Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree with this.
The history of US and China are nothing alike, and therefore the political and economic systems cannot be compared. there is no one size fits all policy that can be applied to every country, unlike what we americans want to believe.
and if we really want to get past the smoke screen, the US political system is more of a plutocracy while the chinese employ meritocracy.
There is a lot I agree with in this post. Why are you so pejorative when you compare the U.S. system ("plutocracy") to the Chinese system ("meritocracy"). I am sure many with serious merit are doing serious prison time in China. In the U.S. some undeserving people become rich and powerful, no doubt. But don't let your rage at the current administration make you hate all things American.
The US only goes to was to defend people from Communism or Islam. China is not now strongly in those camps. What did the US do to defend social or economic interests in Congo or Myanmar or Venezuela?
What is "going to was"? We have done plenty to contest China under Trump, and Venezuela short of hostilities.
Just because China has had normal economic growth in the past few decades for a developing country doesn't make it some sort of legend or a better example to follow.
Maybe normal for Korea, Taiwan and Japan, but compared to the rest of the world, Chinas growth is above the norm.
People always assume things would be so different if China had democracy, but I do not think so. If China was a democracy, it would obviously be more open than today. But as Huawei start growing internationally, chinese apps start taking over the marketplace and countries are buying Chinese 5G, then US would start a trade war just like in todays timeline. And because China is more connected to the US tech sector, it would be easier for the americans to attack China. Other things like crackdown of Xinjiang terrorism would also have happened.
Then the pandemic would have happened, the US and Australia would demand an investigation of China, China would retaliate and then get blamed for wolf warrior policies. Pretty much the exact same timeline as today.
Maybe normal for Korea, Taiwan and Japan, but compared to the rest of the world, Chinas growth is above the norm.
People always assume things would be so different if China had democracy, but I do not think so. If China was a democracy, it would obviously be more open than today. But as Huawei start growing internationally, chinese apps start taking over the marketplace and countries are buying Chinese 5G, then US would start a trade war just like in todays timeline. And because China is more connected to the US tech sector, it would be easier for the americans to attack China. Other things like crackdown of Xinjiang terrorism would also have happened.
Then the pandemic would have happened, the US and Australia would demand an investigation of China, China would retaliate and then get blamed for wolf warrior policies. Pretty much the exact same timeline as today.
I think many do not know, China did have democracy when it became a republic in the early 20th century when sun was elected president. Many had argue, had the chiang led KMT been more open to democracy, things would be a lot different today.
chiang could not even stand the different voices within the KMT, let alone different political parties. Believe it or not, there were many political parties in china after the founding of the republic(ccp was one of them). They were heavily oppressed and prosecuted by the KMT and chiang's network of spies. The soviet backed ccp was way more open to democracy than the us backed kmt.
go read more on modern chinese history if you are interested, my conclusion is that china tried democracy a few times here and there from 1919 to 1989, and it did not bring them any good in terms of prosperity. but the next 40 years after that it's the true great leap forward.
you might argue that it's just the economic reform that brought the changes, and it has nothing to do with political or democracy. But do you know how much opposition there was within both china and ccp about the reform (which led to 1989 events). Had deng led force not been powerful politically enough to push the reform through all the way, we won't see this china today.
a nation only have so much resources/energy, it can choose to focus those resources/energy to push for infrastructure and economical growth, or spend a hefty amount of that resources/energy on choosing leaders and political struggles. Think about the tax money your government spent on the last election (campaigning, debating, voting etc.). It's nothing when you're fully industrialized and wealthy, but it's deadly when you had all the gold taken away and left with farmlands.
People always assume things would be so different if China had democracy, but I do not think so. If China was a democracy, it would obviously be more open than today. But as Huawei start growing internationally, chinese apps start taking over the marketplace and countries are buying Chinese 5G, then US would start a trade war just like in todays timeline. And because China is more connected to the US tech sector, it would be easier for the americans to attack China. Other things like crackdown of Xinjiang terrorism would also have happened.
The only reason why these Chinese apps and Huawei were able to grow is because of the firewall, aka the fact that China vehemently controls its population like pigs in animal farm. Otherwise Google, Facebook, Amazon etc. would have tapped into the Chinese market like they did everywhere else, and there wouldn't be a trade war.
