is that non-democratic regimes, mainly authoritarian ones, are more effective at implementing decisive policies and choices as well as solving ethnic and sub-national conflicts, but are unsustainable in the long run as there is more incentive to extract money from society which in turn leads to less prosperity.[5] Democratic regimes revolve around institutions and policies which lay the foundations, through which principles of liberty and equality are designed and followed, thus directly or indirectly affecting firms or individuals who benefit from the directives and increase their growth, which in turn has a positive impact on economy. However, I'd like to add that the reason why democracies work in the long-run is that all the good ideas, the transformational ones come from the margin. Authoritarian countries simply do not create systems where anyone other than a small group of ruling elite is able to bring their work to fruition. Whereas democratic policies and a lower social extraction leads to a strong consumer base in democracies, which in turn allows ideas from the margins to thrive.
    - dirtyid 6y ago
      "authoritarian regimes experience significant growth at the beginning" That's the point, there is a time and place for authoritarian state direction and time and place for transitioning into democratic consumer driven markets. As for your examples. USA: development base established from colonial direction, then exploitation / slavery, not actually democratic when considering timeline of enfranchisement. Ability to exploit labour is central to initial growth. Canada: base built by colonial direction / crown corps. Post War Germany & UK: again, base established under monarchy, post war destruction is just a hiccup in terms of actual development continuity. Marshall plan was a reconstruction "1up" for rebuilding industrial base, but physical capital is the easy part. The hard part, the _initial_ pool of human capita that takes generations cultivate has not so far manifested under democracies which seems systemically incapable of coordinating long term generational projects. Part of that is the conditions for development is predicated on the ugly business of "solving ethnic and sub-national conflicts" including groups that operate contrary to state development interests, like these unions. Authoritarians / state controls simply is better at starting the ball rolling. On paper it doesn't have to, but there aren't counter examples, so India is pioneering. They may very well succeed, but cards are stacked. As for democracies working in the long run, modern democracies has not existed long enough for these dogmatic believes to hold true. The irony of your quote from wiki is that it's from WEF/Davos, embodiment of problems undermining democracies today. IMO current democracies thrived because US has overwhelming geopolitical advantage, multiplied post war when continental competitors got glassed and had the ability to suppress non-democracies - the wank around democratic development and democratic peace" exists because preeminent superpower happens to be democratic and made war with ideologic rivals while handwaving away the contribution of their authoritarian roots. That said, I broadly believe those "virtuous" democratic concepts are true and something to work towards, when the time is right. I think too many Davos/liberal democracy enthusiasts forget that "end of history" still started from somewhere, and historically that somewhere is authoritarianism. It's also just useful to evaluate most recent successful development models: Japan, S.Korea, Taiwan and really the only comparable analogue, China.
      - areoform 6y ago
        This is quite rude of me, but I find your views to be horrifying, > Ability to exploit labour > The hard part, the _initial_ pool of human capita > ugly business of "solving ethnic and sub-national conflicts" including groups that operate contrary to state development interests, like these > Authoritarians / state controls simply is better at starting the ball rolling That "human capital" is made out of people, human beings, who are often executed for speaking out of turn in authoritarian countries. Who are worked without fair pay in starvation wages in these countries. What you seem to be - and I deeply apologize if I'm wrong - implying when you say "colonial direction, then exploitation/slavery" is that slavery itself and near-slavery like conditions are necessary for development. That is a deeply disturbing perspective to me. I may seem to be rejecting your core thesis out of hand, but I feel like you handwaved these examples away. I can talk a great deal about the US as I know it well, and the industrialization of America is a complex story with many moving parts, with labor rights being fought for side-by-side. The most backwards states today are the ones that were the most exploitative of the "human capital" that you mention. It also feels like as if you've handwaved the other answers away. Western Germany and the UK etc were flattened, glassed as you said it, and their "human capital" had been greatly diminished. And yet they prospered with the right policies and public investments. Reducing this to a "wank around" is deeply misguided. > preeminent superpower happens to be democratic and made war with ideologic rivals while handwaving away the contribution of their authoritarian roots Furthermore, the US hasn't always spread democracy around the world. When the CIA did regime change, they usually replaced democracies with autocracies, with extremely bad results in several places. These examples are excluded in your analysis. But setting aside all the historical evidence and the statistical