I agree this policy is likely folly and that China showed its cards far too early, but I also believe that the Western policy of hoping that welcoming in China would lead to greater democratic freedoms was one of arrogance.

The current landscape of trade deals and international law is clearly Western focused and to believe that other cultures are simply going to happily go along with that logic in the long run seems foolish. For instance, despite complaints about persistent intellectual property issues in China, there is no strong legacy of this right in Chinese history, but then the idea of rule of law is somewhat alien too.

> but I also believe that the Western policy of hoping that welcoming in China would lead to greater democratic freedoms was one of arrogance.

I'd probably go with 'naivety' or 'over-optimism' rather than arrogance.

I guess it depends on whether one thinks that democracy and freedom are good things as such. They are not necessarily universal values, even if many in the West tend to think so.

The real utility of democracy isn't really the people getting a say, despite the propaganda on the side of the tin. The real utility of democracy is that it enables a mechanism for bloodless revolution, by essentially hosting them periodically instead of letting the pressures build up for years and decades until the whole thing explodes in a violent, civilization-damaging orgy of blood and destruction. It gives a mechanism for factions to win today, and know cleanly that they won, and the losing factions to know that they lost today, but there is no need to resort to active violence because they will have another chance in 2/4/6 years, and in the meantime, are best off using words rather than war. These are the key characteristics that needs to be kept intact. The people voting is merely the only mechanism that I am aware of that has the ability to accomplish these goals; it utilizes the sheer inertial mass of the entire populace as a guarantee of the next vote occurring and as a dampener on excessively excited governments. (For this, the propaganda that Democracy is all about the people getting a say is useful, because it makes the population more likely to get properly feisty if you try to take it from them.) Personally I think there are some other possibilities, though it isn't clear to me they can function under the Westphalian definition of countries and sovereignty.

Looking at China's past decade or so... I'm getting the sense that they're going to be on the usual authoritarian trajectory of countries that decide the democracy isn't for them. Initially it can work better, because democracies are always messy, especially superficially messy in the ways that elites find oh-so-distasteful. But the thing is, while democracies are always about the same level of messy, the authoritarian regimes build up a lot of stress in the system which they hide in various places until they can hide no more, and one day the whole thing simultaneously explodes and implodes and is, on the whole, a great deal more messy than the ever-so-distasteful democracy would have been. Is the messiness of democracy the fault of the governance mechanism, or a reflection of the underlying messiness that exists regardless?

Is democracy good as such? That's a question for personal values. Would democracy be better for China in the next, say, 20 years than its current path? Probably, by any metric you choose. For all of its disadvantages on a day-to-day basis, in a 21st century world democracy really does have some significant long-term advantages, regardless of your local ideology, as long as you like, say, being alive, not fighting civil wars, that sort of thing.

I think of it in the following analogy. Democracy is continuous garbage collection. It is messy and inefficient, sometimes unpredictable for the efficiency nuts. Authoritarianism is manually-managed pointer references. Efficient and very predictable at first. Once the complexity gradient rises above a certain level though...

This is an analogy that only someone on Hackernews would even attempt.

Democracy is complicated (we have a complicated democracy because simple democracy doesn't reflect _our_ values, for instance), but freedom? Maybe at-any-costs freedom isn't universal, but freedom generically is. It is tied so deeply into human dignity you might be imagining Chinese culture poorly if you think it's a bad match.

Also, I live in Taiwan, so with a data point of 1, I'm pretty sure freedom and democracy are a really good match for Chinese culture (probably a better match than American culture? hard to say). It works well here. But that's just my two cents. [edit: it sure as hell works better than the white terror]

> I'm pretty sure freedom and democracy are a really good match for Chinese culture (probably a better match than American culture? hard to say). It works well here. But that's just my two cents.

Would you care to elaborate on your point that "freedom and democracy are a really good match for Chinese culture"? I ask because that directly contradicts one of the points that the CCP (probably Self-servingly) hammers on. It would nice to get other perspectives on that.

I'm no expert, I'm not Taiwanese, and I haven't been to mainland China (though I've been to Hong Kong a couple times, which seems pretty similar to Taipei).

It is an on-the-ground feeling. There is a calm chaos here that reflects the "there are basic rules, but beyond that, everybody carves out a slice of how they think they can be useful" spirit WAY better than America (where everything is pre-apportioned, indoors, with permits, etc.).

I also feel that intergenerational households and stronger community ties lead to better group decision making, which America is having some trouble with. People here have actual hometowns. They care about their local community in a way I've literally not seen a single time in America. Putting aside individual elections or politicians, this helps build a sense of public service, not just horsetrading elections (your local DA isn't setting policy on anything in their party platform, but people in America still want party info so they can try and trade for a policy they want).

