U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Asia
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-05-2017, 12:03 PM
 
1,011 posts, read 627,358 times
Reputation: 283

Advertisements

Singapore is a dictatorship, but it is more well off than USA

South Korea is an advanced economy not because of its democracy but because it seized the unique opportunity after the Korean War. Before Korean War, it was even more backward than North Korea

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheArchitect View Post
Communism doesn't work in China. It is the chief reason that nation is not yet first world. If Chiang Kai-shek had won the war, China likely is democratic and wealthy for decades now like South Korea. Vietnam also would have been one of the mid-late 20th century "tiger" economies but for communism.


And the problem with India is not its democracy, it is the backward 3rd world society and culture. India is better than it would be currently were it a dictatorship.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-05-2017, 12:47 PM
 
Location: Tijuana Exurbs
4,000 posts, read 10,440,880 times
Reputation: 4725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bettafish View Post
If you observe Chinese immigrants and Indian immigrants in America, you will find the Chinese actually are more likely to obey the laws and play by rules. Especially if you compare the educated people from both countries.
It took me a second to understand that you were responding to my comment about how the "Rule of Law" would benefit India.

The Rule of Law isn't so much about the willingness of the people to voluntarily obey the law, but of the willingness of the Government to obey the law. In the long run, I believe this will promote trust in the Indian system and will benefit India's development.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2017, 01:02 PM
 
603 posts, read 464,496 times
Reputation: 1231
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
no, you had it entirely wrong.

If Chiang had won China would be a first world country?? Based on what, that Taiwan is a rich country based on democracy?? Are you familiar with Taiwan history?

Taiwan didn't become a democracy until it became a rich country. It was not a democracy since 1949, was it? You shouldn't have it backwards.

I don't think dictatorship or democracy lead to prosperity. Look at today's world, VERY few countries were democracies before coming rich countries. There are tons of countries that are democratic yet stuck in poverty for ages.

Do you think the UK, France, Germany etc are rich because they were democratically governed? Come on. We all know their history and how wealth was generated. I don't walk about the new world because they have completely different social historical context (plus low population and large amounts of resources).

Taiwan was a democracy for about 15 years so far, and its GDP per capital is stuck at 25k, similar to Portugal and hardly improve much. Why? Don't tell me rich countries grow slow. 25k is hardly that high yet.

China since 1949 lost 30 years and then grew like crazy in the past 35. I can't say how rich or poor it would be under Chiang (I wish I had), but it would definitely be a first world country. No one could make that happen, under any system.


Yes, if Chiang won, China would be both democratic and truly 1st world already. The CCP may be able to take China to mid or even upper mid income status, but to truly flourish in a creative and sustainable way it will need a type of dynamism that the current inherently corrupt and inefficient system cant deliver.




The communist experiment is the obvious reason why China and Vietnam were not among the tiger economies of last century. Are you really denying this? What does "no one could make that happen" with regards to China rapidly becoming wealthy mean? Is it their mere size or some other attribute you are imagining?
There is no special reason why China could not have achieved what South Korea and Japan did post war if they had the right leadership with a winning development strategy.


And regarding Chinas growth rate under the communist regime. Of course China has grown rapidly since opening up. It grew quickly not because of some virtue of its authoritarian system or leadership brilliance. But because it was so poor and low to begin with that once the boot of Marxist orthodoxy was eased there was so much ground to make up. Its easy to have a high growth rate when the starting place from which you are growing is near bottom. It is understandably slowing now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2017, 03:29 PM
 
10,847 posts, read 11,250,780 times
Reputation: 7578
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheArchitect View Post
Yes, if Chiang won, China would be both democratic and truly 1st world already. The CCP may be able to take China to mid or even upper mid income status, but to truly flourish in a creative and sustainable way it will need a type of dynamism that the current inherently corrupt and inefficient system cant deliver.

The communist experiment is the obvious reason why China and Vietnam were not among the tiger economies of last century. Are you really denying this? What does "no one could make that happen" with regards to China rapidly becoming wealthy mean? Is it their mere size or some other attribute you are imagining?

There is no special reason why China could not have achieved what South Korea and Japan did post war if they had the right leadership with a winning development strategy.
China is 10 times the size of Japan and more than 20 times of S Korea. It is much harder to bring a much larger country into rich country club.

