China's New Leader Signals Signs of Economic Reform

[K. A. Pital]

I think it is really quite simple.

I think you are an idiot if you think China is about to go to war with Japan. You're seriously an idiot.

But it's not so much whether they're "nicer" to their suzerains, but what is the consequence of being their suzerains? If the US comes and forces your country to be like the US, that's actually a pretty good deal. Surrender, you'll enjoy it!

Like the Philippines enjoyed direct occupation and colonization by the US? Which forced their country to be "like the US"?

If PRC comes and forces you to be more like the PRC, you might have bigger problems.

Depends on what you had initially. North Vietnam took over Democratic Kampuchea after some border tensions, but I seriously doubt people would say they did that to the detriment of Democratic Kampuchea's population.

Which is, like, totally not something democracies often do?

Judging by India, a stable Asian democracy, they do not. Out of the vast majority of nations most - number-wise - are representative democracies, however, very few are rich. On the other hand, such places as Qatar are rich without a semblance of democracy.

[mr friendly guy]

I posted a question a few months ago, and certainly the consensus was that being rich or lifting citizens out of poverty occurred independently of democracy, because a lot of Western democracies weren't democratic when they really made progress of lifting their citizens out of poverty. In fact some of developed nation's advantage lies from being the first to do these things - eg industrialise, advancements in science and medicine, etc, rather than being democratic per se.

[Iron Bridge]

There are many communazi apologists out tonight

I think it is really quite simple.

I think you are an idiot if you think China is about to go to war with Japan. You're seriously an idiot.

Who knows? They no doubt want Japan to be quietly overawed into giving the islands. Austria-Hungary wanted Serbia to be quietly overawed. Germany wanted Poland to be quietly overawed. Shall we roll the dice? I grant that in this case you might win.

But it's not so much whether they're "nicer" to their suzerains, but what is the consequence of being their suzerains? If the US comes and forces your country to be like the US, that's actually a pretty good deal. Surrender, you'll enjoy it!

Like the Philippines enjoyed direct occupation and colonization by the US? Which forced their country to be "like the US"?

Philippinos died trying not to become like the US, which was stupid of them. That doesn't justify what US did in response of course, but my point is not that democracies never do bad things, rather that they do far less bad things than dictatorships.

If PRC comes and forces you to be more like the PRC, you might have bigger problems.

Depends on what you had initially. North Vietnam took over Democratic Kampuchea after some border tensions, but I seriously doubt people would say they did that to the detriment of Democratic Kampuchea's population.

LOL indeed! Yes of course there are even more communazi countries than PRC that are worse; humanity has higher standards than that however.

Which is, like, totally not something democracies often do?

Judging by India, a stable Asian democracy, they do not. Out of the vast majority of nations most - number-wise - are representative democracies, however, very few are rich. On the other hand, such places as Qatar are rich without a semblance of democracy.

They're, like the other petrostates, just an appendage of the rich democracies, an accident of technology only possible with small populations and blind luck. On their own, they'd still be living in yurts and milking camels.

I posted a question a few months ago, and certainly the consensus was that being rich or lifting citizens out of poverty occurred independently of democracy, because a lot of Western democracies weren't democratic when they really made progress of lifting their citizens out of poverty. In fact some of developed nation's advantage lies from being the first to do these things - eg industrialise, advancements in science and medicine, etc, rather than being democratic per se.

I agree: it is market liberalism that matters, and this is possible to some extent in dictatorship. But it isn't stable in dictatorships, which in fact is why the semi-democracies of 19th century Britain, US, France, Netherlands, etc. where market liberalism and thus industrial development emerged became full democracies without outside interference. The two aren't independent, they're complementary, and in the medium term, when the low-hanging fruit are picked, the PRC's social and political system will present a major block to further economic development.

[mr friendly guy]

That doesn't justify what US did in response of course, but my point is not that democracies never do bad things, rather that they do far less bad things than dictatorships.

Any empirical evidence as opposed to theoretical models to support this? This also begs the question, in a dispute between a democratic nation and a non democratic one, how do you decide which one is right (or less wrong) given that both have the potential to do bad things? How do you know in a particular case, is it the democratic nation doing wrong or the non democratic one? If the reasoning is independent of one being a democracy and the other not, why bring up the democratic / non democratic angle in the first place, except as a thinly veiled poisoning of the well attack. If it is dependent on one country being a democracy, see the second question I posed above.