All of this is a guess, obviously, and I suppose lots of places are like Taipei.

It's also worth pointing out that the KMT probably made similar statements, about how virtuous martial law was, and how the people didn't want the changes, and western allies couldn't possibly get what they wanted without oppression. Turns out they were wrong. People with power like power, that's true every single square meter of the globe.

For those wondering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror_(Taiwan)

But we don't want freedom and democracy because of some weird tradition, we want it because tyrants are miserable to live under (along with their tyrannical regimes). They are a practical device for mantaining human health and keeping rubber hoses off people's backs. That's not the "western way," it's game theory.

Barring short 1-2 generational periods, increased personal and political freedom causes greater economic outcomes by country. Consolidating power generally stagnates an economy, and when it doesn't because of good leaders allowing selective personal freedom, that is an unstable state - leaders change.

I always thought freedom is kinda a universal value nowadays.

> and to believe that other cultures are simply going to happily go along with that logic in the long run seems foolish

This framing is problematic. It's not other "cultures" that are resistive to the idea of liberalism and democratic ideals, it's the despots that lead and control those governments that are resistant. How many non Western cultures have thrived under democracies with individual liberties? Japan, a country with a culture that cares little about individualism is one of the most prosperous nations ever.

I am not arguing democratic ideals are bad. Obviously these norms and standards can be introduced to any culture and assimilated over time. What I am arguing is that the method that seems to have been used to get people to accept them doesn't work, was never going to work, but mostly that forcing the construction of certain legal/cultural rights onto groups as part of some international framework was bound to have issues. It has been done in a very sort of, "To join our club, you have to believe that this thing we made up is a universal truth."

As an example, the concept of authors' rights is something that is enforced through the Berne Convention and the original signatories in 1887 were shockingly all Western (or Westernized) nations. Acceptance of it is a WTO membership requirement. The existence of authors' rights is not a thing in some cultures and it is orthogonal to democratic values, but in order to play ball in the global arena, you have to agree that it is a thing.

Idk I think US has bigger problems than whether it's semiconductor tech gets stolen. Social media and the news media have created such a dysfunctional environment that I am finding it increasingly hard to believe constructive debate/solutions on anything are possible until the underlying environment producing the dysfunction is cleaned up. If not we are just going to get more and more leaders from both sides propped up purely for skills to pander.

Fyi- https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/24622/what-fa...

You have a good point, but because we have a problem with social media does not mean we dont need to worry about the semiconductor industry.

Thanks for the link. It's good to have someone point these things out when one gets carried away :)

> If not we are just going to get more and more leaders from both sides propped up purely for skills to pander.

While I share some of your concerns about the media, isn't this (just an uncharitable way of stating) the entire purpose of democracy?

My feeling is the kind of pandering a leader used to do to get into a seat of power has changed thanks to the internet and the state of info overload we live in. They are much more aware of who to target and what that group wants to hear. And since every targeted group is overloaded with info, getting/keeping their attention creates this arms race of who can be the most touching, entertaining or outrageous circus clown. Not just in politics but in every sphere I see more and more absurd attention craving characters being propped up. And I am finding it hard to see how democracy benefits.

This is not new. Huey Long is an excellent example, as is the fact that we have a word for it that is thousands of years old: demagogue.

Democracy assumes constructive attitude towards debate.

Today we are getting it's better to be wrong with our side, than right with the opponent partisanship instead.

Are you sure you just don't disagree with people and can't imagine that they'd disagree with you because you're so obviously right, so they must secretly agree you're correct, but continue with a charade? Otherwise you need to provide some clear citations to how millions of people could know they are wrong but continue with their positions out of spite.

It's not only in politics, but also in business, sales, at job, etc. Have you ever witnessed a bubble in opinions in some company, group, etc? Job's RDF was a harmless form of this :)

Many have internalized their position and they won't secretly agree. They won't even realize why they disagree, and won't consider objective facts. Some tiny minority may be aware of that, but many have economic incentive to continue their position, that mortgage won't pay itself after all. Thinking too much about it just makes it harder.

I'm trying to stay in theoretical level and not provide any specific examples except the RDF, because they could be too political/divisive/controversial, and I don't want to argue the specific cases or take sides, but point out to the phenomenon itself.

Oh, I completely get what you're saying about the irrational obtuseness of our species. My only point of contention was that it is worse instead of simply more obvious. And my point was that since it is more obvious, things are very likely better. And maybe it just feels worse because all of a sudden, all of our differences are out in the open and we're going through this cathartic jolt of confronting the faults in our long held opinions in a messy, public contentious debate. But actually, issues such as racism, bigotry of gay people, attitudes towards poverty and early access to education, unequal access to justice, have never been more positive. And they've also never been this publicly debated by so many.

