|
I'm continually astonished by how thoroughly the west has internalized the CPC propaganda line "without the communist party there would be no new China." I suppose it's an easy thing to report and on and believe because it follows the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. China's communist leaders decreed a new age of growth, and it happened. But the Japanese Miracle happened 20 years earlier, and nobody believed they needed a repressive communist state to do it. I've always believed that without the communist party there would have been a new China 20 years earlier. It's true at the end of WWII China was desperately poor and the Nationalist government was a shambles. But the Communists perpetrated the abject failures of the 60s and 70s. The first 30 years of communist rule stumbled from one disastrous economic policy to another, before plunging the country into political chaos that lasted 10 years and brought the already fragile economy to a shuddering halt. If anecdotes are to be believed foodstuffs that were common even in the 60s were hard to find by the later days of the Cultural Revolution. All the communist party had to do was stop. Stop wantonly destroying ecosystems, stop forcing peasants in Liaoning and Hunan to plant the same crops on the same schedule, stop destroying tools, stop misreporting agricultural yields, stop closing schools, stop sanctioning bands of thugs, stop arresting people for the crime of owning a violin or opening a shop or cooking their own food. All it took was for the communist party to just stop doing all their disastrous policies, and China exploded into growth. How could it not? The Chinese aren't especially stupid or incompetent, and their massive labor force was operating so, so far below capacity. And the communist party takes credit for this economic growth. Within China, that isn't surprising. I can accept that. But the West has accepted the narrative too! You hear people talking about how maybe it takes authoritarianism to get growth. No! Shut up! It takes decades, even centuries of fuckups to suppress the global GDP share of a billion people to China's inconsequential little sliver of 1978. Returning to the mean isn't the communist party's great accomplishment, their accomplishment was inflicting thirty years of poverty and chaos on one of the world's great nations.
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 08:05 |
|
|
Japan did well because the united states pumped them full of money.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
Strongly agree with Arglebargle Also while we're on our what-ifs, perhaps a non-Communist China would also have been pumped full of US money.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
At least here, it's because people buy into the propoganda of command/planned economies always being good (see: "The Soviets industrialized in only 20 years!") instead of having limitations associated with them that become more apparent as time goes on. That being said, the actions of the PRC (especially the GLF) during Mao's era was definitely not good central planning. hitension posted:Strongly agree with Arglebargle Even if they did I severely doubt it would be the same relationship as Japan. More likely Chiang Kai-Shek would be one of those "dictators we like" and he'd have free reign to terrorize the populace in the name of anti-communism. computer parts fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
Look at Taiwan and SK. Probably would have been like that. They made it eventually and benefited from US client trade privileges although they didn't have Japan's political stability. Not that Japan was very stable in the 50s anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Look at Taiwan and SK. Probably would have been like that. They made it eventually and benefited from US client trade privileges although they didn't have Japan's political stability. Not that Japan was very stable in the 50s anyway. Is there a comparable situation in Taiwan and SK to Tibet, Xinjiang, and Taiwan*? Because those would definitely be a part of the mainland agenda regardless of who won. *Without being a de-facto separate country, but still a cultural legacy of being separate from the mainland (ditto for Hong Kong I guess but they could just as easily become a city state) . computer parts fucked around with this message at 03:07 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
I definitely agree with you Argle, and I have pointed out to my old students that rather than the CCP taking credit for 30 years of growth, they should perhaps look at Taiwan and blame the Communist Party for 30 years of non-growth. However a big part of the break from feudalism was due to land reform, and the govt did actually do fairly well immediately after they won the civil war, things started going bad with the Great Leap Forward. But land reform did have a big effect on peasant productivity, and the threat of Communism was what allowed land reform in Taiwan to take place as well, not to mention Taiwan starting from a much higher position since it was a fairly well-developed colony of Japan. Also, Japan's serious economic and legal reforms DID take place in an authoritarian country, and the leap it took in the 60s was much more the leap from a middle income to a high income country, as opposed to the leap that it took from low income to middle income in the early 20th century. Taiwan, Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia, all of these countries went from low income to middle income and higher during times of authoritarianism. I'd say there's a far more clear pattern of prosperty->democracy than democracy->prosperity in world history.