Is Democracy the best form of government?

[RedFury]

Originally Posted by Deeg

There is almost no comparison in which China is favored over the US. It is nonsense to think that China's political system is better than democracy.

I think it is. Just to give one perspective: Why China’s Political Model Is Superior

China is on a different path. Its leaders are prepared to allow greater popular participation in political decisions if and when it is conducive to economic development and favorable to the country’s national interests, as they have done in the past 10 years.

However, China’s leaders would not hesitate to curtail those freedoms if the conditions and the needs of the nation changed. The 1980s were a time of expanding popular participation in the country’s politics that helped loosen the ideological shackles of the destructive Cultural Revolution. But it went too far and led to a vast rebellion at Tiananmen Square.

That uprising was decisively put down on June 4, 1989. The Chinese nation paid a heavy price for that violent event, but the alternatives would have been far worse.

The resulting stability ushered in a generation of growth and prosperity that propelled China’s economy to its position as the second largest in the world...

Granted, they still have a long way to go in many an area -- but their system is certainly proving it is much better for the average blue-collar worker in terms of upwards mobility.

[stardave]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Are you talking about the Great Leap Forward, or the Cultural Revolution, or Tiananmen Square?

I don't understand this part. If China can produce it's own innovators, why would they need to send students overseas to study? Why not study innovation at home?

Regards,
Shodan

Ah yes, the some of the most typical responses. sigh, I hate to let this trend turn out to be a USA vs China debate, but I guess I don't have a choice.

One often think Great Lead Forward is the same action of the current Chinese government that is in power, however this is not true, YES the same party is in power, but the GLF happened under Chairman Mao, he had absolute control of the nation, he run it like a personal business, no one can stop what he wanted to do, and it was his sole decisions which doomed China into this tragedy, however after he died, his successor soon lost the power struggle, which give rise to the new generation of Chinese leader until today, this current leadership has not one person in absolute control like Mao did, in fact there are only about 9 person that controls Chinese politics, and they made decision base on consensus and compromise, and most of them have an age limit, and they only serve on average of 1-3 terms each with 5 years. The current Chinese leadership has nothing to do with Mao's leadership whom was sole responsible for the GLF, I'm not trying to defend the consequence of GLF, it was indeed one of the most horrible tragedy in human history, but one must also identify who is truly responsible, and who is not. Oh yeah Cultural revolution, same thing, Mao did it.

As for the Tiananmen Square incident, of course the way it is being show in our media is very simplistic view of things, students wants democracy, the evil Chinese government killed them, therefore Chinese government are evil... The end.

However the truth is more complicated than that, the way it started was almost very similar to Arab spring, there was a massive inflation going on, wages was not keeping up, food price was increasing, China was transforming from a communist system way to fast into capitalism, many things was was breaking. Those students are the first generation that graduated which are not guarantee to have a job for life from the government run institutes, combine with all the pressures, they took to the square to protest, if at the time if the government had made a quick decisions to talk to student the protest then it would be over very quickly, because contrary to what you believe, they didn't call for democracy and end of government from the very beginning, what they wanted was very reasonable things, like price control of the food prices, better control on corruption etc..., but the very top of the government itself was divided from pro student and pro control. While they fought for influence, the government did nothing, and as student see they were being allowed to protest, more of them joined, after that the government actually tried to negotiate with the students and even agree to most of the demands, however the students had no central leadership, so the government didn't know who to talk to, and even if they agree to students demand, the students would demand more and more to the point where it was being unreasonable, and at the same time, the student leadership itself was loosing control of the students, the whole thing became a chaotic mob, until it can't go to anymore, situation was at a breaking point, different military commander supported different leaders at the very top, China was on the verge of another civil war, the last time they had the civil war, it plunged the nation into chaos, tens of millions were dead. So in the end, the faction that still maintain power made the call to crack down. As the result, tragedy followed, hundreds people killed, students, soldiers, bystanders etc... Would this been avoid? Yes, if the government had reacted sooner and if it was not divide from inside.

But the more important question you should ask is, was the crack down justified? Well, let's take a look at history, at the same time, What was happening in China, 2 year later happened in soviet union, same thing followed, government infighting, coup etc... and in the end the soviet government decide to let it go and introduce full democracy and full economic liberalization immediately, overnight they transform the command economy into full capitalism, I believe this was termed "Shock therapy" go google it for more information. As a result it was a huge disaster, Russia suffered the greatest economic collapse in their history, for 10 years, unemployment was 1/3 of the population, as factory that were producing parts for final assemble stop reeving orders from the central government, they would have no reason to produce, the whole system break down, people lost all of their saving, all of what they have worked for rest of their life. And the same time vast areas of government assets which took 50 years to build up, was broke up and sold overnight, which result in concentration into the hand of the few and the connected, there people were called oligarchs, unemployment, starvation, poverty all followed, the average life expectancy was dropping along with population.

But guess what? they had the democracy, they did exactly what we told them to do, they did the reform just as we have hoped and the result was disastrous.

But look at China? After the tragic crack down, the government was determined to continue the economic reform, as a result the economy grow by 10% year on year, until they became the 2nd largest economy on earth, and in the process they have brought benefits to it is people, vastly improved their standard of living.