Ideally democracy also assumes, for the most part, that the majority of the system is comprised of rational actors.

But it's as they say. In theory, but not in practice.

Western democracy has always been tempered (and sometimes subverted) by the control exerted by cultural elites on mass communications. Now that control is faltering, and we're seeing the results.

The real tragedy of the Internet is this:

It dramatically lowered the costs of broadcasting information. At the time, we idealistically felt that would enable people of all means to communicate, and not just the rich and powerful. It did that, especially in the early days before the rich and powerful noticed.

But it lowers the costs for everyone, including the rich. So once they clued in, it ended up empowering them too. In fact, it preferentially benefits them, because they have more money to throw at it.

There is a useful cautionary lesson here: any technology that reduces the cost of X for all users of X is not a force of equality. Instead, it is a multiplier to any existing disparity.

If you want to reduce inequality, focus on technology that does not scale up and instead is preferentially empowering to those on the low end of the scale.

For example, medicine tends to be an equalizer because once you're healthy, having more access to the same medicine doesn't benefit you much. There is a natural upper limit to its efficacy. (Of course, being able to control others' access to medicine does scale up.)

Quite the opposite. Instead, the floodgates have been opened to anyone, like the Russian government, with free access to powerful media platforms if you have the capital. Prior to that the mass media was in the hands of only a few, all based in the US. Control of the masses has been API'd. Basically, China should have bought more Facebook ads.

Looks like you both argue for the same thing.

In times before, news distribution was subject to editorial process and basic standards of journalism. Not that it wasn't without own issues, but it helped sort out outright lunacy, bigotry and conspiracy theories.

Distribution in 2010s bypasses that and mass media are now secondary to social network rumour mills. The political outcomes worldwide and deterioration of Western democracies are related to this.

Not sure they are arguing the same.

"Editorial process and basic standards of journalism" is not "cultural elitism" — it's what we had, lost, and now desperately need again.

+1 and I wish I could give you +10. You nailed it: we need to get our own house in order and not just made ourselves feel better by focusing on difficulties other countries have. I am a grandpa, and leaving the world in good shape for my grandchildren is top priority.

Everyone always says things are dysfunctional or bad but never says how. Manipulating people through social media has been a thing since there's been social media. Only today more people are aware of it than ever. Same with news agencies with axe's to grind. Journalists have been using their barrels of ink to push their angles since there has been newspapers. Today more people are aware of it than ever.

Agree but there are two new issues today that I can think of -

1. Targeting is much more sophisticated. Today you can round up every lunatic who hates squirrels or whatever by tomorrow morning and influence what people need to focus on.

2. Messed up social signals i.e. like counts/views/retweets/upvotes etc are just misguiding people left and right. If I don't know what to make of something/too busy/too distracted etc I fall back on these highly inaccurate proxies to make decisions. This is happening all the time and not just to the poor or semi-literate but too highly educated folks. Everyone is unconsiously nudged to support X or Y cause, org or person purely based on these numbers. Take those numbers away and it would be a very different world.

I know this is just person experience, but many of the people/organizations I follow on Facebook have posts that are often quite filled with people who disagree with them, explained in rational and professional courtesy. I don't personally experience this mob of group think, but I see popular/unpopular ideas espoused and their weakinessness explored in the comments (not without the internet's normal levels of trolling and batshittery of course).

Of course I curate who I follow often based on the courteousness of their followers - so self-selection and all that.

I think China had no choice in 2015. The collapse of the stock market, spurring the capital outflow (currently, 3 Trillion of 6 Trillion of China's wealth is overseas) and induced by the 'corruption crackdown' by Xi Jing Ping, exposed the fragile economic condition in China (350% debt/gdp). China realized it was playing a severely weak hand, and it had to act belligerent in its own self interest. So it

- threatened several of its neighbors with occupying and later arming the islands in SCS

- threatened to invade Taiwan

- ramped up hacking efforts to steal IP around the world

- told its citizens to stop buying from Korea after the missile crisis

- told its citizens to stop buying from Japan after the island issue

- propping up dictatorships around the world

this is all in an effort to redirect the world to look away from its demographics decline, growth flatlining, reshoring and factories moving out of China, etc

That article, as do so many others, rests its reasoning on a whole bunch of premises that are not facts, and there is not the slightest whiff of uncertainty throughout the entire piece. Granted it's an opinion piece so one shouldn't expect too much, but so much of what one reads in the "news" these days is written similarly: some actual facts, but plenty of opinions presented as fact. I believe much of our post-secondary educational institutions are similar. It's no wonder hardly anyone can tell the difference between fact and opinion anymore.