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Look at Taiwan and SK. Probably would have been like that. They made it eventually and benefited from US client trade privileges although they didn't have Japan's political stability. Not that Japan was very stable in the 50s anyway. A truly democratic China with accountable political orders would be America's worst competition, and thankfully, won't happen. Here's why: 1. Independent bureaucracy The goal of an independent bureaucracy is to fund the lower levels just well enough that they don't resort to bribes for everything. When everyone can be bought for the right price, nobody is above suspicion. Far better to pay all civil servants a higher-than-average standard of living with benefits and crack down upon those who abuse their offices for kickbacks outside established norms. The goal of a bureaucracy is to have it unfelt by the majority of individuals in the majority of their daily interactions. When the lowest level bureaucrat can't be bought, you force the buying of priviledges into an up-market labor division--you have lawyers whose jobs are to be chummy with the judges, and the lawyers have more power than the individual with money to steer the outcome of a case. This is necessary for transitioning an economy from industrial production to service-orientation, and achieve developed status. 2. Rule of Law, not Rule by Law When you have to deal with middle-managers to purchase a priviledge, you create further need for individuals in legal services and accounting to provide fact-checking and ensure compliance. You begin to have large firms form to deal with your largest multinationals and keep them just honest enough to work within the limits of the national systems, even if by pushing those limits constantly. This further develops a service-orientated economy and promotes true entrepreneurship in those who see the opportunity to make those individuals' lives easier. In contrast, rule by law requires you to pay the officers directly, which is an inefficient allocation of resources. Direct payments don't have nearly the same multiplier effect that indirect bribery, lobbying, and purchasing of priviledges and exemptions adds to an economy. 3. Accurate Taxes This moves the economy from mostly unofficial to avoid taxes, to one where the incentives align enough that reporting accurate data is lazier than juking the stats. When one has an accurate knowledge of economic activity, with a sufficient paper trail, the economic base is expanded and the take which the government gets to take increases. Accurate pay and benefits ensures that your tax collections are accurate accountants, and not tax farmers. Personal anecnote: Met an Chinese expat in SSA whose family bought tax collection positions in Xinjing. It was certainly...an enlightening experience to work with him while we both attempted to practice our swahili, and be able to discuss the finer details of how many more opportunities there are to skim from the top when you've got accurate records and universal regulations (purchasing code exemptions in Chicago) versus the shitshow he was describing--there was just no logic in standardizing how much what cost when, other than how much the boss above needed to collect. So yeah, those are my 3 suggestions for developing economies. The shitstains at the top will always fight for top position; the best which can be hoped for is to separate their internal power conflicts from the majority of individuals' personal financial capacities. To do that, you need a fully funded bureaucracy, which requires relatively minor rates of effective taxes levied upon the national elite, with economic growth and transition to multi-sector service economy emerging from those processes, and those processes only. Fall Sick and Die posted:I definitely agree with you Argle, and I have pointed out to my old students that rather than the CCP taking credit for 30 years of growth, they should perhaps look at Taiwan and blame the Communist Party for 30 years of non-growth. However a big part of the break from feudalism was due to land reform, and the govt did actually do fairly well immediately after they won the civil war, things started going bad with the Great Leap Forward. But land reform did have a big effect on peasant productivity, and the threat of Communism was what allowed land reform in Taiwan to take place as well, not to mention Taiwan starting from a much higher position since it was a fairly well-developed colony of Japan. Also, Japan's serious economic and legal reforms DID take place in an authoritarian country, and the leap it took in the 60s was much more the leap from a middle income to a high income country, as opposed to the leap that it took from low income to middle income in the early 20th century. Taiwan, Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia, all of these countries went from low income to middle income and higher during times of authoritarianism. I'd say there's a far more clear pattern of prosperty->democracy than democracy->prosperity in world history. Land reform improves small-holder productivity, while resulting in capital flight and collapse of far wider ranging economic possibilities than not instituting land reform. I'd need to learn more on the specific structure of Chinese land holding before I can compare it to the Zimbabwe and South American cases with which I'm most familiar. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
