3 ms·

At the same time there are counter examples of North Korea, Zimbabwe, Pakistan and India (since 2014) a authoritarian rule bring more economic downfall with con

At the same time there are counter examples of North Korea, Zimbabwe, Pakistan and India (since 2014) a authoritarian rule bring more economic downfall with concentration of power and wealth in the hands of selected few. Indeed the most interesting example in this is India where growth, prosperity and position on human development index became better when it was free than at present when it is partly free. China, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan grown exponentially not due to authoritarian rule but due to the hard work of their people and in the belief that with hard work they can change life (very much embedded in Confucius teachings). The only thing government did was not to come in the way of the people to have better life through hard work.

patrickk 6y ago
South Korea expanded rapidly during a military dictatorship in the 1960s and 1970s[1]. A large chunk of of their economy was (is??) tied to huge conglomerates with major ties to the government known as Chaebols[2]. > The only thing government did was not to come in the way of the people to have better life through hard work. At least in the case of South Korea, that is demonstrably false. There were, and are, lots of links between these large, successful international Chaebols and the government. Without government support, and protectionist measures shielding them from foreign competition it's unlikely they'd have grown as large and successful as they are today (similar to China today blocking foreign Big Tech companies from operating in China, to grow their own national champions). I know less about the other Asian economies you mention, but the "East Asian Model"[3] runs contrary to what you say about hard work alone. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Chung-hee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Chung-hee [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaebol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaebol [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Asian_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Asian_model
- dragonsh 6y ago
  Chaebols of South Korea are same as big conglomerates and top 1% in USA who control livelihood of majority of Americans. So this will mean that USA is same as South Korea driven by America first policy. USA foreign policy and access to market is also dependent on America first policy driven by large conglomerates not very different from those in South Korea, China and Japan. Recently there are ample examples where USA restricted market access when it’s own conglomerates are in trouble (using some flimsy excuse in the name of security and national interests). Besides reading some report please spend time in those countries and you will know an average citizens commitment to hard work in general (don’t make exception as rule). Prosperity do not come due to government policy but due to hard work of majority.
  - throwaway2037 6y ago
    Downvoters: Can you explain why you are downvoting? The last paragraph might be debated, but many downvotes with zero comments? That makes no sense to me. The first two paragraphs are spot-on. Even if you don't like the style of last paragraph, if you just look at the number of hours per worker in those countries, it is globally leading. There is real substance in this comment.
screye 6y ago
There are leaps of logic here that do not compute. For one, I would not trust any news that comes out about India right now. Both sides of reporting are so heavily colored by ideology, that most reports might as well be pledges of allegiance rather than sources of information. India's biggest boom came during 1991 (liberalization) which was a failure of democracy pushed through during a political and economic crisis. (Domestic terrorist assassination of popular leader + IMF threatening India to liberalize against popular opinion). If anything, the economic failures of Modi showcase the problems of large democracies. It always devolves into populism and procedural in-action, where major changes can only be done by stealth; and thus haphazardly. > North Korea, Zimbabwe, Pakistan and India It has to be a cruel joke to mention India with 3 failed military states, when it has one of the the strongest election commissions in the world. > concentration of power and wealth in the hands of selected few Given that India was run by 1 family for 60 years, the burden of Proof is on you to show that the current Govt. has a greater concentration of wealth. India has always had a concentration of power in a few hands. It's just that the current bearers of that power are disliked by western elites. PS: I do not particularly love Modi. His economic policies have been shoddy and I would prefer someone less tied to a narrow view of hinduism. But, the Indian opposition right now is more incompetent than fish climbing a tree. ________________________ > Confucius teachings > government did was not to come in the way of the people to have better life through hard work. Could not be farther away from the truth. Each of these govts inserted themselves strongly into personal life and their growth came during a short duration of strong authoritarianism. Japan (A world superpower in 1945 with high HDI) and China (as large as large govt) should be the last countries to be referenced for the point you are making.
- dragonsh 6y ago
  > heavily colored by ideology Exactly in display in your own response. > Modi showcase the problems of large democracies It showcase the result of disrespect of plurality in society and promoting hatred and Nazi style Hindu supremacy forgetting the complex geopolitical and cultural diversity of India. > Given that India was run by 1 family for 60 years, You mean to say India was an authoritarian state ruled by one family for last 60 years and only after 2014 it became free (HDI, poverty alleviation, education, from free to partly free tell a different story). Anyways these statement reflects the ardent follower logic of Hindu nationalist (in India it will be called M--- bhakt logic). > Each of these govts inserted themselves strongly into personal life Lived long enough in all these countries to know first hand that the development happened not because of the government but by work done by its citizens. Indeed USA itself is reaping the benefits of the hard work done by its own citizens with emphasis on science and engineering, not superstition and same apply to all these countries. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and China in spite of very different political system were able to achieve similar trajectory of growth founded in hard work with emphasis on science and engineering instead of superstition. So they are a reference point. China took 1.4 billion people out of poverty and made them moderately wealthy society with almost 99% literacy rates and 100% in all tier 1,2 and 3 cities. Its not because of the government, but because of its people and their emphasis on education. During Mao Tse-tung (毛泽东), China was an authoritarian state and government was in every walk of life and during that time it was behind India, when it came to all the parameters of HDI (human development index). Food was rationed and there is lost generation during that time which did not go to university at all. All the progress happened when authoritarianism started to fade away from society giving space to it's citizens to learn, work and earn a decent living without state. May be brush up some history on these countries, you will realize that their growth story is rooted in their citizens quest for better life through education, hard work with emphasis on science and engineering instead of superstition, race or religion supremacy theory.
morelisp 6y ago
> China, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan... Orientalist bullshit in the extreme. Politically and economically speaking, you could not name four more different countries.
diveandfight 6y ago
> China, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan grown exponentially not due to authoritarian rule but due to the hard work of their people and in the belief that with hard work they can change life (very much embedded in Confucius teachings). The assertion here is that "Confucian values" led to these countries economically developing from un-developed to developed economies. Yet earlier you state the "counter example" of North Korea being an authoritarian regime that brought about economic downfall. So, "Confucian values" + authoritarian regime = economic growth (SK) "Confucian values" + authoritarian regime = economic stagnation (NK) ? These are two nation-states that had literally the same culture prior to mid-20th wars; if we're focusing on the "Confucian values" part of a culture. What is the actual argument here? Or is this some ancient Chinese wisdom/Confucius say bulls*t?