I'd argue this intellectual Achilles heel is one of the fundamental enablers of the political/gender/etc wars going on right now in Western societies, and this large and growing lack of social cohesion may ultimately play a crucial element in the "China vs US battle for #1 superpower". Anyone who projects into the future based on the premise that Western Liberal democracies are simply unbeatable (Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others) would benefit from even mild reading of history.

> The moderate amount of international goodwill that existed seems to have completely evaporated and been replaced with significant amounts of suspicion...

Are you in the USA? Because I'm sitting in Malaysia (who historically has a fraught relationship with China) where China is greeted with a mix of suspicion and opportunistic welcome (knowing that any cash or other assistant will have many strings attached)... basically the same way people think of the USA.

In other words: no change; no international good will to lose.

Speak for yourself. South Koreans love that US has defended them against the maniacal dictators around the country. Taiwanese people love that US has protected them against the Chinese aggression, and support their island of democracy. Even some Chinese people love that US was the main capital provider into the country that lifted Chinese from abject poverty.

While around the world, muslims are angry that China has enacted a concentration camp for millions of muslims. (I'm sure since you're in Malaysia, you should have heard your muslim friends say something about this). Americans are pissed off that China steals trade secrets and doesn't abide by any of the laws in WTO. Vietnamese, Indonesians, and Filipinos are upset about the Chinese aggression in South Sea. Japanese are upset about the perpetual hatred Chinese government has against Japan (tons of WW2 drama portraying Japan as evil).

> tons of WW2 drama portraying Japan as evil

Well if I look at Japanese history in China in WWII and before , that portrayal might actually be justified. Especially given Japans stance on it, where museums in the country conveniently leave out Japans actions in China at that time. Coming from Germany that attitude seems… dishonest at least.

I lived in Japan for several years and most people I met didn't ignore Japan's actions during WWII. But they didn't like that basically every interaction between Japan and China/Korea was defined by China/Korea airing grievances from WWII.

WWII has been over for more than 70 years now, and Japan has been among the most productive, peaceful nations in the world since that time. To continuously insist on portraying Japan as evil warmongers qualifies as racist propaganda.

Imagine if the people, and the governments of the nations of the world insisted on portraying Germany as unrepentant Nazis at every opportunity. Surely you can agree how stupid and frustrating that would be as a German.

seems like he is speaking for himself while you are representing a whole bunch of people...

Another challenge to this list: for long the Chinese high growth rate has been fueled by foreign investments (basically foreign companies outsourcing their production to China). This reduced a lot with the financial crisis (and outsourcing of factories is mostly done, now if anything automation is reversing that movement) and China compensated by a massive increase in debt which fueled a real estate bubble and as you mentioned worrying high level of debt. Now that has to stop at one point, and then what?

Great piece from Bloomberg, thanks for sharing. Whilst the US does project itself as the bulwark of free speech, free markets and free thinking its history of protecting them has been cyclic.

I fear we are going through a particularly nasty regression right now.

It’s a perfect storm of liberals moving to cities, slowness to redistrict suburbs hence giving them greater voting sway and also the effect of suppression in wages amongst blue collars and likely all sectors to be honest as globalisation waves its sword and brings 100s of millions out of poverty in the East and also as regressive tax law enriches holders of capital to an alarming extent.

I don’t know what the antidote is - it sometimes feels as if it could go the way towards WW3 at one extreme or people coming to their senses and realising that the promises of Trump and Brexit enrich only the profiteers.

> the demographic situation in the US is highly favorable compared to all other advanced economies

How can we determine this? Which economies are we talking about?

Does anyone with economics knowledge know if there are formulas/math around demographics in order to determine healthy vs unhealthy demographics (if such a concept is even relevant)?

> How can we determine this?

Using a population pyramid graph [0]. You can see the data in [1].

It's a nice way to visualize the amount of working aged people vs dependents (youth and elderly).

In short, a bulge of working age people ("demographic dividend") is good for the economy in the short-term, but unsustainable. The 'baby boomer' generation was one such demographic dividend.

China talks about the '4-2-1 problem' (1 child needs to pay for living costs for their 2 parents and 4 grandparents). If you search for that term you can come across lots of articles.

Interstingly, what is ideal depends on the type of economy: in developed economies closer to retirement is supposedly the most economically productive period of ones life (eg, information workers), but in less developed economies youth is the most productive period (eg, labor workers in factories).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_pyramid

[1] https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/2...

> Interstingly, what is ideal depends on the type of economy...

If that is true, then is the growing consensus that older cognitive economy workers in developed economies are increasingly disadvantaged in the job market a signal that "developed" economies are regressing, or the conjecture needs reformulation to account for other factors? I suspect the latter.

You nailed it in a way I could not verbally articulate.