4 ms·

>Some times the Occam's Razor explanation of events is the one which is true, and in this case it's the extremely vindictive regime just ruining lives, and fort

>Some times the Occam's Razor explanation of events is the one which is true, and in this case it's the extremely vindictive regime just ruining lives, and fortunes of people whom they think are good targets to attack today, and there is nothing "smart, and sophisticated" about it.* I don't understand how an explanation built up on tropes is the simplest one. One what basis is the CCP "extremely vidictive"? How is the simplest explanation that the government decided to blow up the economy "just because". Your explanation seems very counter intuitive - in some way you take the opposite view as your criticism; reducing the chinese to some barbaric government system, and not the world 2nd largest super power.

baybal2 5y ago
> in some way you take the opposite view as your criticism; reducing the chinese to some barbaric government system, and not the world 2nd largest super power. China became world's 2nd largest economic power because money were almost raining on them from the sky, and not because of any level of sophistication. Were they actually trying to play a better role beyond basic technocratic guidance, China wouldn't be a 2nd largest economy today, but a 1st one, and by a large extend. With them seeing that the West was willing to pour money on them even when they were failing as hard as they did, they had not a single incentive to not to blow up the economy "just because", as you said, every few years, and being anything else than this "barbaric government system." The extend of economic mismanagement during the so called "China's golden decade" was just that bonkers. 10, 11 digits sums were going up in flames, or vanishing in Swiss bank accounts almost monthly back then. It's only when it got so bad as it is now economically, did the CPC turn on the current crisis mode. It is now slowly reverting to its pre-199x state — the perpetual crisis. It will be becoming increasingly more paranoid as the situation deteriorates, and increasingly more panic prone. The history shows that's how it was with every marxist, communist, or hardcore socialist regime in the past.
- xtian 5y ago
  > Were they actually trying to play a better role beyond basic technocratic guidance, China wouldn't be a 2nd larger economy today, but a 1st one, and by a large extend. You know China is on track to surpass the US’ GDP in the 2030s, right? And that the Chinese middle class is growing while the US middle class is shrinking? Given that China was a completely impoverished agrarian country recovering from multiple colonial incursions in 1949, that’s a pretty remarkable accomplishment. If no sophistication was involved, why hasn’t India seen the same outcomes since gaining its independence around the same time?
  - baybal2 5y ago
    > If no sophistication was involved, why hasn’t India seen the same outcomes since gaining its independence around the same time? Because the West wasn't raining gold on India, and was raining gold on communist China instead. And it didn't because India wasn't willing to let in Western businesses, and give them a carte blanche to make money like China did. It also didn't because India wasn't starting from such a low base as China. It also didn't because Indian workers were a few cents per hour more expensive than Chinese. It also didn't because Indian workers had some absolutely minimal labour protections, unlike Chinese. It also didn't because India had some absolutely minimal semblance of rule of law, functioning legal system, and China didn't. It also didn't because India wasn't as completely open to corruption as the Chinese state was. The point that India was a more bureaucratic country than China back then can't hold water. Both countries were bureaucratic nightmares, and keep being them to this day, but for some reason this trope persists. As somebody who spend a big portion of my career in China, I will tell that China at no point was that libertarian capitalist paradise that the delirious Wall Street, and Silicon Valley people imagined it be.
    - xtian 5y ago
      My point is absolutely not that India was more bureaucratic. The decisive difference is that China was reestablished as a people’s republic led by a communist party which organizes the whole sphere of the economy to improve the overall standard of living. So now China has eliminated absolute poverty whereas India is still struggling to provide basic food security.
      - baybal2 5y ago
        > The decisive difference is that China was reestablished as a people’s republic led by a communist party The communist party doesn't lead. Its political edicts are a complete mumbo jumbo. Tell me of a single sane person who can decipher any meaning from the phychomumbling of party heads on CCTV. Even CPC members themselves have barely any understanding what the hack their own party line is. > which organizes the whole sphere of the economy to improve the overall standard of living. The communist part did not organise anything, it literally been doing nothing except floating belly up on the water 20 years straight from 1990 to 2010, while Western money kept piling on them. I will not deny that some state companies attained a level of commercial success, and that some select municipalities had moderately competent hired hands working for them. But this was hardly a result of any deliberate effort. > China has eliminated absolute poverty whereas India is still struggling to provide basic food security. You have to say it's Chinese people who eliminated the absolute poverty, and not the talking head only showing in a village for a few hours once a few weeks to deliver ideological sermons from a loudspeaker. Saying the opposite would be an insult to ones intelligence when it's the party, and especially local party heads, which consistently keep rural people downtrodden.

