3 ms·

But what if the bold decisions are idiotic and destructive? Turf wars and parties seem to be what gave Europe its advantage, as the grandparent states the rise

But what if the bold decisions are idiotic and destructive? Turf wars and parties seem to be what gave Europe its advantage, as the grandparent states the rise of freedom was concurrent with the rise in technology. So perhaps more distributed competitive decision making results in better outcomes, and the reason you stated will be precisely the reason China will not achieve its potential. [EDIT: Corrected incongruent verb tenses in last sentence.]

jacquesm 17y ago
There is a 'stereotypical' China, the communist country which just like Russia is soon going to implode and there is the real China, a very large country with a set of unique challenges and a very large amount of energy to try to overcome those challenges. Modern China is not to be compared with the country that it was 30 (or even 20) years ago, it is evolving rapidly and it has a very good shot at becoming the dominant power in the next couple of decades. It is by no means a certainty, but while western politics are centered around special interest groups and their lobbyists China is working very hard at becoming if not top dog then at least an equal. A friend of mine has just emigrated to China and the stories he tells me about life there and the level of economic and social change in the last 10 years alone are almost incredible. If they can keep that up they will be very powerful indeed.
- tokenadult 17y ago
  western politics are centered around special interest groups Currently internal politics in China is centered around a much smaller segment of the country's population. The masses and their concerns are largely ignored. I don't think that is good for the future of China, as the future is with the masses.
  - gjm11 17y ago
    "If there is hope, it lies with the proles." -- Winston Smith, in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four
scott_s 17y ago
That's similar to the argument Jared Diamond makes in his book Guns, Germs and Steel. In order to explain the obvious problem - China was clearly ahead of western Europe in terms of technology and science - he appeals to the political structure. China was politically unified around 300 AD, while western Europe was only recently politically unified (and not in the same sense as China was). Political unification has advantages, but it also gives you less people making decisions, with fewer competitors. So decisions to not pursue technology and science were magnified and unchallenged. In western Europe, if you didn't do something, your neighbors would. I felt this was a fair assessment. But I also though that, considering the path China is on now, western Europe being so dominant in the world might become a historical blip.

jacquesm 17y ago

There is a 'stereotypical' China, the communist country which just like Russia is soon going to implode and there is the real China, a very large country with a set of unique challenges and a very large amount of energy to try to overcome those challenges. Modern China is not to be compared with the country that it was 30 (or even 20) years ago, it is evolving rapidly and it has a very good shot at becoming the dominant power in the next couple of decades. It is by no means a certainty, but while western politics are centered around special interest groups and their lobbyists China is working very hard at becoming if not top dog then at least an equal. A friend of mine has just emigrated to China and the stories he tells me about life there and the level of economic and social change in the last 10 years alone are almost incredible. If they can keep that up they will be very powerful indeed.

tokenadult 17y ago
western politics are centered around special interest groups Currently internal politics in China is centered around a much smaller segment of the country's population. The masses and their concerns are largely ignored. I don't think that is good for the future of China, as the future is with the masses.
- gjm11 17y ago
  "If there is hope, it lies with the proles." -- Winston Smith, in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four

scott_s 17y ago

That's similar to the argument Jared Diamond makes in his book Guns, Germs and Steel. In order to explain the obvious problem - China was clearly ahead of western Europe in terms of technology and science - he appeals to the political structure. China was politically unified around 300 AD, while western Europe was only recently politically unified (and not in the same sense as China was). Political unification has advantages, but it also gives you less people making decisions, with fewer competitors. So decisions to not pursue technology and science were magnified and unchallenged. In western Europe, if you didn't do something, your neighbors would. I felt this was a fair assessment. But I also though that, considering the path China is on now, western Europe being so dominant in the world might become a historical blip.