3 ms·

Alternatively - maybe it's not so great that government is so big and central and has so much power. Politicians are gonna find ways to corrupt that power no ma

Alternatively - maybe it's not so great that government is so big and central and has so much power. Politicians are gonna find ways to corrupt that power no matter what. The same could be said for megacorps. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world. China and Chinese SOEs are going to be big and powerful and centralized for the foreseeable future no matter what - and if we don't have anything to oppose them - that doesn't seem great either.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
pphysch 5y ago
Deliberately getting rid of "big government" just leads to even more unaccountable megacorps filling the void. That's been the lesson of America for the past 40-50 years. If you want any chance of competing on the global stage in the 3rd millennium, the solution is to embrace big government and do it right. It is possible to implement anti-corruption mechanisms. Like any security measure, they will never be infallible, but they will certainly increase the friction required to be corrupt. Otherwise, your country will be a sickly host to parasitic & transnational megacorps. Like America and many smaller countries today.
- jokethrowaway 5y ago
  Private businesses are the only thing that kept America relevant. If it wasn't for Big Tech, the USA would be poorer and much less relevant. The centralised American army, with its huge spend, doesn't have much to show for. I dislike megacorps as well: I would prefer to have smaller businesses so that the power would be more spread across society. Incidentally the government and their regulations are often what helps monopolies to solidify and become unbeatable. Maybe if you get rid of all government and not only of "big government" you will have less corruption and mega corporations as well.
- fennecfoxen 5y ago
  Meh. It’s a lot easier to hold big mega corps to account with small government than it is to hold big government to account by any means whatsoever. Besides, in practice big government rather prefers doing business with a few big companies and national labor unions who will pay for the politicians’ campaigns and talk up their agenda — applying discretionary enforcement to hobble enemies, and big-time regulation can be a major barrier to entry that reduces competition for your friends. Perhaps you don’t believe me? For a trivial example in recent memory about how government is happy to oppress its enemies by “holding them to account”, consider Operation Chokepoint. It’s a valid concern, mind you! I’m just skeptical of the remedy. You need a hell of a lot of faith in the policies of the next several decades to think this is a good idea. I don’t.
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  Mega corps don’t have tanks.
jessaustin 5y ago
People who live in normal nations laugh at both the people subject to the China authoritarian monstrosity and the people subject to the USA authoritarian monstrosity. Building and subjecting oneself to such a giant voracious parasitic automaton is obvious folly. They don't laugh too loudly, however, because they've read The Jakarta Method. China is actually less of a threat (except to close neighbors like Vietnam) because they have millennia of tradition and scholarship encouraging them not to care too much what barbarians say.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
  >because they have millennia of tradition and scholarship encouraging them not to care too much what barbarians say. Except if the barbarians talk about Taiwan (see Jon Cena) or Uygars. China has cowed even the NBA and western movie companies from going near those subjects.
  - jessaustin 5y ago
    I would draw a distinction between "pay conservative factions in the Indonesian military to kill a million communists, communist sympathizers, and random unaffiliated villagers" [0] and "don't do business with entertainment firms whose biggest stars say things you don't like". Others might not draw such a distinction. Also, this Uighur thing is blown totally out of proportion. [1][2] I'm not suggesting anyone believe Chinese officials or media. I only suggest we view USA officials and media with a modicum of skepticism. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_1965%E2%80%9366 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_19... [1] https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/19/china-uighurs-genocide-us-pompeo-blinken/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/19/china-uighurs-genocide-... [2] https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/f/xinjiang-staying-afloat-wave-disinformation https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/f/xinjiang-staying-a...
- jokethrowaway 5y ago
  While I think all western countries can easily be considered authoritarian countries, given most of them demand half of the profits of everyone doing anything productive on their land, you're terribly deluded if you think they rank anything close to what China is. China has concentration camps, kill businesses with a whip of the hand and apparently have half of the world (probably including your government) on their payroll. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlCYFh8U2xM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlCYFh8U2xM
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

pphysch 5y ago

Deliberately getting rid of "big government" just leads to even more unaccountable megacorps filling the void. That's been the lesson of America for the past 40-50 years. If you want any chance of competing on the global stage in the 3rd millennium, the solution is to embrace big government and do it right. It is possible to implement anti-corruption mechanisms. Like any security measure, they will never be infallible, but they will certainly increase the friction required to be corrupt. Otherwise, your country will be a sickly host to parasitic & transnational megacorps. Like America and many smaller countries today.

jokethrowaway 5y ago
Private businesses are the only thing that kept America relevant. If it wasn't for Big Tech, the USA would be poorer and much less relevant. The centralised American army, with its huge spend, doesn't have much to show for. I dislike megacorps as well: I would prefer to have smaller businesses so that the power would be more spread across society. Incidentally the government and their regulations are often what helps monopolies to solidify and become unbeatable. Maybe if you get rid of all government and not only of "big government" you will have less corruption and mega corporations as well.
fennecfoxen 5y ago
Meh. It’s a lot easier to hold big mega corps to account with small government than it is to hold big government to account by any means whatsoever. Besides, in practice big government rather prefers doing business with a few big companies and national labor unions who will pay for the politicians’ campaigns and talk up their agenda — applying discretionary enforcement to hobble enemies, and big-time regulation can be a major barrier to entry that reduces competition for your friends. Perhaps you don’t believe me? For a trivial example in recent memory about how government is happy to oppress its enemies by “holding them to account”, consider Operation Chokepoint. It’s a valid concern, mind you! I’m just skeptical of the remedy. You need a hell of a lot of faith in the policies of the next several decades to think this is a good idea. I don’t.
mensetmanusman 5y ago
Mega corps don’t have tanks.

jessaustin 5y ago

People who live in normal nations laugh at both the people subject to the China authoritarian monstrosity and the people subject to the USA authoritarian monstrosity. Building and subjecting oneself to such a giant voracious parasitic automaton is obvious folly. They don't laugh too loudly, however, because they've read The Jakarta Method. China is actually less of a threat (except to close neighbors like Vietnam) because they have millennia of tradition and scholarship encouraging them not to care too much what barbarians say.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
>because they have millennia of tradition and scholarship encouraging them not to care too much what barbarians say. Except if the barbarians talk about Taiwan (see Jon Cena) or Uygars. China has cowed even the NBA and western movie companies from going near those subjects.
- jessaustin 5y ago
  I would draw a distinction between "pay conservative factions in the Indonesian military to kill a million communists, communist sympathizers, and random unaffiliated villagers" [0] and "don't do business with entertainment firms whose biggest stars say things you don't like". Others might not draw such a distinction. Also, this Uighur thing is blown totally out of proportion. [1][2] I'm not suggesting anyone believe Chinese officials or media. I only suggest we view USA officials and media with a modicum of skepticism. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_1965%E2%80%9366 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_19... [1] https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/19/china-uighurs-genocide-us-pompeo-blinken/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/19/china-uighurs-genocide-... [2] https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/f/xinjiang-staying-afloat-wave-disinformation https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/f/xinjiang-staying-a...
jokethrowaway 5y ago
While I think all western countries can easily be considered authoritarian countries, given most of them demand half of the profits of everyone doing anything productive on their land, you're terribly deluded if you think they rank anything close to what China is. China has concentration camps, kill businesses with a whip of the hand and apparently have half of the world (probably including your government) on their payroll. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlCYFh8U2xM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlCYFh8U2xM

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]