Europe has more than twice the population, but since it's an open market, and the best you could do is having Ireland host American bigtech headquarters and save them taxes. Trade war my ass.
The only reason why these Chinese apps and Huawei were able to grow is because of the firewall, aka the fact that China vehemently controls its population like pigs in animal farm. Otherwise Google, Facebook, Amazon etc. would have tapped into the Chinese market like they did everywhere else, and there wouldn't be a trade war.
Europe has more than twice the population, but since it's an open market, and the best you could do is having Ireland host American bigtech headquarters and save them taxes. Trade war my ass.
You can buy Samsung and iPhones in China. If Chinese only use Huawei because they control the population, then why don't everyone buy Samsung and iPhone in China? That is obviously nonsense.
Also, Baidu crushed Google before Google pulled out of China, Bing is still available. If Chinese only use Baidu and other chinese sites because they are forced to, then why don't everyone use Google till 2013 and then switch to Bing afterwards? Wechat would have crushed Facebook if that was available in 2013 and Amazon would get serious competition from the different marketplaces.
In addition, the great firewall could have still existed. India is a democracy and has an indian firewall, so its not true that democracies cannot have internet restrictions. If the terrorist attacks still happen and the US still refuse to work with the chinese government like today they might have gotten banned in a democratic China too.
I agreed in the previous post that US would have been able to tap in the market to a larger degree than today, but the US would still not accept Huawei selling phones and setting up 5G bases all over the world. And they would still be upset about the trade deficit with China. Hence the trade war would have happened anyway.
You can buy Samsung and iPhones in China. If Chinese only use Huawei because they control the population, then why don't everyone buy Samsung and iPhone in China? That is obviously nonsense.
Also, Baidu crushed Google before Google pulled out of China, Bing is still available. If Chinese only use Baidu and other chinese sites because they are forced to, then why don't everyone use Google till 2013 and then switch to Bing afterwards? Wechat would have crushed Facebook if that was available in 2013 and Amazon would get serious competition from the different marketplaces.
In addition, the great firewall could have still existed. India is a democracy and has an indian firewall, so its not true that democracies cannot have internet restrictions. If the terrorist attacks still happen and the US still refuse to work with the chinese government like today they might have gotten banned in a democratic China too.
I agreed in the previous post that US would have been able to tap in the market to a larger degree than today, but the US would still not accept Huawei selling phones and setting up 5G bases all over the world. And they would still be upset about the trade deficit with China. Hence the trade war would have happened anyway.
I am not trying to convince you. It is widely recognised that the great firewall had been paramount to the growth of Chinese tech sector as it prevented foreign competition no matter what you believe.
Quote:
Maybe normal for Korea, Taiwan and Japan, but compared to the rest of the world, Chinas growth is above the norm.
And this is not true. European growth rate in their respective post-war economic expansions were all in double digits or close to it as well. Germany, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden etc. all went through miraculously high growth from the 40s to the 70s, Ireland and Israel went through the same a bit later. It's not exclusive to Japan and the Asian Tigers at all.
The reality is China's growth is normal for an economy in its position. It's just larger. And the fact that it's much larger is why the outlook is much more pessimistic as the overwhelming majority of the population are still very poor unlike Japan in the 90s, Taiwan and Korea in the 00s, and Western Europe in the 70s.
And this is not true. European growth rate in their respective post-war economic expansions were all in double digits or close to it as well. Germany, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden etc. all went through miraculously high growth from the 40s to the 70s, Ireland and Israel went through the same a bit later. It's not exclusive to Japan and the Asian Tigers at all.
You are talking nonsense. I will let the numbers speak for themselves
Western Europe 1950 to 1973
Spain 5.6%
Germany 5.0%
Austria 4.9%
Italy 4.9%
France 4.0%
Belgium 3.5%
Netherlands 3.5%
Sweden 3.1%
Lol. Right. Use per capita figure in an era where population growth rate is through the roof.
The ten largest economies by average values of GDP (nominal) by every half decade from the available data in IMF, World Bank, and United Nations lists (in USD billions)
France (1960) - 61.552
France (1975) - 355.608
Italy (1960) - 40.385
Italy (1975) - 219.392
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