patrickk 6y ago

South Korea expanded rapidly during a military dictatorship in the 1960s and 1970s[1]. A large chunk of of their economy was (is??) tied to huge conglomerates with major ties to the government known as Chaebols[2]. > The only thing government did was not to come in the way of the people to have better life through hard work. At least in the case of South Korea, that is demonstrably false. There were, and are, lots of links between these large, successful international Chaebols and the government. Without government support, and protectionist measures shielding them from foreign competition it's unlikely they'd have grown as large and successful as they are today (similar to China today blocking foreign Big Tech companies from operating in China, to grow their own national champions). I know less about the other Asian economies you mention, but the "East Asian Model"[3] runs contrary to what you say about hard work alone. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Chung-hee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Chung-hee [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaebol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaebol [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Asian_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Asian_model

dragonsh 6y ago
Chaebols of South Korea are same as big conglomerates and top 1% in USA who control livelihood of majority of Americans. So this will mean that USA is same as South Korea driven by America first policy. USA foreign policy and access to market is also dependent on America first policy driven by large conglomerates not very different from those in South Korea, China and Japan. Recently there are ample examples where USA restricted market access when it’s own conglomerates are in trouble (using some flimsy excuse in the name of security and national interests). Besides reading some report please spend time in those countries and you will know an average citizens commitment to hard work in general (don’t make exception as rule). Prosperity do not come due to government policy but due to hard work of majority.
- throwaway2037 6y ago
  Downvoters: Can you explain why you are downvoting? The last paragraph might be debated, but many downvotes with zero comments? That makes no sense to me. The first two paragraphs are spot-on. Even if you don't like the style of last paragraph, if you just look at the number of hours per worker in those countries, it is globally leading. There is real substance in this comment.

