3 ms·

If China was an example, then their Deng years were ones of liberalization that led to tremendous economic growth. However, they were ended by the rise of the X

If China was an example, then their Deng years were ones of liberalization that led to tremendous economic growth. However, they were ended by the rise of the Xi years of a strong leader promising to reign in the corruption of the Deng years. There's also a parallel in Russia with the post-Communist shock therapy leading to a new level of corruption. This led to Putin coming to power to reign in corruption (under his control) and bring about some stability against the shock therapy. Even now against the punitive sanctions for the Ukraine war, he's managing to keep the ruble stable and even increased its value. I think US leaders like Trump will be the first among those who want to strongarm stability even if it dampens a liberal economic model. He reoriented the US economy towards a trade war with China as opposed to free trade, which did incentivize domestic development as opposed to outsourcing to China.

Bubble_Pop_22 4y ago
Your examples miss that autocracy is a form of government, not a single person ruling. An autocrat can be toppled and a new one take his place, the regime didn't change at all, only the individual at the top did. An autocracy in which the autocrats turnover (not within the same family) is similar to a democracy will be as economically healthy as that democracy. Matter of fact I'd say healthier because it takes balls and risktaking at the societal level to topple an autocrat every 3 or 4 years, it's the same risk-taking which would produce exceptional results in entrepreneurship and trade. Creative destruction can't be limited to trade and entrepreneurship. It's either everywhere in the system or nowhere at all. Nothing says more 'creative destruction' than toppling an autocrat every 3 or 4 years, only to rally once again behind the new strongman which will be toppled himself in 3 or 4 years time

Bubble_Pop_22 4y ago

Your examples miss that autocracy is a form of government, not a single person ruling. An autocrat can be toppled and a new one take his place, the regime didn't change at all, only the individual at the top did. An autocracy in which the autocrats turnover (not within the same family) is similar to a democracy will be as economically healthy as that democracy. Matter of fact I'd say healthier because it takes balls and risktaking at the societal level to topple an autocrat every 3 or 4 years, it's the same risk-taking which would produce exceptional results in entrepreneurship and trade. Creative destruction can't be limited to trade and entrepreneurship. It's either everywhere in the system or nowhere at all. Nothing says more 'creative destruction' than toppling an autocrat every 3 or 4 years, only to rally once again behind the new strongman which will be toppled himself in 3 or 4 years time