Who’s for "Enlightened" Chinese Style Governance and Economic Planning?

[pesquisa]

Thomas Friedman has been (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/opinion/09friedman.html) and continues (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/01/21/friedman_one-party_autocracy_can_actually_order_the_right_things.html)to be an admirer of what he sees as China’s “one-party autocracy” compared to America’s “ one-party democracy.” This is from an article back in 2009:


One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century. It is not an accident that China is committed to overtaking us in electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency, batteries, nuclear power and wind power. China’s leaders understand that in a world of exploding populations and rising emerging-market middle classes, demand for clean power and energy efficiency is going to soar. Beijing wants to make sure that it owns that industry and is ordering the policies to do that, including boosting gasoline prices, from the top down.

Our one-party democracy is worse. The fact is, on both the energy/climate legislation and health care legislation, only the Democrats are really playing. With a few notable exceptions, the Republican Party is standing, arms folded and saying “no.” Many of them just want President Obama to fail. Such a waste. Mr. Obama is not a socialist; he’s a centrist. But if he’s forced to depend entirely on his own party to pass legislation, he will be whipsawed by its different factions.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDadVB51OIU

While China may be today,s prominent rising star destined to eclipse the US (as was Japan previously,) I'm unpersuaded by Friedman’s call for more autocracy.

[ACow]

First of all, don't make me laugh with the china's leader's enlightened bit. And Tom Friedman sounds like a the kind of toolish sycophant that leaders just love...and of course he's "optimal is my opinions/desires".

That being said, don't mistake me for a fan of the sham of a government/democracy we all have.

The only thing that matters to me is that I, and vicariously, you, remain free. Which ever form of government, whether through design, englightenment, or incomeptence, supports that outcome the best, will be the one I support.

And let us in no uncertain terms state that when Mr Friedman speaks of "optimal policies", what he means is that he wishes that the rich and politically privaledged, who naturally he assumes and counts himself as being amongst, should have the power to arbitrarily use violence and physical force to intervene in the lower people's to make everyone else do what they want, like in china. Which is also fine for you if you think enlightened means "the one party's ideology".

So, how about no?

[jyng1]

I think if you wanted an example of 'Enlightened' Chinese government, then you might want to look at Singapore...

I lived there a long time ago, when they were still professing to be a developing country. I was always a little uncomfortable about their campaigns for 'Excellence' and strict controls they had over the populace.

They're a country as big as the lake outside my door, with a population the same as the whole of my country... they have no resources (they even have to import their water)... and they now have a per capita income in the top 15.

[pesquisa]

First of all, don't make me laugh with the china's leader's enlightened bit. And Tom Friedman sounds like a the kind of toolish sycophant that leaders just love...and of course he's "optimal is my opinions/desires".

That being said, don't mistake me for a fan of the sham of a government/democracy we all have.

The only thing that matters to me is that I, and vicariously, you, remain free. Which ever form of government, whether through design, englightenment, or incomeptence, supports that outcome the best, will be the one I support.

And let us in no uncertain terms state that when Mr Friedman speaks of "optimal policies", what he means is that he wishes that the rich and politically privaledged, who naturally he assumes and counts himself as being amongst, should have the power to arbitrarily use violence and physical force to intervene in the lower people's to make everyone else do what they want, like in china. Which is also fine for you if you think enlightened means "the one party's ideology".

So, how about no?

No to enlightened autocracy, which is a bit of an oxymoron. And yes the theory that autocracies are more optimal is dubious. Mainland China was an autocracy when they had the "Great leap forward" which had suboptimal results. The wealthier countries of the world seem to be more clustered toward the top (full democracy) of the Democracy Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index)and the poorer countries more clustered towards the bottom (authoritarian regime.) Mainland China has had great economic growth since "getting rich" became "glorious." But yeah, it's not worth trading freedom for an autocrat's promise of optimal performance for the people.


I think if you wanted an example of 'Enlightened' Chinese government, then you might want to look at Singapore...

I lived there a long time ago, when they were still professing to be a developing country. I was always a little uncomfortable about their campaigns for 'Excellence' and strict controls they had over the populace.

They're a country as big as the lake outside my door, with a population the same as the whole of my country... they have no resources (they even have to import their water)... and they now have a per capita income in the top 15.

Do you think having been a former English colony played a significant role in Singapore's enlightened government?

[stuck]

I have a feeling that the success of Chinese autocracy relies heavily on the long continuity of the Chinese culture, and less on the quality of the ideal of autocracy. The problem with autocracy is that the autocrat, no matter how enlightened, must die and power must pass to another. Augustus turns into Nero.

[jyng1]

No to enlightened autocracy, which is a bit of an oxymoron. And yes the theory that autocracies are more optimal is dubious. Mainland China was an autocracy when they had the "Great leap forward" which had suboptimal results. The wealthier countries of the world seem to be more clustered toward the top (full democracy) of the Democracy Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index)and the poorer countries more clustered towards the bottom (authoritarian regime.) Mainland China has had great economic growth since "getting rich" became "glorious." But yeah, it's not worth trading freedom for an autocrat's promise of optimal performance for the people.



