> rising incomes would eventually result

Wouldn't write that off altogether for longer values of "eventually". The current government's political legitimacy is in part tied to delivering economic development. But obviously rapid exponential growth can't continue forever. After that levels off (and with incomes/education/institutions etc more developed), it doesn't seem unthinkable that some sort of political reform will need to be on the table again in order to maintain legitimacy. Maybe not from Xi Jinping, but he's 66, he won't be president of China forever.

I believe people shape politics, not the other way around. Fundamentally, economy shape politics. Bad economy will not result in good political reform, it is actually the opposite. I cannot expect people to behave rational when there is a food crisis for example. Democracy is a luxury, and it is only useful that way.

You would. Actually rising incomes would bring more democratic everything. As you can see around the world, the rise of rights are correlated with the declining of economy, in US, Europe and other countries. The opposite is true as well. Democracy is about compromising. You cannot compromise when you have nothing. If the world is a perfect place, the income will keep rising at good speed, and everyone would be happy. Unfortunately, it is not the case. The problem is the population size, for Indonesia and Philippine to develop, it will require a lot of resources, and it doesn't come from thin air. Jobs will come at the cost of developed countries. And that's something people in developed countries won't like.

I am certain once the income reach a certain threshold, North Korea would be a democratic country.

I still believe that. China still has a huge poverty. It's on its way up but, but it's not there yet. It's a big country, it's not easy.

It's not even half time to 50 years. Also, given that there is the "One Country" part, the moral argument would stand on firmer ground if that reality were recognized and the new generation of HK-only protestors paid more attention to improving China itself because, as much as it is understandable that they only care about their own wellbeing, it is having the exact opposite effect on the likelihood of them achieving it. For better or for worse, the fate of HK is tied to the fate of China.

They tried that for a really long time, but Hong Kongers have no power to affect change in China. The traditional pro-democracy camp was always about Chinese democracy and assumed that China was going to go down that path. But all those Victoria Park Tiananmen vigils were the most that anybody could achieve and those didn‘t get anything done. By the time Chinese authorities were kidnapping booksellers off the street it was clear that China would not take any recommendations or receive any change.

The current protests are a mix of a culmination of two decades of waiting, then despair and anger at what looks like the inevitable outcome of twenty years of stonewalling and tightening.

China would not but that's not the target. The audience is Chinese people, but what do HK'ers do? Call them locusts and put peeing children on social media to demean them. Again, the sentiment is understandable, but they're not making their case very well with the people who ultimately matter to HK'ers because they can shape what China looks like after 2047.

You're being shortsighted if you think the Victoria Park vigils don't do anything. People watch silently but it has a bigger effect than all the loud protests combined. The strongest argument needs no words at all.