8 ms·

First I read all the comments already posted here. Then I read the fine article from beginning to end. This is a good article, and well worth a read. I am old e

First I read all the comments already posted here. Then I read the fine article from beginning to end. This is a good article, and well worth a read. I am old enough to remember the kind of reporting that was done about Japan in the English-language press back when the book Japan as Number One[1] had just been published. Japan used to look unstoppable in the same way that China looks world-beating to many people now. But Japan's "lost decade" of minimal economic growth and declining soft power in the world has lasted a lot longer than just one decade. Japan in the 1980s already had significant advantages that China still lacks in the 2010s. First of all, it had a political system with actual elections that weren't wholly rigged. (The political system in Japan has opened up more since then, but even thirty years ago it was well ahead of where China's political system is now.) Second, Japan had a free press and unfettered access to foreign reporters and foreign news media for decades by the 1980s. China still doesn't have either of those information channels for correcting problems in sufficient degree. Third, although primary education in China is quite good in urban areas, good primary education in China is still not as pervasive nationwide as it was in Japan by the 1980s. That's illustrated in part by how few people in China (compared to Japan) are even conversant in the national language. Barely more than half the population is conversant in standard Mandarin Chinese.[2] China is at risk. The "socialism with Chinese characteristics" (中国特色社会主义) economic policy it officially now has cannot be sustained. It looks like it has been growing rapidly in recent years for some of the same reasons that Spain looked like it was growing rapidly a decade ago--a housing bubble. The inevitable correction that has to happen in the investment markets in China may not bring about a recession, but it can't help but bring about a change of investment priorities that may make China look less amazing for a while. China will really rise to world prominence when its common people enjoy free and fair elections, a free press, and good educational opportunity all over the country, something I hope they experience sooner rather than later. Meanwhile, I'm actually more optimistic about India during my lifetime. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Japan-Number-One-Lessons-America/dp/1583484108 http://www.amazon.com/Japan-Number-One-Lessons-America/dp/15... [2] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-23975037 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-23975037 http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-03/07/content_5812838.htm http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-03/07/content_5812838...

nahname 13y ago
> China will really rise to world prominence when its common people enjoy free and fair elections, a free press, and good educational opportunity all over the country... Why?
- caio1982 13y ago
  Because that's what a good important chunk of the rest of the world thinks it means "rising to world prominence", that's why. It doesn't mean it's either bad or good though.
- avodonosov 13y ago
  I think author means a system with these mechanisms will produce better decisions.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 13y ago
  That's just the Party Line in the west.
- lifeisstillgood 13y ago
  Because, despite all history written ever, governments do not make nations strong or rich or industrious. People do, ordinary raise-your-kids people. But that is really hard for ordinary people to do if they fear speaking out against stupid ideas (steel furnaces in every home) or taking action that is not approved or hearing about ideas of others. in short, whilst not tooting the horn of libertarianism, the only ways we have found to turn 18th century standards if living into 20th century standards is the path we are all familiar with.
  - vacri 13y ago
    You don't have to be a libertarian to be in favour of personal freedoms.
- w1ntermute 13y ago
  People were saying the same thing about the USSR half a century ago ("I have seen the future..."), and we all know how that turned out. The simple fact is that sustained growth is not possible under oppressive governments because they don't permit creative destruction. Those who are in control will fight to maintain the status quo once they can no longer create further growth in a non-disruptive manner. We see this in America as well, as a result of regulatory capture. The role of government should be to provide for the less fortunate (but only where they are in that situation for reasons out of their control) and to create a level playing field for all entrants (whether that be workers entering the labor market or companies entering industrial markets), no more. Of course, the devil is in the details, since what sort of intervention is required to create a level playing field varies wildly by industry/market, and it gets constantly reshaped as technology advances. And of course, no one has so far found a good solution to regulatory capture.

nahname 13y ago

> China will really rise to world prominence when its common people enjoy free and fair elections, a free press, and good educational opportunity all over the country... Why?

caio1982 13y ago
Because that's what a good important chunk of the rest of the world thinks it means "rising to world prominence", that's why. It doesn't mean it's either bad or good though.
avodonosov 13y ago
I think author means a system with these mechanisms will produce better decisions.
GFK_of_xmaspast 13y ago
That's just the Party Line in the west.
lifeisstillgood 13y ago
Because, despite all history written ever, governments do not make nations strong or rich or industrious. People do, ordinary raise-your-kids people. But that is really hard for ordinary people to do if they fear speaking out against stupid ideas (steel furnaces in every home) or taking action that is not approved or hearing about ideas of others. in short, whilst not tooting the horn of libertarianism, the only ways we have found to turn 18th century standards if living into 20th century standards is the path we are all familiar with.
- vacri 13y ago
  You don't have to be a libertarian to be in favour of personal freedoms.
w1ntermute 13y ago
People were saying the same thing about the USSR half a century ago ("I have seen the future..."), and we all know how that turned out. The simple fact is that sustained growth is not possible under oppressive governments because they don't permit creative destruction. Those who are in control will fight to maintain the status quo once they can no longer create further growth in a non-disruptive manner. We see this in America as well, as a result of regulatory capture. The role of government should be to provide for the less fortunate (but only where they are in that situation for reasons out of their control) and to create a level playing field for all entrants (whether that be workers entering the labor market or companies entering industrial markets), no more. Of course, the devil is in the details, since what sort of intervention is required to create a level playing field varies wildly by industry/market, and it gets constantly reshaped as technology advances. And of course, no one has so far found a good solution to regulatory capture.