arguments that others have made, the sheer idea that exploiting and authoritarianism i.e. telling people, with force, is necessary for economic growth and that this is desirable is appalling. You seem to be under no illusion of what it means, but let me spell out what it does mean, It means parents disappeared in the middle of the night. It means the torture of anyone who disagrees. It means the rejection, beating, and killing of those who are different (the "ethnic and subnational conflicts" you mentioned, that's how autocrats usually resolve these, murder and ethnic cleansing). It means forcing people to work against their will. It means suspending the right to due process. It means making some people more than others. And it means a legacy of death, destruction, and hate that will take generations to dissipate. It feels as though you understand all of this and yet you support it as the "necessary price" for "progress", because you believe that you won't be the one paying the price. And that's what horrifies me. The implication here, correct me if I'm wrong, is that you genuinely think that in an autocratic society, you'll come out on top. The odds are that you won't. Even if you're the supporter of the right autocrat and kiss up to the right people. The first thing autocrats do, when they come to power, is that they purge their supporters. Ask the supporters of Mao, Stalin and Hitler (nacht der langen messer/the Röhm Purge) how it went for them. A famous story from a small town in the Netherlands during the Nazi occuption is that they had an air raid shelter in the town. The Mayor invited everyone to safety at the shelter. When they arrived there, mind you these were the "aryans" that the Nazis were obsessed about, they were soon gunned down, because they weren't loyal enough. Not that they were disloyal. But simply because they weren't loyal enough. > It's also just useful to evaluate most recent successful development models: Japan Yes, Japan. Japan's record economic growth happened under a democratic constitution and government enacted in 1947. Their industrial base was rebuilt from scratch after the firebombing/raids had decimated all industrial capacity. . dang, if you ever see this, I apologize for the rudeness.

I was asking a genuine question, I imagine very few people outside of India know anything about the situation there, to actually have a honest discussion would require discussing that. Without the background on the relative strengths of these organizations mentioned by the poster, we cannot assess what the poster wrote.

dirtyid 6y ago
Strong enough, AKA more than zero. India is attempting to do an Asian Tiger FDI development model as a democracy in the age of social media where political organization is easy. Reality is, _zero_ countries have totally developed under democracy. Ever. Modern India is the first to attempt. You need a certain level of authoritarian / state controlled industrial policy and violent enforcement initially to entice FDI with stability. Conditions and bargaining power naturally improves after gaining increasing leverage once investors has commited sufficient sunk cost + creating supply chain inertia. Democracy and corporate/colonial trauma has caused India to squandered many opportunities to industrialize due to lack of infrastructure, redtape bureaucracy and grassroots organization. Meanwhile, increasing complexity in manufacturing mean instead of abusing peasants you're abusing engineers with professional degrees. Automation is around the corner, India doesn't have many chances left. Their trump card is potential market size and tariffs, but that's predicated on actually developing enough consumers to middle-income in the first place. It's a bad hand.
- areoform 6y ago
  > Reality is, _zero_ countries have totally developed under democracy. Ever. Modern India is the first to attempt. Zero countries other than, post-WWII West Germany (and then re-unified Germany) under the Marshall plan. The US of A, Canada, the UK post-WWII's devastation etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_and_economic_growth#Effects_of_democracy_on_economic_growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_and_economic_growth#... There is a strong correlation between democracy and long-term political growth, > Democratization of a country from a non-democratic regime is usually preceded by a fall in GDP, and a volatile but expected growth in the long run, While on the other hand authoritarian regimes experience significant growth at the beginning and decline in the long run.[4] The cause of such behavior is that non-democratic regimes, mainly authoritarian ones, are more effective at implementing decisive policies and choices as well as solving ethnic and sub-national conflicts, but are unsustainable in the long run as there is more incentive to extract money from society which in turn leads to less prosperity.[5] Democratic regimes revolve around institutions and policies which lay the foundations, through which principles of liberty and equality are designed and followed, thus directly or indirectly affecting firms or individuals who benefit from the directives and increase their growth, which in turn has a positive impact on economy. However, I'd like to add that the reason why democracies work in the long-run is that all the good ideas, the transformational ones come from the margin. Authoritarian countries simply do not create systems where anyone other than a small group of ruling elite is able to bring their work to fruition. Whereas democratic policies and a lower social extraction leads to a strong consumer base in democracies, which in turn allows ideas from the margins to thrive.