China would probably be like Russia is today if the Nationalists had won the Chinese Civil War. The US government wasn't giving him aid in 1946, they didn't even give China the materials they paid for, and Truman was pretty anti-Chinese. The US government only began pumping aid to the Nationalists after the Korean War broke out and as a matter of policy the US government couldn't allow most of East Asia to go communist. The US was always at odds with Jiang and were constantly telling him to pull out of Jinmen and Mazu because it would have made the Taiwan Strait less of a flashpoint. If the Nationalists magically won in 1949 or the Chinese Civil War didn't restart, Jiang would have focused on consolidating the control of the central government and dealing with the warlords. Even the warlords who wore the white sun were still incredibly corrupt and did not want to turn over their areas to Jiang's control. The Nationalist party as well probably would have gone back to factional infighting and there might have developed a political situation like it did in Turkey around this time, a sham opposition party. Most of the reforms that saved the Nationalists were mostly the brainchild of Jiang Jingguo. He introduced a number of Soviet style party organization techniques that eliminated corruption for a decade but things gradually got more and more corrupt. The amount of influence Jingguo would be allowed would determine the direction the party would go as well. There would probably not be any problems over Xinjiang, Muslim warlords who were pretty devout Nationalist Party members controlled a good part of it, Tibet would have been given some leeway as long as they paid lip service, and Hong Kong would have gone back to China in 1997 regardless of who was controlling the country. Macau as well would have gone back because of the Carnation Revolution. There would probably be problems with India, Soviet friend, and Mongolia, which the RoC never recognized. The "nine dotted line" would still be an issue because a Nationalist representative pretty much set down those boundaries during postwar negotiations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:Japan did well because the united states pumped them full of money. Hey Soviet Union pumped lots of money into China and other communists countries as well. Yet They are still not doing so well  And people in China love comparing themselves with other developing countries in South East Asia and "democracies" in Africa. India is the biggest target to compare because India should have been a vibrant economy with a much better infrastructure. People in China never seem to remember that the initial investors during the 80's were ex mainland/Taiwan/Hong Kong businessmen because China was a much bigger liability back then. Going from the Hong Kong border to the current Shenzhen airport during the 80's took 8 hours of bumpy bus rides instead of a 1.5 hour metro line today.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
I don't remember any English book or Economist article that give credit to the CCP for China's 30 years of growth. I don't know where you are basing that narrative from. Although I personally would give Deng's most credit. After that I won't say who else I would give the credit to until you say it first.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:Japan did well because the united states pumped them full of money. It wouldn't have done as well as SK/Taiwan in any case due to simply being too big for US aid to help as much, but it seems entirely reasonable to think ROC China would be, at worst, around Latin American development levels, which real life China is only now catching up to
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:It wouldn't have done as well as SK/Taiwan in any case due to simply being too big for US aid to help as much yeah and U.S. Marshall Aid didn't help Europe for the same reasons... ???
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
E: wrong thread, browser is lagging.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Fall Sick and Die posted:yeah and U.S. Marshall Aid didn't help Europe for the same reasons... ??? Even ignoring the regional biases the US had at the time, presumably if the ROC won they'd be in a position where they wouldn't need (as much) aid so it wouldn't be diverted over there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
If the Republic of China won the Chinese Civil War they would have been fundamentally the same as China's government is right now apart from not having to pretend that they're Communists. Look up the basic tenets of the Guomindang and compare them to the Chinese government at the moment and you'll see how similar they are. If we didn't have to worry about China going Communist we would have punished Japan more and basically wiped our hands of the area.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
Fall Sick and Die posted:yeah and U.S. Marshall Aid didn't help Europe for the same reasons... ??? The countries we provided Marshall Plan aid to have a population of like 1/5 the population of China. China would have required a shitton of aid, and this is not just postwar loans but export markets to sell stuff to, assuming it goes the same route as modern China/SK/Taiwan. Buying cars from Japan was an indirect source of subsidy to their economy, and the fact that trade conditions were such that Japan had a favorable export environment helped that. We just couldn't have bought enough cars to propel the Chinese economy the same distance, which is part of the problem China is having today
