2 ms·

Correlation is not causation. There's been this idea that a shift towards market economics _caused_ the collapse of the authoritarian regimes in the countries y

Correlation is not causation. There's been this idea that a shift towards market economics _caused_ the collapse of the authoritarian regimes in the countries you mentioned. It is simply _correlated_ with it. If there were causation, China would be an economic backwater to this day, and my iPhone would have been made in Romania. The fact is, a large plurality of those holding capital today is not in favor of a market economy. Markets are hard. You have to compete. You have to keep customers happy. You have to constantly find the next big thing. You stand to lose a lot because everything I just mentioned includes a lot of risk by nature. These holders of capital are in fact far more in line with feudalism. Feudalism merged holders of monetary and political power into one entity: all of the economic value and capital were held by lords, who also had the ability to use the force of the state to marshal means of production to make more economic value for them at the exclusion of those who wanted to compete with the lords, or peasants/serfs who wanted more of the value they produced. This is why many modern capital holders _love_ the People's Republic of China: they get to do what they want with the non-human means of production, and the CCP will use its authoritarian regime to make sure that the human means of production doesn't cause too much trouble. When Obama asked Steve Jobs why Apple didn't make the iPhone in the US, Jobs basically stated (and I'm paraphrasing here) that American producers wouldn't do whatever it took to make him happy. If he had a change he wanted on a piece of hardware, he could tell his suppliers to make it so immediately. There would be no dealing with labor unions, no dealing with environmental regulations, no dealing with health and safety. The CCP won't do that because these capital holders cut them in on the revenue at the expense of the society the CCP rules over.

alephnerd 3y ago
> Correlation is not causation. 100% in agreement with you. Though by every single measure, China in 2023 hasn't reached the economic inflection point that Taiwan, South Korea, etc hit in the late 1980s-90s. The key commonality between those countries that became democracies and those that didn't was inequality and economic stagnation. Those that worked on rapidly decreasing inequality saw broad support for maintaining a Liberal instead of Illiberal Democracy (Eg. Taiwan, South Korean, Poland recently, etc) whereas those who saw economic stagnation after proto-democratization fell to Illiberal Democracy or Authoritarianism (Eg. Hungary, Russia, Turkiye, Thailand, etc). This is because of the "devil you know" fallacy that becomes justified if democracy or proto-democracy hasn't return any results. China is in a weird position where it's able to compete with Advanced Economies in certain fields, but by most standards is still a developing country. You can have Beijing have first world level standards, but Tibet have living standards comparable to the poorer states of India. > modern capital holders _love_ the People's Republic of China: they get to do what they want with the non-human means of production Then why move manufacturing to less authoritarian Mexico, India, Thailand, etc or equally authoritarian Vietnam?!? Why not continue manufacturing in North Korea like South Korean companies used to do? This is a fallacy that ignores the reality of operational margins and capacity.

alephnerd 3y ago

> Correlation is not causation. 100% in agreement with you. Though by every single measure, China in 2023 hasn't reached the economic inflection point that Taiwan, South Korea, etc hit in the late 1980s-90s. The key commonality between those countries that became democracies and those that didn't was inequality and economic stagnation. Those that worked on rapidly decreasing inequality saw broad support for maintaining a Liberal instead of Illiberal Democracy (Eg. Taiwan, South Korean, Poland recently, etc) whereas those who saw economic stagnation after proto-democratization fell to Illiberal Democracy or Authoritarianism (Eg. Hungary, Russia, Turkiye, Thailand, etc). This is because of the "devil you know" fallacy that becomes justified if democracy or proto-democracy hasn't return any results. China is in a weird position where it's able to compete with Advanced Economies in certain fields, but by most standards is still a developing country. You can have Beijing have first world level standards, but Tibet have living standards comparable to the poorer states of India. > modern capital holders _love_ the People's Republic of China: they get to do what they want with the non-human means of production Then why move manufacturing to less authoritarian Mexico, India, Thailand, etc or equally authoritarian Vietnam?!? Why not continue manufacturing in North Korea like South Korean companies used to do? This is a fallacy that ignores the reality of operational margins and capacity.