4 ms·

You know what, Friedman? It's a lot harder to manage a continent-spanning country of 300 million people than a tiny, rich city-state. That's where the wisdom of

You know what, Friedman? It's a lot harder to manage a continent-spanning country of 300 million people than a tiny, rich city-state. That's where the wisdom of decentralization comes in, but we completely abandoned that in the 1930s. Can you imagine the bureaucracy to manage a country of 300 million people as well as Hong Kong? Neither can I. It probably doesn't exist. The One's election to office and his promise to shovel out $1 trillion in green pork doesn't change a whole lot. Friedman says: >"Because of the financial crisis, Barack Obama has the bipartisan support to spend $1 trillion in stimulus. But we must make certain that every bailout dollar, which we’re borrowing from our kids’ future, is spent wisely." There is not a single example from American history to give me hope of this.

potatolicious 18y ago
As hard to manage as a country of 1.3 billion people? Or an industry leading nation of 130 million people? Hong Kong is not the only example of a hyper-advanced Asian city. Shanghai, Taipei, Tokyo, Beijing... you name it, and we're not even approaching India and further west. The success of China, Japan, South Korea, and the myriad of other east Asian powers is not an isolated case of blind luck. Incredible dedication has been shown here to grow a nation's infrastructure, and the US would be wise to take heed and follow suit if they want to maintain their lead. Take a look at the bureaucracy needed to manage a country of 1.3 billion people, including a wealth gap far wider than that of the US, and yet continually building out massive infrastructure projects both urban and rural. This is something America is not doing, and I'd hate to see a repressive dictatorship out-do the West in anything.
- Prrometheus 18y ago
  Have you heard about the economist Mancur Olson and his theory of institutional sclerosis? His thesis is that bureaucracy tends to build on itself, becoming less rational and more wasteful as a society ages. Occasionally, there is a catastrophic event that overturns the established order, wiping out the cruft and allowing society to start fresh. However, over time the waste grows again. He uses this theory to explain why the American South did so well after reconstruction and after the Civil Rights movement. He would likely also argue that this explains why Japan and China have done so well, since both underwent massive disruptions in the last century. Our own society, however, has been very stable for many centuries and has had plenty of time to accumulate bureaucratic lard.
- dataangel 18y ago
  Have you ever been to Beijing? I lived there for 6 months just 2 years ago and 'ultra modern' is not the phrase I would use to describe it. Internet access to any site not hosted on the mainland is unbearably slow (bad news for travelers), the subway has only one line and the cars are always crammed full, and many of the cars on the street are tin boxes with recycled bike pedals and tractor engines inside them. Granted, I was there before the Olympics, while they were still doing a lot of construction in the hope of impressing everyone. If you were there then, and got an ultra-modern impression, did you ever look off the tourist beaten path and see ultra modernity there? I'd be surprised.

potatolicious 18y ago

As hard to manage as a country of 1.3 billion people? Or an industry leading nation of 130 million people? Hong Kong is not the only example of a hyper-advanced Asian city. Shanghai, Taipei, Tokyo, Beijing... you name it, and we're not even approaching India and further west. The success of China, Japan, South Korea, and the myriad of other east Asian powers is not an isolated case of blind luck. Incredible dedication has been shown here to grow a nation's infrastructure, and the US would be wise to take heed and follow suit if they want to maintain their lead. Take a look at the bureaucracy needed to manage a country of 1.3 billion people, including a wealth gap far wider than that of the US, and yet continually building out massive infrastructure projects both urban and rural. This is something America is not doing, and I'd hate to see a repressive dictatorship out-do the West in anything.

Prrometheus 18y ago
Have you heard about the economist Mancur Olson and his theory of institutional sclerosis? His thesis is that bureaucracy tends to build on itself, becoming less rational and more wasteful as a society ages. Occasionally, there is a catastrophic event that overturns the established order, wiping out the cruft and allowing society to start fresh. However, over time the waste grows again. He uses this theory to explain why the American South did so well after reconstruction and after the Civil Rights movement. He would likely also argue that this explains why Japan and China have done so well, since both underwent massive disruptions in the last century. Our own society, however, has been very stable for many centuries and has had plenty of time to accumulate bureaucratic lard.
dataangel 18y ago
Have you ever been to Beijing? I lived there for 6 months just 2 years ago and 'ultra modern' is not the phrase I would use to describe it. Internet access to any site not hosted on the mainland is unbearably slow (bad news for travelers), the subway has only one line and the cars are always crammed full, and many of the cars on the street are tin boxes with recycled bike pedals and tractor engines inside them. Granted, I was there before the Olympics, while they were still doing a lot of construction in the hope of impressing everyone. If you were there then, and got an ultra-modern impression, did you ever look off the tourist beaten path and see ultra modernity there? I'd be surprised.