I agree: it is market liberalism that matters, and this is possible to some extent in dictatorship. But it isn't stable in dictatorships, which in fact is why the semi-democracies of 19th century Britain, US, France, Netherlands, etc. where market liberalism and thus industrial development emerged became full democracies without outside interference. The two aren't independent, they're complementary, and in the medium term, when the low-hanging fruit are picked, the PRC's social and political system will present a major block to further economic development.

The fact that "semi democracies" with market liberalism became fully fledged ones doesn't follow that market liberalism is NOT independent of dictatorships / democracy political systems. A theoretical framework which states they are independent would have no trouble explaining why these nations became fully fledged democracies either - because both are independent and they would argue that market liberalism would have continued whether these nations become more democratic or less.

[AniThyng]

Do you know what's funny? For most of its post-war history Japan was ruled by one and the same party, the LDP. But hey, as I said, Japan gave us lolicon and tentacle-rape hentai while China didn't, so hooray for double-standards!

Did this thread drive you slightly crazy or something? I guess now I know why Thailand is a US Ally, it must be all those happy ending massages.

Now explain support for Taiwan following paradigm. Is it because Taiwan is close to being a closet Japan sympathizer and regularly outputs copious amounts of bootleg hentai?

Is support of HK vis a vis the central government because we hope TVB drama stays Canto and not Mandarin?

[hongi]

There are many communazi apologists out tonight

What the flying fuck is a communazi? How are we apologists for it?

[Questor]

There are many communazi apologists out tonight

What the flying fuck is a communazi? How are we apologists for it?

It's an example of either extreme historical ignorance or intelectual laziness.

[mr friendly guy]

Isn't he the guy in the why did industrialisatin thread ignore all empirical evidence if it contradicts his pet theory?

[Metahive]

Did this thread drive you slightly crazy or something? I guess now I know why Thailand is a US Ally, it must be all those happy ending massages.

Now explain support for Taiwan following paradigm. Is it because Taiwan is close to being a closet Japan sympathizer and regularly outputs copious amounts of bootleg hentai?

Is support of HK vis a vis the central government because we hope TVB drama stays Canto and not Mandarin?

O fuck ass, did someone pour wet concrete into your brain or why are you still going after my facile throw in? It's actually even simpler, China is or has been for the most part of post-WW2 history a communist nation, Japan, Thailand and Taiwan have not. The West has an allergic reaction to everything communist, do the fucking math.

[madd0ct0r]

There are many communazi apologists out tonight

I think it is really quite simple.

I think you are an idiot if you think China is about to go to war with Japan. You're seriously an idiot.

Who knows? They no doubt want Japan to be quietly overawed into giving the islands. Austria-Hungary wanted Serbia to be quietly overawed. Germany wanted Poland to be quietly overawed. Shall we roll the dice? I grant that in this case you might win.

But it's not so much whether they're "nicer" to their suzerains, but what is the consequence of being their suzerains? If the US comes and forces your country to be like the US, that's actually a pretty good deal. Surrender, you'll enjoy it!

Like the Philippines enjoyed direct occupation and colonization by the US? Which forced their country to be "like the US"?

Philippinos died trying not to become like the US, which was stupid of them. That doesn't justify what US did in response of course, but my point is not that democracies never do bad things, rather that they do far less bad things than dictatorships.

oh good lord. Iron Bridge, has there ever been the slightest hint that China might pick Japan for the start of a Pacific Rim Rampage (Tm)?
"I have a great Idea Comrade Kitty! Let's wipe out the bulk of the trade we rely on to keep the cities happy, in order to expend huge amounts of money on nobbling those aforementioned markets, then rebuilding our fleet after a few dozen missiles remove it from the sea's surface. What could go wrong?"
Look at China's exports: http://atlas.media.mit.edu/explore/tree ... /all/2010/ Assume NATO suspend trading, that leaves them up shit creek. War is not profitable comrade, that's why we've only had crusades recently.

Also, would you describe the Philippines under Marcos as democratic or dictatorship? Would you agree this corresponds with the time period the USA was supporting them? Twerp.

[K. A. Pital]

Philippinos died trying not to become like the US, which was stupid of them. That doesn't justify what US did in response of course, but my point is not that democracies never do bad things, rather that they do far less bad things than dictatorships.

Far less? Hmm. So signing the Hague convention in 1899, then proceeding to genocide the Filipino population with an order to slaughter everyone older than 10 years old is a less bad thing... less bad thing than what? And don't try to bullshit, Philippines were occupied and administered by the US directly as a colonial possession.

They're, like the other petrostates, just an appendage of the rich democracies, an accident of technology only possible with small populations and blind luck. On their own, they'd still be living in yurts and milking camels.