And don't forget history, S Korea has been a democratic country for how many years?
There is absolutely no evidence that proves democracy leads to better economic growth. None of the four Asian tigers was democratic during their fast growing period. They became democratic as a result of becoming rich, not the other way around. For some, they still are not.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TheArchitect View Post
And regarding Chinas growth rate under the communist regime. Of course China has grown rapidly since opening up. It grew quickly not because of some virtue of its authoritarian system or leadership brilliance. But because it was so poor and low to begin with that once the boot of Marxist orthodoxy was eased there was so much ground to make up. Its easy to have a high growth rate when the starting place from which you are growing is near bottom. It is understandably slowing now.
You are self contradicting. In your logic, India had an even lower base and should grew faster than China, especially with the democracy you said would be helpful. Guess what, it didn't.

Bangledesh is even poorer, also democratic, how did that work out?

I am not against democracy, but the best use of it is to prevent disasters. To argue it help with economic growth, that's just day dreaming and typical liberal brainwashing with no evidence whatsoever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2017, 05:25 PM
 
603 posts, read 464,496 times
Reputation: 1231
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
China is 10 times the size of Japan and more than 20 times of S Korea. It is much harder to bring a much larger country into rich country club.

And don't forget history, S Korea has been a democratic country for how many years?
There is absolutely no evidence that proves democracy leads to better economic growth. None of the four Asian tigers was democratic during their fast growing period. They became democratic as a result of becoming rich, not the other way around. For some, they still are not.




You are self contradicting. In your logic, India had an even lower base and should grew faster than China, especially with the democracy you said would be helpful. Guess what, it didn't.

Bangledesh is even poorer, also democratic, how did that work out?

I am not against democracy, but the best use of it is to prevent disasters. To argue it help with economic growth, that's just day dreaming and typical liberal brainwashing with no evidence whatsoever.

S. Korea became an upper middle income nation under authoritarianism. It didnt become truly strongly wealthy until after democratization.
It isnt a mere coincidence that ALL of the truly 1st world countries on earth are democratic (exception being the small city state of Singapore).

There is nothing in my logic that suggests that India should grow faster than China and i have stated earlier why India is weaker.

A frequent mistake some posters here are making is to compare counties (India, Bangladesh) to other countries (China). This comparison only works for cultures that are on relatively same level of advancement civilizationally.

You cant compare current Chinese to a nation whose culture is so much more backward, traditionalist and religious.
S. Korea and Japan are however good comparisons. Also it is not harder to make a large nation rich. Size isnt the issue there, its culture. The difficulties lie in cultural traits. The northeastern Asian nations are not infested with the same crippling backward cultural traits of India and Africa. This is why they are more rapidly modernizable and flexible compared to tribalistic, religious and culturally stubborn mideasterers & Africans.

A better comparison for India and Bangledesh would be a non democratic equivalent. They are better than they would be currently were they dictatorships. And Chinese are past the point where they need authoritarianism. Their future is far better and wealthier the sooner they democratize and allow freedom of expression and free exchange of ideas and philosophies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2017, 06:35 PM
 
1,099 posts, read 1,667,247 times
Reputation: 966
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bettafish View Post
Actually, during Mao's era, China made a lot of progress collectively. Railways and bridges were built, nuclear bombs were created, heavy industries were developed, poor people were taught to read, and drugs, gangsters etc. were completely eliminated.

Individuals were poor back then, but the country made a huge progress in infrastructure development.
All other countries were also developing at a rapid pace after World War II. The fact is at the end of Mao's era, China had a lower GDP per capita than India. Mao might have accomplished certain things, but China was still considered dirt poor and pretty much an economic basket case during that time. It was not until the market economic reform that China overtook India and pretty much all other countries afterwards.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2017, 06:54 PM
 
1,826 posts, read 1,248,326 times
Reputation: 1822
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheArchitect View Post
S. Korea became an upper middle income nation under authoritarianism. It didnt become truly strongly wealthy until after democratization.
It isnt a mere coincidence that ALL of the truly 1st world countries on earth are democratic (exception being the small city state of Singapore).

There is nothing in my logic that suggests that India should grow faster than China and i have stated earlier why India is weaker.