screye 6y ago

There are leaps of logic here that do not compute. For one, I would not trust any news that comes out about India right now. Both sides of reporting are so heavily colored by ideology, that most reports might as well be pledges of allegiance rather than sources of information. India's biggest boom came during 1991 (liberalization) which was a failure of democracy pushed through during a political and economic crisis. (Domestic terrorist assassination of popular leader + IMF threatening India to liberalize against popular opinion). If anything, the economic failures of Modi showcase the problems of large democracies. It always devolves into populism and procedural in-action, where major changes can only be done by stealth; and thus haphazardly. > North Korea, Zimbabwe, Pakistan and India It has to be a cruel joke to mention India with 3 failed military states, when it has one of the the strongest election commissions in the world. > concentration of power and wealth in the hands of selected few Given that India was run by 1 family for 60 years, the burden of Proof is on you to show that the current Govt. has a greater concentration of wealth. India has always had a concentration of power in a few hands. It's just that the current bearers of that power are disliked by western elites. PS: I do not particularly love Modi. His economic policies have been shoddy and I would prefer someone less tied to a narrow view of hinduism. But, the Indian opposition right now is more incompetent than fish climbing a tree. ________________________ > Confucius teachings > government did was not to come in the way of the people to have better life through hard work. Could not be farther away from the truth. Each of these govts inserted themselves strongly into personal life and their growth came during a short duration of strong authoritarianism. Japan (A world superpower in 1945 with high HDI) and China (as large as large govt) should be the last countries to be referenced for the point you are making.

dragonsh 6y ago
> heavily colored by ideology Exactly in display in your own response. > Modi showcase the problems of large democracies It showcase the result of disrespect of plurality in society and promoting hatred and Nazi style Hindu supremacy forgetting the complex geopolitical and cultural diversity of India. > Given that India was run by 1 family for 60 years, You mean to say India was an authoritarian state ruled by one family for last 60 years and only after 2014 it became free (HDI, poverty alleviation, education, from free to partly free tell a different story). Anyways these statement reflects the ardent follower logic of Hindu nationalist (in India it will be called M--- bhakt logic). > Each of these govts inserted themselves strongly into personal life Lived long enough in all these countries to know first hand that the development happened not because of the government but by work done by its citizens. Indeed USA itself is reaping the benefits of the hard work done by its own citizens with emphasis on science and engineering, not superstition and same apply to all these countries. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and China in spite of very different political system were able to achieve similar trajectory of growth founded in hard work with emphasis on science and engineering instead of superstition. So they are a reference point. China took 1.4 billion people out of poverty and made them moderately wealthy society with almost 99% literacy rates and 100% in all tier 1,2 and 3 cities. Its not because of the government, but because of its people and their emphasis on education. During Mao Tse-tung (毛泽东), China was an authoritarian state and government was in every walk of life and during that time it was behind India, when it came to all the parameters of HDI (human development index). Food was rationed and there is lost generation during that time which did not go to university at all. All the progress happened when authoritarianism started to fade away from society giving space to it's citizens to learn, work and earn a decent living without state. May be brush up some history on these countries, you will realize that their growth story is rooted in their citizens quest for better life through education, hard work with emphasis on science and engineering instead of superstition, race or religion supremacy theory.

morelisp 6y ago

> China, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan... Orientalist bullshit in the extreme. Politically and economically speaking, you could not name four more different countries.

diveandfight 6y ago

> China, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan grown exponentially not due to authoritarian rule but due to the hard work of their people and in the belief that with hard work they can change life (very much embedded in Confucius teachings). The assertion here is that "Confucian values" led to these countries economically developing from un-developed to developed economies. Yet earlier you state the "counter example" of North Korea being an authoritarian regime that brought about economic downfall. So, "Confucian values" + authoritarian regime = economic growth (SK) "Confucian values" + authoritarian regime = economic stagnation (NK) ? These are two nation-states that had literally the same culture prior to mid-20th wars; if we're focusing on the "Confucian values" part of a culture. What is the actual argument here? Or is this some ancient Chinese wisdom/Confucius say bulls*t?