Do you think having been a former English colony played a significant role in Singapore's enlightened government?

No. I think it was pretty much all Lee Kuan Yew.

And I don't know much about being enlightened, more than just being successful. When I was there they put the sole member of the opposition in prison.

[wote]

Someone once told me that although China's government is totalitarian, the sheer number of people there ensures enough anonymity that you can get away with a lot more than most outsiders would think. That certainly gave me pause.

I can't answer the poll because currently both options are so totally abhorrent to me that I can't decide between them, but I'd just like to play devil's advocate here. Keep in mind that correlation does not imply causation. That developed countries tend to be democratic does not necessarily mean that one leads to the other, however much some economists like to claim that it does.

[jyng1]

Someone once told me that although China's government is totalitarian, the sheer number of people there ensures enough anonymity that you can get away with a lot more than most outsiders would think. That certainly gave me pause.

Being the counterfeiting capitol of the known universe, I would think most outsiders think you can get away with an awful lot... at least until you embarrass the government.

It's when you start doing stuff like putting plastic (melamine (http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/melamine-in-milk.html)) into milk powder to boost protein levels that it starts to attract overseas attention and the government stops looking the other way (or actively encouraging industrial espionage). When you have the attention of the government, then you shouldn't expect to live to old age...


The melamine scandal is not new. It is essentially an open secret in China that the compound is added to all kinds of foods, particularly animal feed and pet food to artificially inflate the protein readings at the so-called quality control stage. Melamine was at the heart of the petfood scandal in 2007, but that was simply the first time that the West learned of the problem. It seems obvious that melamine could have been in the food chain much longer than that.

But, whether the open secret of melamine in the food supply is actually as serious a problem as the media would have us believe is down to toxic dose. AP quotes Peter Dingle, a toxicologist from Murdoch University, Perth, Australia, who says that aside from the tainted baby formula that killed at least four Chinese infants and left 54,000 children hospitalized in September, it is unlikely humans will get sick from melamine. The amount of the chemical in a few servings of bacon, for instance, would simply be too low, he said. But he is not recommending that the practice continue unchecked. China should have cracked down sooner on feed companies he and others have said.

However, if the melamine open secret is as big as it appears from the outside, it is unlikely to be stopped any time soon, particularly because of the heirarchical government system in China. “It could take five or even 10 years” before some companies stop adding the chemical to food products, Jason Yan of the US Grains Council is quoted by AP.

[stuck]

It's when you start doing stuff like putting plastic (melamine (http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/melamine-in-milk.html)) into milk powder to boost protein levels that it starts to attract overseas attention and the government stops looking the other way (or actively encouraging industrial espionage). When you have the attention of the government, then you shouldn't expect to live to old age...

That also includes being the one to call attention to problems at all. Ask Zhao Lianhai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhao_Lianhai).

[jyng1]

That also includes being the one to call attention to problems at all. Ask Zhao Lianhai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhao_Lianhai).

I wonder if China will truly be able to be the worlds number one economy until they get their levels of corruption under control... It seems as if you can't trust any quality assurances they give. Sanlu was a majority government owned organisation:


In 2007, its sales reached ¥10 billion. Milk powder sales of the group ranked number 1 for 15 consecutive years, with a market share of 18 percent. The company prided itself in its stringent quality control procedures, boasting its extremely rigorous tests on its products. "Made in China", a special edition of the CCTV program "Quality Reports Weekly" aired on 2 September 2007 focused on the company, who claimed over 1,000 different tests were carried out before its products leave the factory. To that end, on 8 January 2008, it was awarded second prize at the 2007 National Scientific Techniques Awards in the category of 'Innovative infant formula research and other related techniques'. A number of its products were exempt from government inspection for having passed government quality checks three times in succession. Sanlu is one of the largest employers in Shijiazhuang, with close to 10,000 people on its payroll.

It seems to me that 'loss of face' for the government is considered the actual crime. But probably better to be the whistle blower than the scapegoat for the scandal.



Four Sanlu executives went on trial on 31 December 2008 charged with producing and selling fake or substandard products. Tian Wenhua, former general manager, former deputy general managers Wang Yuliang and Hang Zhiqi, and Wu Jusheng, a former head of Sanlu's milk division appeared in court. Tian pleaded guilty to her role in the scandal, and expressed her remorse, and also called for China to consider embracing the European Union's standards on melamine. Wang, who had leaped off a building in a suicide attempt, offered his apology and remorse: "When I think of the children who were harmed ... I feel extreme inadequacy towards these sick children and their parents.
On 22 January 2009 Tian was sentenced to life imprisonment, while other Sanlu executives received sentences of five to fifteen years. Two other men were sentenced to death. Tian was also ordered to pay a fine of 20 million yuan (US$2.9 million). Sanlu was fined 50 million yuan ($7.3 million) despite its bankruptcy.