So democratic nations with diverse industries, like India, are poorer than some Qatar sheikhs who sit on oil. Thank you - the point has been made.

Who knows?

I know. You yourself specified that nuclear deterrents largely preclude war between nuclear powers; and that wars become largely meaningless as far as capturing territory or industry goes. One only wages them to capture critical resources, perhaps, but even that is fading out of fashion - it's easier to police territories with PMCs.

[AniThyng]

Did this thread drive you slightly crazy or something? I guess now I know why Thailand is a US Ally, it must be all those happy ending massages.

Now explain support for Taiwan following paradigm. Is it because Taiwan is close to being a closet Japan sympathizer and regularly outputs copious amounts of bootleg hentai?

Is support of HK vis a vis the central government because we hope TVB drama stays Canto and not Mandarin?

O fuck ass, did someone pour wet concrete into your brain or why are you still going after my facile throw in? It's actually even simpler, China is or has been for the most part of post-WW2 history a communist nation, Japan, Thailand and Taiwan have not. The West has an allergic reaction to everything communist, do the fucking math.

Man calm down, we all know it's still tongue in cheek. It's not even wrong par se, all of those countries/territories have pop-culture exports that the west is more familiar with than then PRC, and which might thus influence the country fans choose to apologize for It's even not wrong to note that Taiwan seems much less antagonistic to Japan than other Sino-sphere countries.

Philippinos died trying not to become like the US, which was stupid of them.

I like this one. A lot of people paid in blood to try not to become like their colonial power. How silly and stupid that was, yeah.

[Metahive]

Man calm down, we all know it's still tongue in cheek. It's not even wrong par se, all of those countries/territories have pop-culture exports that the west is more familiar with than then PRC, and which might thus influence the country fans choose to apologize for It's even not wrong to note that Taiwan seems much less antagonistic to Japan than other Sino-sphere countries.

You have no idea. Just pay a visit to any forum discussing Axis Powers Hetalia and get a load of weaboos treating Japan as an untouchable idol who couldn't possibly have done anything wrong in its past. Apropos Hetalia, there is a character supposed to represent Korea. It's a boy wearing a female hanbok, he has a silly lock on his head with a perpetually frowning face inside meant to portray "the spirit of Korea" and his shtick is to claim all human advances as korean ones. When Koreans complained about this character the weaboos went out in full force with racist attacks up to including that Korea was much better off under Japanese rule.

Do I have to mention that when the Japanese ruled Korea, they not only tried to make Koreans into a slave-race but also attempted full-blown cultural genocide?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Philippinos died trying not to become like the US, which was stupid of them.

On their own, they'd still be living in yurts and milking camels.

So casual imperialism and racism is indeed your theme, eh, Lead Brick?

[AniThyng]

Man calm down, we all know it's still tongue in cheek. It's not even wrong par se, all of those countries/territories have pop-culture exports that the west is more familiar with than then PRC, and which might thus influence the country fans choose to apologize for It's even not wrong to note that Taiwan seems much less antagonistic to Japan than other Sino-sphere countries.

You have no idea. Just pay a visit to any forum discussing Axis Powers Hetalia and get a load of weaboos treating Japan as an untouchable idol who couldn't possibly have done anything wrong in its past. Apropos Hetalia, there is a character supposed to represent Korea. It's a boy wearing a female hanbok, he has a silly lock on his head with a perpetually frowning face inside meant to portray "the spirit of Korea" and his shtick is to claim all human advances as korean ones. When Koreans complained about this character the weaboos went out in full force with racist attacks up to including that Korea was much better off under Japanese rule.

Do I have to mention that when the Japanese ruled Korea, they not only tried to make Koreans into a slave-race but also attempted full-blown cultural genocide?

Yeah I know, thanks. I am familiar enough with the issues, though as I alluded to earlier, if they do not intersect, I do not let displeasure at a particular geopolitical issue affect my decision to consume or not consume the entertainment media output of that particular nation, not should the converse affect my sympathies when Japan does something blatantly insensitive, or the United States decides to blow up a wedding party.

[Iron Bridge]

Philippinos died trying not to become like the US, which was stupid of them. That doesn't justify what US did in response of course, but my point is not that democracies never do bad things, rather that they do far less bad things than dictatorships.

Far less? Hmm. So signing the Hague convention in 1899, then proceeding to genocide the Filipino population with an order to slaughter everyone older than 10 years old is a less bad thing... less bad thing than what? And don't try to bullshit, Philippines were occupied and administered by the US directly as a colonial possession.

