5 ms·

Initially everything is weaker under democracy. Democracy provides dynamism and accountability and eventually leads to superior outcomes. Lack of dynamism and e

Initially everything is weaker under democracy. Democracy provides dynamism and accountability and eventually leads to superior outcomes. Lack of dynamism and excessive politically driven regulations are signs of dying democracy

CrackerNews 4y ago
I think that democracy as a governance model is also meant as a liberal economic model with free market ideals. Even the authoritarian Chinese have elements of a democratic governance model with voting, however the one party rule maintains firm control over the state and economy, superceding and overriding the autonomy of the liberal economy (of a dual economic model) when it comes to national economic goals set by the party. The market is only as free as the party allows, which is true in general but it's more the case in China. With Arabs struggling to buy food, they may be wanting to replicate the economic success and rapid growth of the Chinese model as the end of the article says may happen in the uncertain future. I think this also paints a potential future for other countries as economies become ravished by recession and inflation and war, with people wanting a strong authoritarian alternative against the usual democratic politics.
- baybal2 4y ago
- AzzieElbab 4y ago
  When people praise China they often fail to realise that getting gdp/capita to that of China would actually result in dramatic economic decline in their own countries. People used to praise USSR economic growth and industrialisation while completely ignoring the fact that the whole thing was only possible because of western tech and financed via the holodomor.
  - CrackerNews 4y ago
    It's more rather that the USSR and China copied Western tech to catch up because of how backwards their development used to be. They started from feudal conditions and had to catch up to capitalism and promise to surpass it into the Marxist next phase of socialism and communism. The two states therefore had a strong focus on industrial development. However, I think that the decline of the USSR was in how they failed to capture the advantages of international trade (like Cuba or North Korea remaining in economic statis). The Chinese in the Deng faction instead chose to partake in international trade even if it meant that they had to become the sweatshop of the world. After that industrialization, they now under Xi can be pompous and choose to push their weight around given the power of their trade and autarky. Holodomor (and the Chinese famine too) are of course tragedies to be wary of. I think one reason they occured was due to the planners being unaware of the economic incentives and effects on individual actors of their rapid industrialization plans. This resulted in the USSR then launching a war on kulaks and the Chinese launching a war on Westernized intellectuals to make them comply with their plan.
    - AzzieElbab 4y ago
      Holodomor was literally caused by mass confiscation of grain for export. Proceeds were used to finance industrial projects frequently run by western enterprises. Collectivism came later. This is actually a pattern throughout communism countries. That’s why ppl in Cuba and Venezuela are suffering from malnutrition while food literally grows on trees
ren_engineer 4y ago
I'd say democracies/republics are about choosing stability over potential massive upside or downside. A great dictator can get shit done and improve lives very quickly(Singapore), on the other hand a terrible dictator can quickly turn things to shit. Gridlock that many people complain about is almost the prime benefit of democracy, Scalia actually talked about this before he died https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTYa0nMmt-I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTYa0nMmt-I
- CrackerNews 4y ago
  On the other side of gridlock, democratic centralism as associated with Leninism, is meant to break factional gridlocks and unite the entire one rule party behind a democratic decision to emphasize swiftness. If Arabs were starving, I think they would want swiftness in getting food and it may be why the article states that they may be looking to the Chinese model as an alternative in the uncertain future. The US is about checks and balances instead, but it seems like in this gridlock that the Supreme Court is the de facto lawmaking body with it being able to make the recent sweeping political decisions of the US. There's also the rise of "Trumpism" (for the lack of a better word) where people want a strong leader to bend the rules and get things done with the most radical supporters acting extrajudicially. There are also radical anarchists on the other side acting extrajudicially too. I'm not too certain about how stable this system can be with the recession /inflation on top that's clawing away economic and financial gains of ordinary people that may end up radicalizing them.
  - engineer_22 4y ago
    The Supreme Court is not making laws, it's dismantling them. Those issues shall return to the legislature, where they belong. Should note, as I understand it, a great portion of the US model of law is based on "Common Law", mostly made up of case law, and adopting some coded law. Case law is debated by lawyers and ruled on by a judge. Case law has the benefit of having legal experts examine particular situations and make arguments for/against an outcome. Coded law written by elected legislatures has difficult time anticipating edge cases, but is perceived as being more democratic. Regarding your anxiety about systemic stability: take a news break. I get worried about our situation too, but there's not much I can do about the big picture, just take care of my little part. The news is pretty intense, even my 8 year old child asks about some of the situations they're describing with worry. Kind of sad if you think about it, grown ups trying to keep their jobs in a changing media landscape, as a side effect they're scaring our kids.
m0llusk 4y ago
See also Amy Chua's book World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability (2003).