[asperger]

And let us in no uncertain terms state that when Mr Friedman speaks of "optimal policies", what he means is that he wishes that the rich and politically privaledged, who naturally he assumes and counts himself as being amongst, should have the power to arbitrarily use violence and physical force to intervene in the lower people's to make everyone else do what they want, like in china.

I think you're half right. At least in this country violence and physical force are unnecessary to achieve the plutocrat's ends. They simply buy enough media coverage to repeat the same lies and hysteria (death panels etc.) over and over and over till the “lower people” believe it and vote to shoot themsleves in the foot.

[avolkiteshvara]

China doesn't quite have the potential people give it. They're sitting on a realestate bubble. Large divide between military and civilian government. Increasing inflation will demand a slowdown.

http://dovebridge.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/drago-bleeding.jpg
He's man not a machine Rock.

[Randwulf]

It's interesting. People attribute China's "success" to its autocratic style of government, when in reality the more powers the government gives up, the more successful the country becomes. Doesn't make for a compelling argument in favor of totalitarianism.

Moreover, the fragility behind China's "success" becomes more and more apparent every year. And a 10% growth rate really isn't all that remarkable for a developing nation. If they can maintain such a rate for more than three or four decades tops, then that would be remarkable.

[Kaiuk]

Mainland China has had great economic growth since "getting rich" became "glorious."

China's growth is utterly unsustainable. Their population is growing at the same rate as economic growth. therefore it isnt due to economic policy but rather due to a booming population. if their economy were growing any slower, it would be a backslide

[ACow]

China's growth is utterly unsustainable. Their population is growing at the same rate as economic growth. therefore it isnt due to economic policy but rather due to a booming population. if their economy were growing any slower, it would be a backslide

I believe, sir, that you are full of shit.

China population growth rate (http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_pop_grow&idim=country:CHN&dl=en&hl=en&q=china+population+growth)

China GDP growth rate (http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=ny_gdp_mktp_kd_zg&idim=country:CHN&dl=en&hl=en&q=gdp+growth+rate+china)

[asperger]

I believe, sir, that you are full of shit.

China population growth rate (http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_pop_grow&idim=country:CHN&dl=en&hl=en&q=china+population+growth)

China GDP growth rate (http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=ny_gdp_mktp_kd_zg&idim=country:CHN&dl=en&hl=en&q=gdp+growth+rate+china)

Damn, beat me to it again!

Edit: Relevant aside:

When they say, "Don't have a cow," are you the cow of which they speak?

[Roger Mexico]

An increasingly meaningless distinction, given how interdependent the U.S. and Chinese economies are becoming.

[Roger Mexico]

And God do I hate partisan shills. He actually alludes to a valid point about U.S. politics (the "one-party democracy" bit), but it's only an excuse to obliquely slip in a "durrrrr Packers suck durrrrr."

[pesquisa]

Hold the accolades on China's 'green leap forward' (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hold-the-accolades-on-chinas-green-leap-forward/2011/04/19/AFLdZMEE_story.html)


Just as China produces everything from trinkets to supertankers, it is exporting green technology — which makes it a giant of manufacturing, not of environmental friendliness. ...

China ...aims for non-fossil-fuel energy sources to account for 11.4 percent of primary energy consumption by 2015. At best, this is a promise to slide backward merely slowly. Today, China gets 13 percent of its energy from non-fossil fuels, particularly biomass and hydropower, with a little nuclear energy and a minuscule amount of solar and wind power. ...

The reason China does not use more wind and solar power is simple: Even when mass-produced with cheap labor, solar panels and wind turbines are not cost-effective replacements for fossil fuels. They appear so in the West only where politicians create generous subsidies for their implementation.

There is, however, a mostly untold story from China that shows an area where the promise of a “green future” is not without foundation. China leads the world in the production of solar heaters. This industry doesn’t receive subsidies because it doesn’t need them: Solar heating is cost-effective.

Heat constitutes almost half of global energy demand, much of it from households wanting to cook, heat water or warm their environments. Solar heaters can heat water cheaply — at about one-quarter the price of an electric water heater. In China, solar heaters provide four times more energy than wind turbines. Exports of this product bring in more than $6 billion a year.

Because solar heaters are cheaper than fossil fuel heating, consumers don’t need to be paid large subsidies to use them.

This is the green lesson China holds: A green future will result not from subsidizing immature technology today but from developing competitive green technology that is effective and cheap. Wind and solar power are not yet competitive. Research would be a much better investment for Western countries than subsidizing imports of today’s green technology from China. Until we can make alternative energy technology effective and affordable for everybody, there will be no happy ending to the “green” success story.

[fripping]

don't close the book on china just yet- the jury's still out whether it's a dark grey or black environmental revolution.

[pesquisa]

I just want a "happy ending."