The American-Philippine War was about whether the country should be ruled by the US or by a native revolutionary government that took advantage of Spanish distraction in its own war with the US. The best outcome would be that the Philippines surrenders to the US and asks to become a state. What the US did was not justifiable, but still pales in comparison to the conduct in Bohemia-Moravia, Generalgouvernment Poland, or the Congo Free State.

They're, like the other petrostates, just an appendage of the rich democracies, an accident of technology only possible with small populations and blind luck. On their own, they'd still be living in yurts and milking camels.

So democratic nations with diverse industries, like India, are poorer than some Qatar sheikhs who sit on oil. Thank you - the point has been made.

The question is not whether democracy always results in prosperity but whether democracy will make China less prosperous, or even whether China can become western-level prosperous at all without it. Only example of any prosperous non-democracy you can produce are petrostates, and China plainly isn't one of those.

Who knows?

I know. You yourself specified that nuclear deterrents largely preclude war between nuclear powers; and that wars become largely meaningless as far as capturing territory or industry goes. One only wages them to capture critical resources, perhaps, but even that is fading out of fashion - it's easier to police territories with PMCs.

Japan isn't a nuclear power.

Isn't he the guy in the why did industrialisatin thread ignore all empirical evidence if it contradicts his pet theory?

Actually I was the only person to even produce any empirical evidence at all on that thread.

[madd0ct0r]

The American War was about whether the country should be ruled by the UK or by a native revolutionary government that took advantage of British distraction in its own war with the French and Spanish. The best outcome would be that the 'Americans' surrenders[sic] to the UK and asks[sic] to become a Commonwealth country. What the UK did was not justifiable, but still pales in comparison to the conduct in Bohemia-Moravia, Generalgouvernment Poland, or the Congo Free State.

Fixed that for you, you incredible buffoon.

[Iron Bridge]

1. I am British, not American.

2. The US revolutionary government had largely the same economic and social institutions as the UK government so it would have made little difference either way. But let's see, if the US had immediately surrendered (or just never launched the revolution) the most likely policy changes are 1. no trail of tears 2. slavery abolished earlier 3. no Mexican-American War. And of course no one would die in the war.

3. The UK didn't murder lots of US civilians.


I don't think any part of that analogy holds up.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Hey Bridge, do you have a degree in economics? Just curious.

[K. A. Pital]

What the US did was not justifiable, but still pales in comparison to the conduct in Bohemia-Moravia, Generalgouvernment Poland, or the Congo Free State.

How exactly killing everyone over ten pales in comparison with the Congo Free State? It certainly does not.

The best outcome would be that the Philippines surrenders to the US and asks to become a state.

They surrendered after a military defeat and were colonized. The Bill of Rights was extended to the Philippines.

Only example of any prosperous non-democracy you can produce are petrostates, and China plainly isn't one of those.

Obviously petrostates are not the only example of a prosperous dictatorship; the Third Reich was a First World nation, was not a petrostate and I'm pretty sure it was not a democracy.

The question is not whether democracy always results in prosperity but whether democracy will make China less prosperous, or even whether China can become western-level prosperous at all without it.

You can't be seriously redefining your own statements so easily You said "that's what democracies often do". I just pointed out that most nations are in fact democracies, but are not rich. Of course China would be better of with a functional democracy, but democracy does not bring riches. It brings power to the people depending on how directly they are involved in its structures, that's why it is desireable. China is already becoming rich. What is a problem is that you can, in fact, become rich without being a democracy - like South Korea did - or, alternatively, be rich and have a deeply dysfunctional democracy like Japan. This is a worrying fact. I support democracy unconditionally; not because it makes one rich, in fact it might not. But some things are more important than being rich.

Japan isn't a nuclear power.

It can easily become one if it so desires, the tech level more than allows it.

[Iron Bridge]

What the US did was not justifiable, but still pales in comparison to the conduct in Bohemia-Moravia, Generalgouvernment Poland, or the Congo Free State.

How exactly killing everyone over ten pales in comparison with the Congo Free State? It certainly does not.

1. They US didn't do that. Are you seriously claiming the US literally wiped out >80% of the population of the Philippines?

2. Just read the goddamn wiki about the Congo Free State if you can't be bothered to do the least research. The whole thing was a slave plantation, and it wasn't an attempt to fight a war, that's just what King Leopold planned the whole society to be like forever.

The best outcome would be that the Philippines surrenders to the US and asks to become a state.

They surrendered after a military defeat and were colonized. The Bill of Rights was extended to the Philippines.

After they already lost the war US also ceased to commit atrocities, even offering independence before it was fashionable and then protecting them from the even worse Japanese (a dictatorship - surprise!).

