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.
Needless to say, everyone wants power and wealth. But if the Chinese elite simply wanted that, they would have created a nation much more like Brazil, the Philippines, or some other dysfunctional place where the rich lords part away and the nation crumbles.
No. Like I mentioned above, aggregate wealth (and national power) will be higher in consumer-capitalist countries that are more egalitarian. This is difficult to manage in most societies though, particularly if they have a long history of huge disparity and an unstable and corrupt government. China was already egalitarian poor and communist with a strong authoritarian government, so a reasonably egalitarian development was easy for them. Other good examples are Japan, Korea, and Taiwan.
No. Like I mentioned above, aggregate wealth (and national power) will be higher in consumer-capitalist countries that are more egalitarian. This is difficult to manage in most societies though, particularly if they have a long history of huge disparity and an unstable and corrupt government. China was already egalitarian poor and communist with a strong authoritarian government, so a reasonably egalitarian development was easy for them. Other good examples are Japan, Korea, and Taiwan.
That was my point. You are now saying what I was saying that China is indeed doing something different.
It's not just their egalitarian history. Japan Korea and Taiwan weren't communist. They have a different kind of civilization. That is a factor.
No. Like I mentioned above, aggregate wealth (and national power) will be higher in consumer-capitalist countries that are more egalitarian. This is difficult to manage in most societies though, particularly if they have a long history of huge disparity and an unstable and corrupt government. China was already egalitarian poor and communist with a strong authoritarian government, so a reasonably egalitarian development was easy for them. Other good examples are Japan, Korea, and Taiwan.
Btw. You now go back to say that China has a history of egalitarianism. East Asia is not egalitarian. They have economic inequality discrimination taken as a given all the time.
They are authoritarian. That has a lot to do with it. This is why when an authoritarian regime fell, the Chinese were in chaos. China works best when it had a high quality authoritarian government. And that has significant drawbacks in other ways.
At some point, people should recognize differences in culture and national situations.
That was my point. You are now saying what I was saying that China is indeed doing something different.
China has done what every consumer-capitalist society has done. Just because they started out communist doesn't mean they will behave differently than US oligarchs when AI becomes a real force, and egalitarian values are no longer expedient.
China has done what every consumer-capitalist society has done. Just because they started out communist doesn't mean they will behave differently than US oligarchs when AI becomes a real force, and egalitarian values are no longer expedient.
We are talking about predictions. My point is that China has been doing something different, and you eventually agreed upon that. Now we differ in our predictions over what China will do in the future.
The world isn't just between communism and capitalism, left and right. China will do it not for communism, but for China. China is their purpose. The West has all these rhetorical purposes like world peace, climate change, democracy, global utopia, whatever. The Chinese are pragmatic. They want a good nation; everything else is optional.
You think their oligarchs will behave just like those in the Bay Area. This is where their authoritarian system comes in to save them. If China were a democracy, then what you said would likely become true. But a good-quality authoritarian system will keep things under check. Of course, authoritarianism can lead to bad things too, but China's system is very resilient and is getting better. This may sound strange to Americans, but authoritarian systems have their benefits.
There are examples of undemocratic systems with good rule of law and prosperity. Singapore is one example. China needs to modernize their system with more accountability and capability, but without suffering from the childish ideological forces that have broken the two parties here.
Problems can be solved without a democracy. Corruption exist widely in democracies. Progress isn't always made by a democracy. Freedom can be threatened in a dysfunctional democratic society. If China were to become democratic, it'd most likely be very mediocre and their good times are over.
That period also so some sharp recessions that would have put the 08-09 contraction to shame. Only difference is that unemployment did not spike as much.
Furthermore, economic booms are driven purely by demographics and technological innovation if it is large enough to affect the economy as a whole. In theory, as a population becomes more educated, the birth rate drops, limiting the creation of a new, young pool of workers in favor of an aging population approaching retirement. This can be offset by immigration, however. Western Europe experienced this well before the US did.
In post-modern society, economic "boom" in the traditional sense cannot occur due to the shift from manufacturing and industry to the service sector along with demographic factors. This is not limited to the United States and in fact has been experienced by all modern economies, especially those in Europe and Japan. Economists predicted this trend as early as the 19th century but there really is nothing to do about it.
We're at a point that we're cheering if growth is 2%.
It's just a number. And if it is not corrected for population, it is particularly silly. The 150 year trend for real per capita GDP growth is 1.6%/yr.
The median living standard has been flat for 40 years, even though per capita GDP has nearly doubled. At the top .01% there has been a >700% increase. I expect the disparity to get larger in the future, and the median will decline. The economy will "boom", but not for many.
There's an old Chinese saying that "when everybody eats then economy is working right." America is the opposite, it's zero sums game.
I thought the proverb was "execute all dissidents for the chairman".
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.
