7 ms·

> 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 c

by nahname 12y 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 12y 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 12y ago
I think author means a system with these mechanisms will produce better decisions.
GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
That's just the Party Line in the west.
lifeisstillgood 12y 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 12y ago
  You don't have to be a libertarian to be in favour of personal freedoms.
w1ntermute 12y 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.
- jessriedel 12y ago
  I think the natural distinction to make here is that the USSR had a poor economic system, but that this is independent from whether their government is autocratic or not. You can have a non Democratic government but still have a high-growth economic policy, which the Chinese have arguably attained.
  - w1ntermute 12y ago
    My whole point is that the contemporary understanding that the USSR's economic system was flawed was not apparent to Westerners half a century ago. This is exactly the "I have seen the future" sentiment that I previously referred to. Many Westerners, including Americans, were genuinely afraid that the USSR would come to economically dominate, that they had developed a superior system. The fact that so few people realize that these days is a testament to the enduring success of the Western system. In the 30s (yes, during the Great Depression), 40s, and 50s, the Soviets achieved rapid economic growth, largely because they were starting from such an economically backward situation (ring any bells when it comes to China?). But when growth on the basis of "catching up" started to plateau, they could make no further progress.
    - akiselev 12y ago
      > But when growth on the basis of "catching up" started to plateau, they could make no further progress. That's a bold statement, the Soviet Union was far too big and non-homogenous a construct to easily hand wave such generalizations. The post Soviet states are (and were) rich in natural resources and before the exodus of the last 25 or so years, had a very strong engineering and scientific base. You'll have to be a lot more specific about when "cathing up" is supposed to plateu because much, if not most of, the soviet republics had (and still have) a long way to go to catch up with the western world. I also don't see how it applies to China. Just like it was with the Soviet Union, China's success or failure will depend on their leadership but they are in a very different situation. The Soviet Union's entire political and social structure was in upheaval in the 1980s and all sectors of government suffered as a result, especially the ones in engineering, with wildly mismanaged civil and technological projects. China, although I'll admit I have little confidence in the accuracy of media analysis of the political situation there, doesn't seem to have anywhere near the systemic instability that the USSR did since it's population, although bigger, seems far more homogenous and united under the state. Even though they aren't as resource rich relative to the size of their population, they happen to be a major economic economic partner (supplier) not only of many of its allies, but also its rivals (the US & Europe).

by nahname 12y 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 12y 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 12y ago

I think author means a system with these mechanisms will produce better decisions.

GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago

That's just the Party Line in the west.

lifeisstillgood 12y 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 12y ago
You don't have to be a libertarian to be in favour of personal freedoms.

w1ntermute 12y 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.

jessriedel 12y ago
I think the natural distinction to make here is that the USSR had a poor economic system, but that this is independent from whether their government is autocratic or not. You can have a non Democratic government but still have a high-growth economic policy, which the Chinese have arguably attained.
- w1ntermute 12y ago
  My whole point is that the contemporary understanding that the USSR's economic system was flawed was not apparent to Westerners half a century ago. This is exactly the "I have seen the future" sentiment that I previously referred to. Many Westerners, including Americans, were genuinely afraid that the USSR would come to economically dominate, that they had developed a superior system. The fact that so few people realize that these days is a testament to the enduring success of the Western system. In the 30s (yes, during the Great Depression), 40s, and 50s, the Soviets achieved rapid economic growth, largely because they were starting from such an economically backward situation (ring any bells when it comes to China?). But when growth on the basis of "catching up" started to plateau, they could make no further progress.
  - akiselev 12y ago
    > But when growth on the basis of "catching up" started to plateau, they could make no further progress. That's a bold statement, the Soviet Union was far too big and non-homogenous a construct to easily hand wave such generalizations. The post Soviet states are (and were) rich in natural resources and before the exodus of the last 25 or so years, had a very strong engineering and scientific base. You'll have to be a lot more specific about when "cathing up" is supposed to plateu because much, if not most of, the soviet republics had (and still have) a long way to go to catch up with the western world. I also don't see how it applies to China. Just like it was with the Soviet Union, China's success or failure will depend on their leadership but they are in a very different situation. The Soviet Union's entire political and social structure was in upheaval in the 1980s and all sectors of government suffered as a result, especially the ones in engineering, with wildly mismanaged civil and technological projects. China, although I'll admit I have little confidence in the accuracy of media analysis of the political situation there, doesn't seem to have anywhere near the systemic instability that the USSR did since it's population, although bigger, seems far more homogenous and united under the state. Even though they aren't as resource rich relative to the size of their population, they happen to be a major economic economic partner (supplier) not only of many of its allies, but also its rivals (the US & Europe).