5 ms·

Most people in general have a short term cost/benefit analysis period. What China seemingly does different is they have 10, 20, 50+ year plans which in the time

Most people in general have a short term cost/benefit analysis period. What China seemingly does different is they have 10, 20, 50+ year plans which in the time horizon of their multi-thousand year history even seems short term. Your example of the bridge may seem like no one uses it today but most likely in the future, it will be used and the scale will tip towards it being vastly beneficial compared to its cost. When countries like the USA have an entire history (not including native americans) of ~300 years, planning anything for 30 years out seems relatively crazy in comparison. All about perspective.

smallmind 5y ago
In this bridge example, not only did it cost $19 billion to build, but the tolls collected actually do not cover operating costs. Doubt their 20 year plan included having to dump more money into the bridge to just keep it working. There are a lot of Youtube videos about China's similar problems with their large high speed rail network.
- Closi 5y ago
  To OPs point though, the goal wasn’t to pull a profit it was to build links between the two countries.
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    Hong Kong isn't a separate country
    - Closi 5y ago
      Ok, special administrative region. It has its own laws, currency etc so I don’t think this changes the overall point.
- Aperocky 5y ago
  you can say the same about most of China's vast highway network. When they were newly built, most of these didn't have the traffic needed. Now a few of them are constantly congested.
Retric 5y ago
Trying to use a 50 year plan is also a weakness. Technologies developed between now and then will make many goals obsolete before their finished. China the county younger than the US. Linking the history as a monolithic entity is really propaganda more than anything else. They are sure trying to create a culturural identity across a country with multiple cultures and languages.
- technobabbler 5y ago
  > Trying to use a 50 year plan is also a weakness. Technologies developed between now and then will make many goals obsolete before their finished. It's not that simple. If something changes within the 50 years (and it certainly will), they can pivot away and work on something else. It's more that they have a relatively unified, authoritarian government with absolute power and no external checks and balances. At our other extreme, we have a two-party deadlock stretching back decades, and every major policy gets turned back after 4-8 years when the other party regains power. It's impossible to plan or build for the future that way. We used to be able to send people to the moon, develop nuclear power, build interstates and dams, win not just wars but hearts and minds, rebuild Germany and Japan... and now... we can't even evacuate Afghanistan, can't stop our citizens from being so pissed off they storm the capitol, can't do anything about climate change, can't have a sane discussion about educational curricula, can't maintain infrastructure, can't keep our people off the streets, can't deal with a pandemic... We've become good at one thing and one thing only: allowing private actors to optimize for massive short-term profits at the expense of society and the future. That's no way to run a country. We've turned citizens into gladiators fighting over scraps. Not saying we should emulate Chinese authoritarianism, but having a national vision lasting more than one election cycle isn't a bad thing. Being able to unite a country behind a major social project isn't a bad thing. Being able to even THINK of a country as a country, instead of warring factions, isn't a bad thing.
  - Retric 5y ago
    Pivoting away still costs the initial investment. Creating canals seemed like an obvious win being a useful technology for hundreds of years which justified extreme investments. Until suddenly rail took over in a relative blink of the eye. Authoritarianism tends to efficiently solve the wrong problems which results in an overall inefficient system. Private actors aren’t limited to only optimizing for today. Going to collage is a great example of long term optimization as is getting a 30 year mortgage etc. The difference is simply one of scale where private actors may not optimize the global problem, but global optimization is really difficult.
Archelaos 5y ago
Germany, with its 200,000 year history,[1] has for its transport infrastructure at least 15 year plans, which are only moderately legally binding. They are readjusted approximately every five years. New 15 year plans are being developed before the new ones expire, and there are is also some overlap between the plans. With this in mind, the current government has a transport infrastructure plan for 2040 on its agenda. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis
HWR_14 5y ago
I don't understand your point. The US may not be old, but European and other histories are taught. Meanwhile, how much impact do the war of the three kingdoms have on modern China?

smallmind 5y ago

In this bridge example, not only did it cost $19 billion to build, but the tolls collected actually do not cover operating costs. Doubt their 20 year plan included having to dump more money into the bridge to just keep it working. There are a lot of Youtube videos about China's similar problems with their large high speed rail network.

Closi 5y ago
To OPs point though, the goal wasn’t to pull a profit it was to build links between the two countries.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  Hong Kong isn't a separate country
  - Closi 5y ago
    Ok, special administrative region. It has its own laws, currency etc so I don’t think this changes the overall point.
Aperocky 5y ago
you can say the same about most of China's vast highway network. When they were newly built, most of these didn't have the traffic needed. Now a few of them are constantly congested.

Retric 5y ago

Trying to use a 50 year plan is also a weakness. Technologies developed between now and then will make many goals obsolete before their finished. China the county younger than the US. Linking the history as a monolithic entity is really propaganda more than anything else. They are sure trying to create a culturural identity across a country with multiple cultures and languages.

technobabbler 5y ago
> Trying to use a 50 year plan is also a weakness. Technologies developed between now and then will make many goals obsolete before their finished. It's not that simple. If something changes within the 50 years (and it certainly will), they can pivot away and work on something else. It's more that they have a relatively unified, authoritarian government with absolute power and no external checks and balances. At our other extreme, we have a two-party deadlock stretching back decades, and every major policy gets turned back after 4-8 years when the other party regains power. It's impossible to plan or build for the future that way. We used to be able to send people to the moon, develop nuclear power, build interstates and dams, win not just wars but hearts and minds, rebuild Germany and Japan... and now... we can't even evacuate Afghanistan, can't stop our citizens from being so pissed off they storm the capitol, can't do anything about climate change, can't have a sane discussion about educational curricula, can't maintain infrastructure, can't keep our people off the streets, can't deal with a pandemic... We've become good at one thing and one thing only: allowing private actors to optimize for massive short-term profits at the expense of society and the future. That's no way to run a country. We've turned citizens into gladiators fighting over scraps. Not saying we should emulate Chinese authoritarianism, but having a national vision lasting more than one election cycle isn't a bad thing. Being able to unite a country behind a major social project isn't a bad thing. Being able to even THINK of a country as a country, instead of warring factions, isn't a bad thing.
- Retric 5y ago
  Pivoting away still costs the initial investment. Creating canals seemed like an obvious win being a useful technology for hundreds of years which justified extreme investments. Until suddenly rail took over in a relative blink of the eye. Authoritarianism tends to efficiently solve the wrong problems which results in an overall inefficient system. Private actors aren’t limited to only optimizing for today. Going to collage is a great example of long term optimization as is getting a 30 year mortgage etc. The difference is simply one of scale where private actors may not optimize the global problem, but global optimization is really difficult.

Archelaos 5y ago

Germany, with its 200,000 year history,[1] has for its transport infrastructure at least 15 year plans, which are only moderately legally binding. They are readjusted approximately every five years. New 15 year plans are being developed before the new ones expire, and there are is also some overlap between the plans. With this in mind, the current government has a transport infrastructure plan for 2040 on its agenda. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis

HWR_14 5y ago

I don't understand your point. The US may not be old, but European and other histories are taught. Meanwhile, how much impact do the war of the three kingdoms have on modern China?