A frequent mistake some posters here are making is to compare counties (India, Bangladesh) to other countries (China). This comparison only works for cultures that are on relatively same level of advancement civilizationally.

You cant compare current Chinese to a nation whose culture is so much more backward, traditionalist and religious.
S. Korea and Japan are however good comparisons. Also it is not harder to make a large nation rich. Size isnt the issue there, its culture. The difficulties lie in cultural traits. The northeastern Asian nations are not infested with the same crippling backward cultural traits of India and Africa. This is why they are more rapidly modernizable and flexible compared to tribalistic, religious and culturally stubborn mideasterers & Africans.

A better comparison for India and Bangledesh would be a non democratic equivalent. They are better than they would be currently were they dictatorships. And Chinese are past the point where they need authoritarianism. Their future is far better and wealthier the sooner they democratize and allow freedom of expression and free exchange of ideas and philosophies.
South Korea in the 90s was growing off the foundations built by the preceding dictatorships. Not to say democracy is detrimental to development, there are way too many more important variables and just look at Botswana. The reason nearly all first world countries are democratic is because people began demanding more civil rights and a greater political voice once they basic needs are met, often through improvement in economics.

And, yes, it is more difficult to make a larger nation wealthy, especially by following the same model as Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, which relies greatly on exports to foreign markets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2017, 07:03 PM
 
1,099 posts, read 1,667,247 times
Reputation: 966
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
no, you had it entirely wrong.

If Chiang had won China would be a first world country?? Based on what, that Taiwan is a rich country based on democracy?? Are you familiar with Taiwan history?

Taiwan didn't become a democracy until it became a rich country. It was not a democracy since 1949, was it? You shouldn't have it backwards.

I don't think dictatorship or democracy lead to prosperity. Look at today's world, VERY few countries were democracies before becoming rich countries. There are tons of countries that are democratic yet stuck in poverty for ages.

Do you think the UK, France, Germany etc are rich because they were democratically governed? Come on. We all know their history and how wealth was generated. I don't want to talk about the new world because they have completely different social historical context (plus low population and large amounts of resources).

Taiwan was a democracy for about 15 years so far, and its GDP per capital is stuck at 25k, similar to Portugal and hardly improve much. Why? Don't tell me rich countries grow slow. 25k is hardly that high yet.

China since 1949 lost 30 years and then grew like crazy in the past 35. I can't say how rich or poor it would be under Chiang (I wish I had), but it would definitely be a first world country. No one could make that happen, under any system.
It's not communism vs democracy, but rather a state economy vs market economy. What stagnated China was its Marxist/socialist economy while market reforms to have more capitalistic freedoms catapulted it from one of the worst to one of the best economies.

An example here is Singapore. For all its economic success and identified as one of most business-friendly and having most "economic freedom", Singapore is not exactly a true democracy in the political sense. However, people often mistake it as one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2017, 08:05 PM
 
1,826 posts, read 1,248,326 times
Reputation: 1822
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger View Post
It's not communism vs democracy, but rather a state economy vs market economy. What stagnated China was its Marxist/socialist economy while market reforms to have more capitalistic freedoms catapulted it from one of the worst to one of the best economies.

An example here is Singapore. For all its economic success and identified as one of most business-friendly and having most "economic freedom", Singapore is not exactly a true democracy in the political sense. However, people often mistake it as one.
botticelli isn't talking about "communism vs democracy." The poster is talking about autocracy vs democracy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2017, 09:53 PM
 
6,722 posts, read 6,597,578 times
Reputation: 2386
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger View Post
All other countries were also developing at a rapid pace after World War II. The fact is at the end of Mao's era, China had a lower GDP per capita than India. Mao might have accomplished certain things, but China was still considered dirt poor and pretty much an economic basket case during that time. It was not until the market economic reform that China overtook India and pretty much all other countries afterwards.
Yes China was poor, but the industrialization was much faster than that of India at that time. Also, China did not have a market economy so the calculation of GDP per capita may not be meaningful at all.
My parents were poor back then, but they had an apartment to live for free. Medical care was 100% free. Rice and flour were not purchased with money, but allocated with some "tickets". My father also went to college for free.

Western media never mentioned the achievements of the "communist regimes". It is just fair to point out that Mao's regime worked hard on industrialization of China, especially in the inland provinces. Many industry hubs were build from nothing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Asia
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top