4 ms·

You can badmouth about China all you want but at least they are consistent where they stand while US flip flopping about invading middle east (like usual) or G

You can badmouth about China all you want but at least they are consistent where they stand while US flip flopping about invading middle east (like usual) or Greenland

hvb2 2mo ago
I don't think he was badmouthing China at all. He's basically using different words to make the exact same point you're trying to make. When there's no real accountability, in a reasonable timeframe, it's much easier to plan long term. It's the same within companies. When the CEO assumes he'll be around for 5 years, should he shoot for the 10 year goal and reduce outcomes in the early years? Or does he just optimize for the next 5 years, thereby neglecting the long term goal?
- tonyhart7 2mo ago
  "When you're wrong, well that's what the army is for." he is implying that China bad action can be solved by PL red Army
  - fc417fc802 2mo ago
    He's not implying, he stated it directly. If you think he's wrong then tell me - what do you believe would happen there in the event of widespread social unrest or grievances against the sitting government?
    - tonyhart7 2mo ago
      They used to be, but after millions of people died, they realized that they had to do better. The rest is history.
close04 2mo ago
GP isn't "badmouthing" China, that description applies to every non-democratic country, one leader with the power, not the people. Autocracies are great in the hands of a competent leader who plans the economy long term, and the grows of the country for the benefit of the country and society (look up "benevolent dictators"). They are not afraid of long term plans, or pleasing the population in the short term. He can break some eggs now to feed the whole country tomorrow. This is not something a democratic leader can afford. They live in 4-5 years cycles to please an electorate who looks for immediate benefits. In the hands of an incompetent and abusive leader autocracy is a nightmare that's supported only by fear and violence against the people. These are most dictatorships. Society suffers but can't do anything for fear of being steamrolled by the army. China is straddling a middle ground where the country grew by leaps and bounds, faster than anything else in history probably, but they also use a heavy hand to do this.
- Hikikomori 2mo ago
  Or you get trump, autocrat corruption without the planning.
  - ithkuil 2mo ago
    You can get those in a democracy too! The real difference is how can you get rid of those
  - close04 2mo ago
    > Or you get That "or" is described one paragraph down. It's the most common type of autocracy actually because it's the easiest to pull off. Incompetent and corrupt leader, access to an army, biggest temptation is for easy profit. Democracies are very susceptible to this type of leader in the short term. They start as populists and for a while it's easy to fool people into electing them. Until pockets and bellies start to stay empty. When popular support vanishes the army might step in to take that role and it turns into an autocracy. Successful planned economies need first and foremost a competent leader who's not tempted by short term personal gain but mainly long term gains for the country. They're rare as hen's teeth.
    - Hikikomori 2mo ago
      >Democracies are very susceptible Some democracies for sure, having a US style president makes it much easier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerial_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerial_rule
- touristtam 2mo ago
  I don't think this democratic vs autocratic framing is entirely correct; most of the commenters here fail to mention the political ideology of capitalism. Pre-2000 several European nation had long term plans despite being democracies. The move to further integrate into the EU meant added political pressure to adopt more liberal postures like breaking state ownership of essential industries and that meant also no more of those medium to long term plans for those states. This isn't China vs the rest, this is US Capitalist view of the world vs the rest. China in this present conversation is only an example of a country that has not succumbed to the desiderata of the unrestrained Capitalist.
villish 2mo ago
Did you forget about what happened with Hong Kong?
- pepperoni_pizza 2mo ago
  He's probably forbidden from speaking about it.
- pjc50 2mo ago
  The eradication of democracy in HK is extremely sad, but unfortunately it was only ever leased from China and the UK did not have a sound basis in international law for not handing it back.
  - Lio 2mo ago
    > it was only ever leased from China Only part of Hong Kong, the New Territories, was leased from China. Hong Kong Island and Kowloon were ceded to the UK in perpetuality. The UK didn't have to give them back but it also didn't have a reliable fresh water supply for such a large city that didn't depend on mainland China.
    - throw4r53w4 2mo ago
      Ceded at gunpoint. When might makes right, it makes sense China would try to get it back when strong enough.
      - Lio 2mo ago
        The same is true for Vladivostok but Xi seems pretty relaxed about that.
  - HexDecOctBin 2mo ago
    Ah, so international law matters? In that case, surely China will follow the verdict of the South China Sea Arbitration?

