You can badmouth about China all you want but at least they are consistent where they stand

while US flip flopping about invading middle east (like usual) or Greenland

I don't think he was badmouthing China at all. He's basically using different words to make the exact same point you're trying to make.

When there's no real accountability, in a reasonable timeframe, it's much easier to plan long term.

It's the same within companies. When the CEO assumes he'll be around for 5 years, should he shoot for the 10 year goal and reduce outcomes in the early years? Or does he just optimize for the next 5 years, thereby neglecting the long term goal?

	▲	tonyhart7 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		"When you're wrong, well that's what the army is for." he is implying that China bad action can be solved by PL red Army

▲

villish 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Did you forget about what happened with Hong Kong?

	▲	pepperoni_pizza 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		He's probably forbidden from speaking about it.

▲

close04 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

GP isn't "badmouthing" China, that description applies to every non-democratic country, one leader with the power, not the people.

Autocracies are great in the hands of a competent leader who plans the economy long term, and the grows of the country for the benefit of the country and society (look up "benevolent dictators"). They are not afraid of long term plans, or pleasing the population in the short term. He can break some eggs now to feed the whole country tomorrow. This is not something a democratic leader can afford. They live in 4-5 years cycles to please an electorate who looks for immediate benefits.

In the hands of an incompetent and abusive leader autocracy is a nightmare that's supported only by fear and violence against the people. These are most dictatorships. Society suffers but can't do anything for fear of being steamrolled by the army.

China is straddling a middle ground where the country grew by leaps and bounds, faster than anything else in history probably, but they also use a heavy hand to do this.

▲

touristtam 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don't think this democratic vs autocratic framing is entirely correct; most of the commenters here fail to mention the political ideology of capitalism. Pre-2000 several European nation had long term plans despite being democracies. The move to further integrate into the EU meant added political pressure to adopt more liberal postures like breaking state ownership of essential industries and that meant also no more of those medium to long term plans for those states.

This isn't China vs the rest, this is US Capitalist view of the world vs the rest. China in this present conversation is only an example of a country that has not succumbed to the desiderata of the unrestrained Capitalist.

	▲	close04 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Good point but the scale and success rate of the way China does it compared to any other democracy, or any country, in the past puts them in a different league entirely. They are on their 15th 5 year plan and look at the results. A successful planned economy needs an autocratic leader, or a majority of people with foresight and willingness to delay gratification working together. There were very few moments in time when this intersection happened. The last time someone had real planned economy in Europe was in communism time, with the 5-year plans and those were a joke, paper exercises to please the leaders. Those economies slowly failed. The planning you talk about post-'90 was relatively minor, more like a few ongoing projects. Populists and corruption invaded the scene and promised the world now, making realists/idealists look even worse. Promise of short term gain is such an easy sell that it organically became the tool of choice for would-be leaders. Worse even, once the former opposition got to power they tore down what was built by the predecessor, started over to shape it in their image, brought in their cronies. This is human nature, the US didn't invent short sightedness or gullibility, they just exploited and monetized these common flaws in people.

▲

Hikikomori 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Or you get trump, autocrat corruption without the planning.

▲

ithkuil 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You can get those in a democracy too!

The real difference is how can you get rid of those

▲

close04 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Or you get

That "or" is described one paragraph down. It's the most common type of autocracy actually because it's the easiest to pull off. Incompetent and corrupt leader, access to an army, biggest temptation is for easy profit.

Democracies are very susceptible to this type of leader in the short term. They start as populists and for a while it's easy to fool people into electing them. Until pockets and bellies start to stay empty. When popular support vanishes the army might step in to take that role and it turns into an autocracy.

Successful planned economies need first and foremost a competent leader who's not tempted by short term personal gain but mainly long term gains for the country. They're rare as hen's teeth.

	▲	Hikikomori 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>Democracies are very susceptible Some democracies for sure, having a US style president makes it much easier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerial_rule