3 ms·

This isn’t the traditional thought process on this topic. Traditionally, it was thought that the ills of resource allocation under democracy were far outweighed

by oivey 2y ago

This isn’t the traditional thought process on this topic. Traditionally, it was thought that the ills of resource allocation under democracy were far outweighed by the automatic optimization of the free market. The Soviets did a lot to suggest that the free market was actually better than central planning. China is showing that with 21st century needs, technologies, and planning that may no longer be the case.

emptysongglass 2y ago
Right, but I wasn't referring to old thought processes. I was referring to current.
lucianbr 2y ago
Looks like China is attempting a hybrid approach. Free market with the government intervening whenever and wherever it feels like. They still get some optimization and some otherwise-impossible-projects. I'd say the jury is still out on this strategy.
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
  > Looks like China is attempting a hybrid approach. Free market with the government intervening whenever and wherever it feels like. A caveat I'd add is that the Chinese government is subjective to the party. China's accomplishments are significant but they tend to be secondary to the political wellbeing of the CCP. That wellbeing is secured though the harsh and thorough quashing of dissent. I'd criticize China but CCP's most repressive aspects seem to be finding widespread appeal here in the US.
  - ffsm8 2y ago
    > I'd criticize China but CCP's most repressive aspects seem to be finding widespread appeal here in the US. And so does Russia, which is another effective repressive dictatorship. From my perspective, they're just exceptionally adapt at pushing their propaganda abroad. Historically, the USA was the only one doing that, but it's no longer the only player. (To be clear, I meant spreading propaganda abroad. The USA is at least currently not a repressive dictatorship. And I doubt it will become so before I die.)
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- vkou 2y ago
  It's real wealth and productivity growth has dramatically outpaced peer nations over the last 40 years. How much longer will the jury be out? Will it come back in my lifetime?
  - svara 2y ago
    Yeah, it's going to come out in the next 10 years or so, 20 at most. The question is whether the Chinese economy will take a similar trajectory now to the Japanese one in the late eighties and through the nineties, with a period of extreme growth followed by mostly stagnation. It could very well be that the Chinese model is good at catch-up growth so to speak, up to the level of an advanced economy. I agree with the op that the jury is out on this and it might go different ways.
  - chii 2y ago
    > productivity growth has dramatically outpaced peer nations over the last 40 years. and yet, are the citizens getting their fair share of said productivity growth? Or has it been obsorbed by the CCP, in which the wealth is then allocated to something that said citizen would not have chosen to allocate to?
    - vkou 2y ago
      Given that hundreds of millions of people living in it had to go outside to shit in an outhouse four decades ago, but are now living first-world and nearly first-world lifestyles, you tell me if any of that wealth made it to them. People tolerate the CCP because of the clear material gains they have seen in their lives. If some strongman authoritarian stood with a megaphone on Main Street and credibly promised Americans one tenth of that gain in prosperity, they'd elect him dictator for life.
      - matthewdgreen 2y ago
        The same basic rags-to-richest pattern was true for most US citizens a century ago, and no we're now objectively some of the richest people in the world. But despite this progress, US politics does not indicate that the US populace is deeply satisfied. Which leads to the real question: will the CCP still be as popular when material progress plateaus?
throwawaymaths 2y ago
> China is showing that with 21st century needs, technologies, and planning that may no longer be the case. maybe. a considerable number of chinese projects are very flashy and the planning doesn't take into account upkeep. a good example is country gardens forest city: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_City,_Johor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_City,_Johor
- ben_w 2y ago
  What I've heard — and I don't claim any real expertise — is that the city was built by a significant amount of private money and certainly private companies, and what made the city fail was several different governments all deciding that they didn't want this sort of thing, specifically China wanting houses to not be investments and restricting how much money Chinese citizens could take out of the country, while Malaysia started off in favour of it but then decided that "foreigners" (which in the face of Forest City would have been Chinese) shouldn't be buying up housing in Malaysia. That's not really a sign of central planning failure, any more than, say, California City — failure, sure, but not due to what distinguishes economic central planning from capitalist diversity's self-balancing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_City,_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_City,_California
AdrianB1 2y ago
Centrally planning a project is not bad and it was not bad even in USSR. What usually goes wrong is the implementation, where lack of ownership and widespread corruption makes the resource utilization perform pretty bad. Socialist or Communist countries did some good projects, I saw quite a lot. Implementation, management and long term operation went bad.
- Aloisius 2y ago
  A good plan is one that can be executed. Assuming no corruption where widespread corruption exists is a failure in planning.
jonstewart 2y ago
Maybe, but China has also poured so much capital into infrastructure projects that don’t deliver ROI. This has harmed their longterm growth. We didn’t do enough when interest rates were low and we have a hard time with complicated projects, but China isn’t perfect at this, either. Also they march people out into fields and execute them at point blank range. Worth keeping in mind.
- lmz 2y ago
  > Also they march people out into fields and execute them at point blank range. Worth keeping in mind. Some of us think the US's predicament with lethal injection drugs is quite funny and bringing back firing squads would improve things.

by oivey 2y ago

emptysongglass 2y ago

Right, but I wasn't referring to old thought processes. I was referring to current.

lucianbr 2y ago

Looks like China is attempting a hybrid approach. Free market with the government intervening whenever and wherever it feels like. They still get some optimization and some otherwise-impossible-projects. I'd say the jury is still out on this strategy.

WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
> Looks like China is attempting a hybrid approach. Free market with the government intervening whenever and wherever it feels like. A caveat I'd add is that the Chinese government is subjective to the party. China's accomplishments are significant but they tend to be secondary to the political wellbeing of the CCP. That wellbeing is secured though the harsh and thorough quashing of dissent. I'd criticize China but CCP's most repressive aspects seem to be finding widespread appeal here in the US.
- ffsm8 2y ago
  > I'd criticize China but CCP's most repressive aspects seem to be finding widespread appeal here in the US. And so does Russia, which is another effective repressive dictatorship. From my perspective, they're just exceptionally adapt at pushing their propaganda abroad. Historically, the USA was the only one doing that, but it's no longer the only player. (To be clear, I meant spreading propaganda abroad. The USA is at least currently not a repressive dictatorship. And I doubt it will become so before I die.)
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
vkou 2y ago
It's real wealth and productivity growth has dramatically outpaced peer nations over the last 40 years. How much longer will the jury be out? Will it come back in my lifetime?
- svara 2y ago
  Yeah, it's going to come out in the next 10 years or so, 20 at most. The question is whether the Chinese economy will take a similar trajectory now to the Japanese one in the late eighties and through the nineties, with a period of extreme growth followed by mostly stagnation. It could very well be that the Chinese model is good at catch-up growth so to speak, up to the level of an advanced economy. I agree with the op that the jury is out on this and it might go different ways.
- chii 2y ago
  > productivity growth has dramatically outpaced peer nations over the last 40 years. and yet, are the citizens getting their fair share of said productivity growth? Or has it been obsorbed by the CCP, in which the wealth is then allocated to something that said citizen would not have chosen to allocate to?
  - vkou 2y ago
    Given that hundreds of millions of people living in it had to go outside to shit in an outhouse four decades ago, but are now living first-world and nearly first-world lifestyles, you tell me if any of that wealth made it to them. People tolerate the CCP because of the clear material gains they have seen in their lives. If some strongman authoritarian stood with a megaphone on Main Street and credibly promised Americans one tenth of that gain in prosperity, they'd elect him dictator for life.
    - matthewdgreen 2y ago
      The same basic rags-to-richest pattern was true for most US citizens a century ago, and no we're now objectively some of the richest people in the world. But despite this progress, US politics does not indicate that the US populace is deeply satisfied. Which leads to the real question: will the CCP still be as popular when material progress plateaus?

throwawaymaths 2y ago

> China is showing that with 21st century needs, technologies, and planning that may no longer be the case. maybe. a considerable number of chinese projects are very flashy and the planning doesn't take into account upkeep. a good example is country gardens forest city: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_City,_Johor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_City,_Johor

ben_w 2y ago
What I've heard — and I don't claim any real expertise — is that the city was built by a significant amount of private money and certainly private companies, and what made the city fail was several different governments all deciding that they didn't want this sort of thing, specifically China wanting houses to not be investments and restricting how much money Chinese citizens could take out of the country, while Malaysia started off in favour of it but then decided that "foreigners" (which in the face of Forest City would have been Chinese) shouldn't be buying up housing in Malaysia. That's not really a sign of central planning failure, any more than, say, California City — failure, sure, but not due to what distinguishes economic central planning from capitalist diversity's self-balancing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_City,_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_City,_California

AdrianB1 2y ago

Centrally planning a project is not bad and it was not bad even in USSR. What usually goes wrong is the implementation, where lack of ownership and widespread corruption makes the resource utilization perform pretty bad. Socialist or Communist countries did some good projects, I saw quite a lot. Implementation, management and long term operation went bad.

Aloisius 2y ago
A good plan is one that can be executed. Assuming no corruption where widespread corruption exists is a failure in planning.

jonstewart 2y ago

Maybe, but China has also poured so much capital into infrastructure projects that don’t deliver ROI. This has harmed their longterm growth. We didn’t do enough when interest rates were low and we have a hard time with complicated projects, but China isn’t perfect at this, either. Also they march people out into fields and execute them at point blank range. Worth keeping in mind.

lmz 2y ago
> Also they march people out into fields and execute them at point blank range. Worth keeping in mind. Some of us think the US's predicament with lethal injection drugs is quite funny and bringing back firing squads would improve things.