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Even ignoring the regional biases the US had at the time, presumably if the ROC won they'd be in a position where they wouldn't need (as much) aid so it wouldn't be diverted over there. China still had to rebuild itself after WWII. They were in a similar situation in terms of deaths as the USSR and in a much worse situation in terms of infrastructure destroyed. They desperately needed aid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:I don't remember any English book or Economist article that give credit to the CCP for China's 30 years of growth. I don't know where you are basing that narrative from. Everyone is calling China the new economic miracle for, I don't know the past how many years? Go to any book store and there's a China section, and it's China this, China that, why is China so sucessful, what will China be, etc.. quote:Although I personally would give Deng's most credit. After that I won't say who else I would give the credit to until you say it first. And what did he actually do? Stopping the craziness of the 50's, 60's and 70's. Preventing China entering another Cultural revolution and be less hands on with people's lives. However, China is still uncertain every 5 and 10 years, who knows how the government will be. Fall Sick and Die posted:If the Republic of China won the Chinese Civil War they would have been fundamentally the same as China's government is right now apart from not having to pretend that they're Communists. Look up the basic tenets of the Guomindang and compare them to the Chinese government at the moment and you'll see how similar they are. If we didn't have to worry about China going Communist we would have punished Japan more and basically wiped our hands of the area. Early Taiwan and Korea was equally bad with white terror and all, but at least nowadays they dialed down on the propaganda and started functioning like a new democracy. Speech in Taiwan is a lot more free nowadays which allows a lot more creativity and value to be created. Oh and facebook and google.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
caberham posted:Everyone is calling China the new economic miracle for, I don't know the past how many years? Go to any book store and there's a China section, and it's China this, China that, why is China so sucessful, what will China be, etc.. China's 'economic miracle' shares the same roots as the recent Angolan 'economic miracle': High rates of growth from corruption, with imminent collapse and political instability once the middle income trap really starts to hit and liquidity freezes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:You hear people talking about how maybe it takes authoritarianism to get growth. No! Shut up! Authoritarian developmentalism is a real thing though, and has been the rule rather than the exception in east Asian success stories. Japan, Taiwan, Korea and Singapore made their big gains during their authoritarian periods (with Singapore being a weird one that never ended). Hong Kong is debatable because they had this weird "liberal authoritarian" thing going on where you had all the rights and privileges of a liberal democracy except the right to choose your rulers. Authoritarian developmentalism theory doesn't say you need authoritarianism to get growth, but rather that a strong, committed authoritarian government run by effective technocrats rather than incompetent cronies (e.g. in Suharto's Indonesia), with good land reform (e.g. not Marcos's Philippines), leads to very rapid industrialization.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:China's 'economic miracle' shares the same roots as the recent Angolan 'economic miracle': High rates of growth from corruption, with imminent collapse and political instability once the middle income trap really starts to hit and liquidity freezes. No! they share the same essence of Capitalism, both used very hugh concentration of capital to drive economy. China and South Korea developed capitalism further with State Capitalism, which is a single minded growth-oriented form of Capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
It's really the western media and intelligentsia I meant to criticize.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:All the communist party had to do was stop. Well, I'm convinced!
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:It's really the western media and intelligentsia I meant to criticize. If you think the western media has a pro PrC bias I don't know what to tell you...
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 06:17
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:Authoritarian developmentalism is a real thing though, and has been the rule rather than the exception in east Asian success stories. Japan, Taiwan, Korea and Singapore made their big gains during their authoritarian periods (with Singapore being a weird one that never ended). Hong Kong is debatable because they had this weird "liberal authoritarian" thing going on where you had all the rights and privileges of a liberal democracy except the right to choose your rulers. Is that a cause or is it catch-up growth corresponding to the same time period as authoritarianism? If it's true why did Europe have the opposite story? Why did Portugal and Spain and Argentina do so badly under their authoritarians? And what about China under Mao or the Soviet era of stagnation? Does decades of authoritarian non-growth just not count? It kind of sounds like the real variable is good policy and stability and export markets which (surprise) is independent of political system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
GlassEye-Boy posted:If you think the western media has a pro PrC bias I don't know what to tell you... Didn't say that so I don't know why you're saying this!