Only example of any prosperous non-democracy you can produce are petrostates, and China plainly isn't one of those.

Obviously petrostates are not the only example of a prosperous dictatorship; the Third Reich was a First World nation, was not a petrostate and I'm pretty sure it was not a democracy.

The Third Reich had also been a democracy like 12 years before it collapsed, unless you think the wealth should all disappear overnight.

The question is not whether democracy always results in prosperity but whether democracy will make China less prosperous, or even whether China can become western-level prosperous at all without it.

You can't be seriously redefining your own statements so easily You said "that's what democracies often do". I just pointed out that most nations are in fact democracies, but are not rich.

I think you do not read the discussions you're trying to critique. Or else how can I explain your statements? Someone responded to my saying China was bad because it was not a democracy by saying, but wouldn't it be worse if China's economy wasn't growing? He implied there was a hard trade-off between the two things when there isn't. You aren't arguing that such a hard trade-off exists (I don't think you would, since you seem to be just dishonest or confused rather than stupid), you're arguing some other thing that exists only in your head.

Of course China would be better of with a functional democracy, but democracy does not bring riches. It brings power to the people depending on how directly they are involved in its structures, that's why it is desireable. China is already becoming rich. What is a problem is that you can, in fact, become rich without being a democracy - like South Korea did - or, alternatively, be rich and have a deeply dysfunctional democracy like Japan. This is a worrying fact. I support democracy unconditionally; not because it makes one rich, in fact it might not. But some things are more important than being rich.

1. SK is surely the perfect example of a dictatorship not being stable in the face of a market society with increasingly wealthy citizens.

2. Japan is a functional democracy.

3. China is still, in fact, extremely poor. It has a high rate of growth. That is not the same as being already rich. So while it is at least possible, it remains to be seen whether Western-style wealth can be compatible with dictatorship in anything other than corner cases.

Japan isn't a nuclear power.

It can easily become one if it so desires, the tech level more than allows it.

If it does, China's probability of attacking it will drop substantially. Nonetheless it is not one and there would be substantial practical impediments (even if not technological impediments) to becoming one.

I also am not sure China would think Japan would nuke over the Senkakus. If that is the case it creates a maximally dangerous situation, where an initial limited conventional confrontation could escalate, along the lines of the Cuba Crisis.

[Lusankya]

You are aware that the current tensions in the Diaoyu Islands were started by the Japanese government attempting to purchase the islands from the current private owners, and have been exacerbated by Japanese ministers going and visiting the islands even amidst all the tensions, right? And furthermore, it's not just a Japan vs PRC claim. Taiwan also claims the islands, and the only thing that's really stopping Taiwan from being a major player in the tensions is relative population and not the fact that Taiwan is a democracy.

Also, when the hell did "better than the Congo" suddenly become our main criterion for judging whether or not countries are acting ethically?

[mr friendly guy]

@Iron Bridge - can you give predictions in regards to your hypothesis that "democracy is complementary to wealth generation methods" (which you lump under market liberalisation) to distinguish it from a competing theory that "democracy is independent to wealth generation methods" a view held by say Niall Ferguson. Can you also give us some falsifiable criteria please. So far your predictions that dictatorships become democracies as they became wealth through market liberalisation will also be predicted by the other theory.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

You are aware that the current tensions in the Diaoyu Islands were started by the Japanese government attempting to purchase the islands from the current private owners, and have been exacerbated by Japanese ministers going and visiting the islands even amidst all the tensions, right? And furthermore, it's not just a Japan vs PRC claim. Taiwan also claims the islands, and the only thing that's really stopping Taiwan from being a major player in the tensions is relative population and not the fact that Taiwan is a democracy.

Also, when the hell did "better than the Congo" suddenly become our main criterion for judging whether or not countries are acting ethically?

Wasn't the purchase motivated by Chinese claims to the islands too?

[Ziggy Stardust]

After they already lost the war US also ceased to commit atrocities, even offering independence before it was fashionable and then protecting them from the even worse Japanese (a dictatorship - surprise!).

"Before it was fashionable"? What on earth are you talking about? Are you really under the impression that 1916 was the first time an occupied nation had ever been offered independence (conveniently ignoring the fact that any form of self-rule was not granted until 1935, and full independence didn't come until 1946...)?

2. Japan is a functional democracy.

The Japanese democracy is infamously dysfunctional; the entire system is structurally corrupt.

[Thanas]

Isn't he the guy in the why did industrialisatin thread ignore all empirical evidence if it contradicts his pet theory?

Indeed.