baybal2 5y ago

> in some way you take the opposite view as your criticism; reducing the chinese to some barbaric government system, and not the world 2nd largest super power. China became world's 2nd largest economic power because money were almost raining on them from the sky, and not because of any level of sophistication. Were they actually trying to play a better role beyond basic technocratic guidance, China wouldn't be a 2nd largest economy today, but a 1st one, and by a large extend. With them seeing that the West was willing to pour money on them even when they were failing as hard as they did, they had not a single incentive to not to blow up the economy "just because", as you said, every few years, and being anything else than this "barbaric government system." The extend of economic mismanagement during the so called "China's golden decade" was just that bonkers. 10, 11 digits sums were going up in flames, or vanishing in Swiss bank accounts almost monthly back then. It's only when it got so bad as it is now economically, did the CPC turn on the current crisis mode. It is now slowly reverting to its pre-199x state — the perpetual crisis. It will be becoming increasingly more paranoid as the situation deteriorates, and increasingly more panic prone. The history shows that's how it was with every marxist, communist, or hardcore socialist regime in the past.

xtian 5y ago
> Were they actually trying to play a better role beyond basic technocratic guidance, China wouldn't be a 2nd larger economy today, but a 1st one, and by a large extend. You know China is on track to surpass the US’ GDP in the 2030s, right? And that the Chinese middle class is growing while the US middle class is shrinking? Given that China was a completely impoverished agrarian country recovering from multiple colonial incursions in 1949, that’s a pretty remarkable accomplishment. If no sophistication was involved, why hasn’t India seen the same outcomes since gaining its independence around the same time?
- baybal2 5y ago
  > If no sophistication was involved, why hasn’t India seen the same outcomes since gaining its independence around the same time? Because the West wasn't raining gold on India, and was raining gold on communist China instead. And it didn't because India wasn't willing to let in Western businesses, and give them a carte blanche to make money like China did. It also didn't because India wasn't starting from such a low base as China. It also didn't because Indian workers were a few cents per hour more expensive than Chinese. It also didn't because Indian workers had some absolutely minimal labour protections, unlike Chinese. It also didn't because India had some absolutely minimal semblance of rule of law, functioning legal system, and China didn't. It also didn't because India wasn't as completely open to corruption as the Chinese state was. The point that India was a more bureaucratic country than China back then can't hold water. Both countries were bureaucratic nightmares, and keep being them to this day, but for some reason this trope persists. As somebody who spend a big portion of my career in China, I will tell that China at no point was that libertarian capitalist paradise that the delirious Wall Street, and Silicon Valley people imagined it be.
  - xtian 5y ago
    My point is absolutely not that India was more bureaucratic. The decisive difference is that China was reestablished as a people’s republic led by a communist party which organizes the whole sphere of the economy to improve the overall standard of living. So now China has eliminated absolute poverty whereas India is still struggling to provide basic food security.
    - baybal2 5y ago
      > The decisive difference is that China was reestablished as a people’s republic led by a communist party The communist party doesn't lead. Its political edicts are a complete mumbo jumbo. Tell me of a single sane person who can decipher any meaning from the phychomumbling of party heads on CCTV. Even CPC members themselves have barely any understanding what the hack their own party line is. > which organizes the whole sphere of the economy to improve the overall standard of living. The communist part did not organise anything, it literally been doing nothing except floating belly up on the water 20 years straight from 1990 to 2010, while Western money kept piling on them. I will not deny that some state companies attained a level of commercial success, and that some select municipalities had moderately competent hired hands working for them. But this was hardly a result of any deliberate effort. > China has eliminated absolute poverty whereas India is still struggling to provide basic food security. You have to say it's Chinese people who eliminated the absolute poverty, and not the talking head only showing in a village for a few hours once a few weeks to deliver ideological sermons from a loudspeaker. Saying the opposite would be an insult to ones intelligence when it's the party, and especially local party heads, which consistently keep rural people downtrodden.