3 ms·

>It is really the result of not thinking ahead and letting the business lobbies have what they want today There's a tendency in the West to airbrush history, a

by yyyk 5y ago

>It is really the result of not thinking ahead and letting the business lobbies have what they want today There's a tendency in the West to airbrush history, and pretend that the opening to China was just a result of business lobbies. There was an intentional policy decision based on 'liberalization through trade' theory, which managed to be one of the most disastrous theories out there (far more disastrous than 2000-era US WoT policies). This was pushed by politicians and academics, and up until the oughts businesses were more reacting to the policy as creating it.

toss1 5y ago
YES, this is definitely a huge factor that I failed to mention - the concept that economic free(ish) markets are incompatible with authoritarianism and would lead to political freedom. From a BBC article yesterday [0]: "Indeed the US trade representative responsible for negotiating China's WTO deal, Charlene Barshefsky, told a Washington International Trade Association panel this week that China's economic model "somewhat disproved" the Western view that "you can't have an innovative society, and political control"" I can sort of see how the idea took hold, as the previous large authoritarian states in USSR and CCP had so dramatically and consistently underperformed (to be polite) the democracies that it would seem that the converse would be true, that economic freedom would force democracy. So, ya, it would seem like a good hypothesis, but I sure wouldn't bet a lot on it without solid testing. Yet, the political leaders all turned out to be fools and bet the entire future of democracy itself on that notion. Then, combine that with the MBA idea that the only thing important is the ideas and management and trifling things like manufacturing can be outsourced to their cheapest locale and that manufacturing know-how, innovation, and supply chain control don't matter, and we've come to the brink of destroying the free world. Now, we have a historical fight on our hands to recover from these blunders. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59610019 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59610019

by yyyk 5y ago

toss1 5y ago

YES, this is definitely a huge factor that I failed to mention - the concept that economic free(ish) markets are incompatible with authoritarianism and would lead to political freedom. From a BBC article yesterday [0]: "Indeed the US trade representative responsible for negotiating China's WTO deal, Charlene Barshefsky, told a Washington International Trade Association panel this week that China's economic model "somewhat disproved" the Western view that "you can't have an innovative society, and political control"" I can sort of see how the idea took hold, as the previous large authoritarian states in USSR and CCP had so dramatically and consistently underperformed (to be polite) the democracies that it would seem that the converse would be true, that economic freedom would force democracy. So, ya, it would seem like a good hypothesis, but I sure wouldn't bet a lot on it without solid testing. Yet, the political leaders all turned out to be fools and bet the entire future of democracy itself on that notion. Then, combine that with the MBA idea that the only thing important is the ideas and management and trifling things like manufacturing can be outsourced to their cheapest locale and that manufacturing know-how, innovation, and supply chain control don't matter, and we've come to the brink of destroying the free world. Now, we have a historical fight on our hands to recover from these blunders. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59610019 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59610019