CrackerNews 4y ago

I think that democracy as a governance model is also meant as a liberal economic model with free market ideals. Even the authoritarian Chinese have elements of a democratic governance model with voting, however the one party rule maintains firm control over the state and economy, superceding and overriding the autonomy of the liberal economy (of a dual economic model) when it comes to national economic goals set by the party. The market is only as free as the party allows, which is true in general but it's more the case in China. With Arabs struggling to buy food, they may be wanting to replicate the economic success and rapid growth of the Chinese model as the end of the article says may happen in the uncertain future. I think this also paints a potential future for other countries as economies become ravished by recession and inflation and war, with people wanting a strong authoritarian alternative against the usual democratic politics.

baybal2 4y ago
AzzieElbab 4y ago
When people praise China they often fail to realise that getting gdp/capita to that of China would actually result in dramatic economic decline in their own countries. People used to praise USSR economic growth and industrialisation while completely ignoring the fact that the whole thing was only possible because of western tech and financed via the holodomor.
- CrackerNews 4y ago
  It's more rather that the USSR and China copied Western tech to catch up because of how backwards their development used to be. They started from feudal conditions and had to catch up to capitalism and promise to surpass it into the Marxist next phase of socialism and communism. The two states therefore had a strong focus on industrial development. However, I think that the decline of the USSR was in how they failed to capture the advantages of international trade (like Cuba or North Korea remaining in economic statis). The Chinese in the Deng faction instead chose to partake in international trade even if it meant that they had to become the sweatshop of the world. After that industrialization, they now under Xi can be pompous and choose to push their weight around given the power of their trade and autarky. Holodomor (and the Chinese famine too) are of course tragedies to be wary of. I think one reason they occured was due to the planners being unaware of the economic incentives and effects on individual actors of their rapid industrialization plans. This resulted in the USSR then launching a war on kulaks and the Chinese launching a war on Westernized intellectuals to make them comply with their plan.
  - AzzieElbab 4y ago
    Holodomor was literally caused by mass confiscation of grain for export. Proceeds were used to finance industrial projects frequently run by western enterprises. Collectivism came later. This is actually a pattern throughout communism countries. That’s why ppl in Cuba and Venezuela are suffering from malnutrition while food literally grows on trees

ren_engineer 4y ago

I'd say democracies/republics are about choosing stability over potential massive upside or downside. A great dictator can get shit done and improve lives very quickly(Singapore), on the other hand a terrible dictator can quickly turn things to shit. Gridlock that many people complain about is almost the prime benefit of democracy, Scalia actually talked about this before he died https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTYa0nMmt-I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTYa0nMmt-I

CrackerNews 4y ago
On the other side of gridlock, democratic centralism as associated with Leninism, is meant to break factional gridlocks and unite the entire one rule party behind a democratic decision to emphasize swiftness. If Arabs were starving, I think they would want swiftness in getting food and it may be why the article states that they may be looking to the Chinese model as an alternative in the uncertain future. The US is about checks and balances instead, but it seems like in this gridlock that the Supreme Court is the de facto lawmaking body with it being able to make the recent sweeping political decisions of the US. There's also the rise of "Trumpism" (for the lack of a better word) where people want a strong leader to bend the rules and get things done with the most radical supporters acting extrajudicially. There are also radical anarchists on the other side acting extrajudicially too. I'm not too certain about how stable this system can be with the recession /inflation on top that's clawing away economic and financial gains of ordinary people that may end up radicalizing them.
- engineer_22 4y ago
  The Supreme Court is not making laws, it's dismantling them. Those issues shall return to the legislature, where they belong. Should note, as I understand it, a great portion of the US model of law is based on "Common Law", mostly made up of case law, and adopting some coded law. Case law is debated by lawyers and ruled on by a judge. Case law has the benefit of having legal experts examine particular situations and make arguments for/against an outcome. Coded law written by elected legislatures has difficult time anticipating edge cases, but is perceived as being more democratic. Regarding your anxiety about systemic stability: take a news break. I get worried about our situation too, but there's not much I can do about the big picture, just take care of my little part. The news is pretty intense, even my 8 year old child asks about some of the situations they're describing with worry. Kind of sad if you think about it, grown ups trying to keep their jobs in a changing media landscape, as a side effect they're scaring our kids.

m0llusk 4y ago

See also Amy Chua's book World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability (2003).