You can badmouth about China all you want but at least they are consistent where they stand while US flip flopping about invading middle east (like usual) or Greenland

hvb2 2mo ago

I don't think he was badmouthing China at all. He's basically using different words to make the exact same point you're trying to make. When there's no real accountability, in a reasonable timeframe, it's much easier to plan long term. It's the same within companies. When the CEO assumes he'll be around for 5 years, should he shoot for the 10 year goal and reduce outcomes in the early years? Or does he just optimize for the next 5 years, thereby neglecting the long term goal?

tonyhart7 2mo ago
"When you're wrong, well that's what the army is for." he is implying that China bad action can be solved by PL red Army
- fc417fc802 2mo ago
  He's not implying, he stated it directly. If you think he's wrong then tell me - what do you believe would happen there in the event of widespread social unrest or grievances against the sitting government?
  - tonyhart7 2mo ago
    They used to be, but after millions of people died, they realized that they had to do better. The rest is history.

close04 2mo ago

GP isn't "badmouthing" China, that description applies to every non-democratic country, one leader with the power, not the people. Autocracies are great in the hands of a competent leader who plans the economy long term, and the grows of the country for the benefit of the country and society (look up "benevolent dictators"). They are not afraid of long term plans, or pleasing the population in the short term. He can break some eggs now to feed the whole country tomorrow. This is not something a democratic leader can afford. They live in 4-5 years cycles to please an electorate who looks for immediate benefits. In the hands of an incompetent and abusive leader autocracy is a nightmare that's supported only by fear and violence against the people. These are most dictatorships. Society suffers but can't do anything for fear of being steamrolled by the army. China is straddling a middle ground where the country grew by leaps and bounds, faster than anything else in history probably, but they also use a heavy hand to do this.

Hikikomori 2mo ago
Or you get trump, autocrat corruption without the planning.
- ithkuil 2mo ago
  You can get those in a democracy too! The real difference is how can you get rid of those
- close04 2mo ago
  > Or you get That "or" is described one paragraph down. It's the most common type of autocracy actually because it's the easiest to pull off. Incompetent and corrupt leader, access to an army, biggest temptation is for easy profit. Democracies are very susceptible to this type of leader in the short term. They start as populists and for a while it's easy to fool people into electing them. Until pockets and bellies start to stay empty. When popular support vanishes the army might step in to take that role and it turns into an autocracy. Successful planned economies need first and foremost a competent leader who's not tempted by short term personal gain but mainly long term gains for the country. They're rare as hen's teeth.
  - Hikikomori 2mo ago
    >Democracies are very susceptible Some democracies for sure, having a US style president makes it much easier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerial_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerial_rule
touristtam 2mo ago
I don't think this democratic vs autocratic framing is entirely correct; most of the commenters here fail to mention the political ideology of capitalism. Pre-2000 several European nation had long term plans despite being democracies. The move to further integrate into the EU meant added political pressure to adopt more liberal postures like breaking state ownership of essential industries and that meant also no more of those medium to long term plans for those states. This isn't China vs the rest, this is US Capitalist view of the world vs the rest. China in this present conversation is only an example of a country that has not succumbed to the desiderata of the unrestrained Capitalist.

villish 2mo ago

Did you forget about what happened with Hong Kong?

pepperoni_pizza 2mo ago
He's probably forbidden from speaking about it.
pjc50 2mo ago
The eradication of democracy in HK is extremely sad, but unfortunately it was only ever leased from China and the UK did not have a sound basis in international law for not handing it back.
- Lio 2mo ago
  > it was only ever leased from China Only part of Hong Kong, the New Territories, was leased from China. Hong Kong Island and Kowloon were ceded to the UK in perpetuality. The UK didn't have to give them back but it also didn't have a reliable fresh water supply for such a large city that didn't depend on mainland China.
  - throw4r53w4 2mo ago
    Ceded at gunpoint. When might makes right, it makes sense China would try to get it back when strong enough.
    - Lio 2mo ago
      The same is true for Vladivostok but Xi seems pretty relaxed about that.
- HexDecOctBin 2mo ago
  Ah, so international law matters? In that case, surely China will follow the verdict of the South China Sea Arbitration?