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
fart simpson posted:Well, I'm convinced! Caberham said it better than I could.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Is that a cause or is it catch-up growth corresponding to the same time period as authoritarianism? If it's true why did Europe have the opposite story? Why did Portugal and Spain and Argentina do so badly under their authoritarians? And what about China under Mao or the Soviet era of stagnation? Does decades of authoritarian non-growth just not count? It kind of sounds like the real variable is good policy and stability and export markets which (surprise) is independent of political system. You seem to think that developed, industrialized society is the default or something, as if the Communists were holding a beach ball underwater when all they needed to do all along was let go and let it float to the surface. That doesn't seem obvious to me at all. Obviously China was underdeveloped and had a lot of underutilized capacity, but organizing society in a way to actually use that capacity doesn't seem to be the default state. The CCP didn't inherit a working China and plunge it into chaos. They inherited a chaotic China and failed to fix it for 30 years. This discussion reminds me of a while back when you said there are no authoritarian countries on the top 20 GDP per capita list. Except that's false, there are plenty of authoritarian countries on that list. If you're trying to figure out why some countries are rich and some are poor, it seems like the richest countries fall into maybe 3 groups? 1. Was it already a rich country 200 years ago? 2. Is there a lot of oil they export? 3. Underwent a period of authoritarian development in the 20th century.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Is that a cause or is it catch-up growth corresponding to the same time period as authoritarianism? If it's true why did Europe have the opposite story? Why did Portugal and Spain and Argentina do so badly under their authoritarians? And what about China under Mao or the Soviet era of stagnation? Does decades of authoritarian non-growth just not count? It kind of sounds like the real variable is good policy and stability and export markets which (surprise) is independent of political system. My master's is in East Asia. I never studied the European and Argentinian example, but I already pointed out several examples of authoritarian rule in East Asia and why they didn't prove economically fruitful. I guess you didn't read my post? I explicitly said that authoritarianism alone isn't what authoritarian developmentalism is. That's why it has the developmentalism part. Jerk.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 07:01
|
|
|
Hey man I didn't mean it personally. I was genuinely asking what about all these things? I was expecting you to say what the theory says about eastern europe or the Spanish fascists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
Again, I'm unfamiliar with those cases. But I would assume that they were not developmental dictatorships. I would assume that they did not employ effective technocrats in creating an industrial economy led by powerful state-owned enterprises that were shielded from international competition. I would assume they made Marcos and Suharto-like mistakes of employing incompetent cronies and failing to break down aristocratic structures of landownership. Like MeramJert says, you kind of have it backwards in this idea that countries are naturally rich and prosperous and it's only negative forces that prevent them from being so, and once the negative forces are gone they will inevitably slingshot upwards to catch up with the rest of the "normal" countries. Now I also want to clarify that I'm not apologizing for authoritarianism and I'm happy to be from a liberal democratic Good Country. But it did take most Good Countries centuries to accomplish what developmental dictatorships accomplished in decades. The trick shown by Japan, Korea and Taiwan seems to be democratizing at juuuust the right time before your developmental dictatorship turns into a middle income trap.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 07:18
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:Again, I'm unfamiliar with those cases. But I would assume that they were not developmental dictatorships. I would assume that they did not employ effective technocrats in creating an industrial economy led by powerful state-owned enterprises that were shielded from international competition. I would assume they made Marcos and Suharto-like mistakes of employing incompetent cronies and failing to break down aristocratic structures of landownership. Correct me if I'm wrong on this--did most developmental dictatorships have a fairly homogenious population with one predominant language used by the elites?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
