4 ms·
Depends on the outcome you're looking for, I guess. From a sheer "managing the macro architecture of civilization" perspective it's hard to argue -- the speed
by shanusmagnus 6y ago
Depends on the outcome you're looking for, I guess. From a sheer "managing the macro architecture of civilization" perspective it's hard to argue -- the speed with which China can do substantial things is staggering. They trade that off for individual liberties, presumably. Which makes one wonder if the liberties we enjoy are worth the bargain, on net.
Or perhaps the question boils down to whether "on net" is the right objective function.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- refenestrator 6y agoBoth the New Deal and the Chinese system accelerated electrification and running water in rural areas by decades. There's a lot of "quality of life" there that gets missed when people zoom all the way out and talk about state involvement, GDP and freedom.
- donovanian 6y ago> There's a lot of "quality of life" there I guess you'd have to ignore what Deidre McCloskey describes as the Great Enrichment of liberal democracies: "[...] a rise in real wages 1800 to the present by a factor of 10 or 30 or (allowing for improved quality of goods) 100, which is to say 900 or 2,900 or 9,900 percent" [1] Meanwhile there's a certain propensity for incredible inhumanity, eugenics (in the case of the 1920s Progressive movement) and the outright abuse and "reeducation" of minority races in China. [1]: http://www.deirdremccloskey.org/docs/pdf/IndiaPaperMcCloskey.pdf http://www.deirdremccloskey.org/docs/pdf/IndiaPaperMcCloskey...
- refenestrator 6y ago"1800 to present" is very much inclusive of the New Deal.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- xxpor 6y agoThis is a great way of putting it. I'm really not sure it's worth it.