  - dirtyid 6y ago
    "authoritarian regimes experience significant growth at the beginning" That's the point, there is a time and place for authoritarian state direction and time and place for transitioning into democratic consumer driven markets. As for your examples. USA: development base established from colonial direction, then exploitation / slavery, not actually democratic when considering timeline of enfranchisement. Ability to exploit labour is central to initial growth. Canada: base built by colonial direction / crown corps. Post War Germany & UK: again, base established under monarchy, post war destruction is just a hiccup in terms of actual development continuity. Marshall plan was a reconstruction "1up" for rebuilding industrial base, but physical capital is the easy part. The hard part, the _initial_ pool of human capita that takes generations cultivate has not so far manifested under democracies which seems systemically incapable of coordinating long term generational projects. Part of that is the conditions for development is predicated on the ugly business of "solving ethnic and sub-national conflicts" including groups that operate contrary to state development interests, like these unions. Authoritarians / state controls simply is better at starting the ball rolling. On paper it doesn't have to, but there aren't counter examples, so India is pioneering. They may very well succeed, but cards are stacked. As for democracies working in the long run, modern democracies has not existed long enough for these dogmatic believes to hold true. The irony of your quote from wiki is that it's from WEF/Davos, embodiment of problems undermining democracies today. IMO current democracies thrived because US has overwhelming geopolitical advantage, multiplied post war when continental competitors got glassed and had the ability to suppress non-democracies - the wank around democratic development and democratic peace" exists because preeminent superpower happens to be democratic and made war with ideologic rivals while handwaving away the contribution of their authoritarian roots. That said, I broadly believe those "virtuous" democratic concepts are true and something to work towards, when the time is right. I think too many Davos/liberal democracy enthusiasts forget that "end of history" still started from somewhere, and historically that somewhere is authoritarianism. It's also just useful to evaluate most recent successful development models: Japan, S.Korea, Taiwan and really the only comparable analogue, China.
    - areoform 6y ago
      This is quite rude of me, but I find your views to be horrifying, > Ability to exploit labour > The hard part, the _initial_ pool of human capita > ugly business of "solving ethnic and sub-national conflicts" including groups that operate contrary to state development interests, like these > Authoritarians / state controls simply is better at starting the ball rolling That "human capital" is made out of people, human beings, who are often executed for speaking out of turn in authoritarian countries. Who are worked without fair pay in starvation wages in these countries. What you seem to be - and I deeply apologize if I'm wrong - implying when you say "colonial direction, then exploitation/slavery" is that slavery itself and near-slavery like conditions are necessary for development. That is a deeply disturbing perspective to me. I may seem to be rejecting your core thesis out of hand, but I feel like you handwaved these examples away. I can talk a great deal about the US as I know it well, and the industrialization of America is a complex story with many moving parts, with labor rights being fought for side-by-side. The most backwards states today are the ones that were the most exploitative of the "human capital" that you mention. It also feels like as if you've handwaved the other answers away. Western Germany and the UK etc were flattened, glassed as you said it, and their "human capital" had been greatly diminished. And yet they prospered with the right policies and public investments. Reducing this to a "wank around" is deeply misguided. > preeminent superpower happens to be democratic and made war with ideologic rivals while handwaving away the contribution of their authoritarian roots Furthermore, the US hasn't always spread democracy around the world. When the CIA did regime change, they usually replaced democracies with autocracies, with extremely bad results in several places. These examples are excluded in your analysis. But setting aside all the historical evidence and the statistical arguments that others have made, the sheer idea that exploiting and authoritarianism i.e. telling people, with force, is necessary for economic growth and that this is desirable is appalling. You seem to be under no illusion of what it means, but let me spell out what it does mean, It means parents disappeared in the middle of the night. It means the torture of anyone who disagrees. It means the rejection, beating, and killing of those who are different (the "ethnic and subnational conflicts" you mentioned, that's how autocrats usually resolve these, murder and ethnic cleansing). It means forcing people to work against their will. It means suspending the right to due process. It means making some people more than others. And it means a legacy of death, destruction, and hate that will take generations to dissipate. It feels as though you understand all of this and yet you support it as the "necessary price" for "progress", because you believe that you won't be the one paying the price. And that's what horrifies me. The implication here, correct me if I'm wrong, is that you genuinely think that in an autocratic society, you'll come out on top. The odds are that you won't. Even if you're the supporter of the right autocrat and kiss up to the right people. The first thing autocrats do, when they come to power, is that they purge their supporters. Ask the supporters of Mao, Stalin and Hitler (nacht der langen messer/the Röhm Purge) how it went for them. A famous story from a small town in the Netherlands during the Nazi occuption is that they had an air raid shelter in the town. The Mayor invited everyone to safety at the shelter. When they arrived there, mind you these were the "aryans" that the Nazis were obsessed about, they were soon gunned down, because they weren't loyal enough. Not that they were disloyal. But simply because they weren't loyal enough. > It's also just useful to evaluate most recent successful development models: Japan Yes, Japan. Japan's record economic growth happened under a democratic constitution and government enacted in 1947. Their industrial base was rebuilt from scratch after the firebombing/raids had decimated all industrial capacity. . dang, if you ever see this, I apologize for the rudeness.