fart simpson posted:You seem to think that developed, industrialized society is the default or something, as if the Communists were holding a beach ball underwater when all they needed to do all along was let go and let it float to the surface. That doesn't seem obvious to me at all. Obviously China was underdeveloped and had a lot of underutilized capacity, but organizing society in a way to actually use that capacity doesn't seem to be the default state. That's a fair point, maybe as a modern person in a globalized economy my view of economics 60 years ago has some anachronisms. And it's also fair to say they didn't inherit a China that worked. Land reform was undoubtedly a good thing, although someone already pointed out that the nationalists did that too eventually. But I still think big important stuff like destroying capital, man-made famine and above all unilaterally closing international trade and investment wouldn't have happened under the nationalists. What did the communists under Deng actually do? Return things to something like a default. Start enforcing laws. Open schools that had been closed. Open tiny areas to restricted foreign investment and trade. Some people were allowed to have a business. Some people were allowed to find a job rather than have it assigned by their work unit. It's a litany of normalization. Having zero foreign trade is not normal. Having no foreign investment is not normal. Assigning people their jobs and houses is not normal. Outlawing private property is not normal. Did Deng provide the flood of foreign capital or build Shenzhen or carve into a hostile foreign export market? No, his policies just allowed people and firms to do what they would have been doing all along, and had been doing in Taiwan and Korea and Japan for decades. So that's my thinking on this. I'll admit maybe my view of the ease of export-lead growth is informed by modern globalization but I have the experience of China's neighbors backing me up on this. Your beach ball underwater analogy is apt. We have a measure of what China's potential was and its similar neighbors tend to suggest that spectacular failure is the exception rather than the default state.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 07:26
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Correct me if I'm wrong on this--did most developmental dictatorships have a fairly homogenious population with one predominant language used by the elites? Korea yes, Japan yes, Taiwan big fat no. Taiwan remains somewhat, but was especially at that time, divided into 本省人 "Locals" and 外省人 "Mainlanders." The Mainlanders in this case being the KMT escapees from the mainland who came over as Mandarin-speakers who proceeded to dominate the economy and government. The Locals had and have their own languages, mostly Hokkien but with some Hakka. Then there are the aboriginals but, like all aboriginals everywhere, no one gives a poo poo about them. And of course if "homogeneous population with one predominant language" is the bright center of the galaxy, Singapore is the planet that it's farthest from.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 07:27
|
|
|
So what kind of state owned industries sponsored are coming out from China that's competing with the rest of the world? I always see SoE as gigantic entities running on pork and shadow banking. From the top of my head I can think of alibaba strong arming online payments with alipay but alibaba is not state owned, but arguably closely related with the hangzhou / zhejiang government. There's union pay but again it's mostly a domestic focus. I don't union pay credit cards adopted elsewhere anytime soon. Is CNOOC actually doing well? I really am clueless about oil companies. I suppose ZTE and huawei are considered successful examples making a pile of telecommunications equipment after China stopped relying so much on Cisco.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:Again, I'm unfamiliar with those cases. But I would assume that they were not developmental dictatorships. I would assume that they did not employ effective technocrats in creating an industrial economy led by powerful state-owned enterprises that were shielded from international competition. I would assume they made Marcos and Suharto-like mistakes of employing incompetent cronies and failing to break down aristocratic structures of landownership. Ah it sounds like I was mistaking a descriptive title for a prescriptive theory of development. I was thinking there was this theory of authoritarian development and it would prescribe authoritarianism for development and make excuses for all the counter examples but it sounds like you're describing a descriptive model of how some authoritarian countries developed successfully. Edit: yeah looks like I didn't read your post good enough. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 07:39 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:Korea yes, Japan yes, Taiwan big fat no. Taiwan remains somewhat, but was especially at that time, divided into 本省人 "Locals" and 外省人 "Mainlanders." The Mainlanders in this case being the KMT escapees from the mainland who came over as Mandarin-speakers who proceeded to dominate the economy and government. The Locals had and have their own languages, mostly Hokkien but with some Hakka. Its more, "This one ethnic group has uncontested power. Any challenges to that power result in the elimination of all other ethnic groups, and if those minority challenges succeed, then that former majority ethnic group is targeted for elimination," that I was thinking of with some specific African examples. Would love to hear more about how power sharing developed in Taiwan.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 07:32
|
|
|
can you name some countries where that isn't the case
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 07:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 08:05 |
|
|
CANADA ! Well nevermind. Oh and Singapore is still predominantly Chinese, like 70%, Malaysian 20%, and Indian 10%. Uncle Lee's racial harmonization policies and efforts to create a "NEW SINGAPOREAN" identity is actually really fragile. And I don't think Singapore's composition will change anytime soon with the mainland Chinese immigration policy to counteract the lower birth rate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 07:45
|
|