So the only thing i can tell you is, yes the Tienanmen incident was tragedy, but that crack down serves to keep the government in control, which in the end brought success to it is people. While another nation just north of them, allowed democracy and reform and it did a lot worse for it is own people. Now I don't' know if China had became democracy, if they had became free market overnight with shock therapy, can they be equally successful? No one can know

As for you last question, if they can innovate at home why do they need to send student? Well isn't the answer obvious? They are still in the catching up stage, they want to learn from the best, although China is improving, but it is still lacking behind, so why reinvent the wheel when you can learn from other people? The better question to ask is, once they catch up, once they have nothing else to learn anymore, can they still innovate? I already answer this in another of my post, so please read them if you care.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ies_by_patents

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by RedFury

Granted, they still have a long way to go in many an area -- but their system is certainly proving it is much better for the average blue-collar worker in terms of upwards mobility.

I admit to being unconvinced that's the case. Getting someone from abject poverty to just routine poverty is a very different thing than getting people from reasonably wealthy to even wealthier. History suggests that industrialization can be done remarkably quickly; growing a post-industrialization economy is a trickier thing.

[stardave]

Originally Posted by XT

I wasn't taking up your slack...there was no urgency in my post that you had to respond to when you were sleeping.



Again, you don't seem to be reading what I'm saying. I'm no forcing you to do an apples to orangutans comparison...I'm asking you for specific examples that you feel demonstrate your thesis that there are better systems than democracy.



If it's not better then why did you bring it up? You are talking in circles afaict. Again, do you have actual examples, either historical or current demonstrating what you feel is superior government to democracy?

Let me see, you were asking me how do I define success, I give you the answer, and now you want me to compare that with democracy.... ok. My whole point is, long before democracy, there was successful non-democracy nations all over the world, so from historical perspective. Just democracy is now, does not mean democracy is the only answer.

*BUZZZZ!!!* Wrong answer. But thanks for playing. Here are some wonderful parting gifts, however...a nice ceramic dog...the board game edition of the Straight Dope, GD edition...a gift certificate to 'don't guess next time, read what was actually written' magazine...

Yeah, I respect you.

You don't? What form of government do you think they are? Who is the ruling party?

Let me ask you, what a definitions of a communist government? And now, go look up Chinese's economy and tell me is that communist?

Ok...from post #53:



Even assuming this rather star eyed blurb is true, at what cost in human suffering and environmental damage to their people? Considering that the same party was in power from the late 40's, why did you start the clock in the 70's? What was the exact same systems track record from the late 40's through the 70's?

Finally, you are asking something worth while, from 1949 to 1977, Mao Zedong was the sole ruler in control of the nation, he governed the nation like it was his own business, as a result he made many horrible decisions which resulted in countless death, it was after this death, a more reformed government come online. The current structure of government in control is a totally different beast from the one before 1977. You know what? Let me just copy and paste

"One often think Great Lead Forward is the same action of the current Chinese government that is in power, however this is not true, YES the same party is in power, but the GLF happened under Chairman Mao, he had absolute control of the nation, he run it like a personal business, no one can stop what he wanted to do, and it was his sole decisions which doomed China into this tragedy, however after he died, his successor soon lost the power struggle, which give rise to the new generation of Chinese leader until today, this current leadership has not one person in absolute control like Mao did, in fact there are only about 9 person that controls Chinese politics, and they made decision base on consensus and compromise, and most of them have an age limit, and they only serve on average of 1-3 terms each with 5 years. The current Chinese leadership has nothing to do with Mao's leadership whom was sole responsible for the GLF, I'm not trying to defend the consequence of GLF, it was indeed one of the most horrible tragedy in human history, but one must also identify who is truly responsible, and who is not. Oh yeah Cultural revolution, same thing, Mao did it."

Certainly...feel free. Tell me, how many of our provinces, er, I mean states are either on the brink of revolt or have revolted in, oh, say the last 10 years? Tell me how our environmental laws are being enforced so much worse than the Chinese counter parts. And how our poor are comparable to theirs, of course. And, since we are (supposedly) talking about democracy, and not the US, how about expanding your list to Europe as well, since most of Western Europe also uses that failed democracy stuff. I'm sure you have many examples of superior GOVERNMENT from the Chinese over your list of democratic nations, right?

Ok, let me see, political control from the very elite of wall street and corporation, which results in tax cut to the very wealth and no regulation to destructive wall street economy. Increasingly destructive influence of corporation that outsources all of our jobs, which both party transform our nation from a production nation into the world sole consumption, which is totally base on cheap credit and debt, that is being financed by China and other nations. Also the government officials that only care about getting elected after election... then wants to do whatever it takes to keep getting elected, as a result they have to receive money from business/special interest, while they are in power, they use the least amount of their time to actually does things that benefit the nation rather than taking care the people that get them the job. Or how how about almost all of our national budget is based determined not base on what is the actually the most beneficial for the people, but base on which interest group had the most lobbying power in the government, aka the military, the prison system, the health care industry etc...


Or how about the fact that our whole economy is transforming into a low wage service base wall street job economy? Where production is being increasingly outsourced, where the only job left is the ones that pays very low wage in retail and face food service industry? Or the cost of going to college is going through the roof, that the only way for vast majority of American to receive a college education is to be indebted for the rest of their life to the banks that loans them the money, or after they graduate, half of them cant' even find a job, and even if they do, half of what they earn goes back to the taxes and student loans?

Or how about the fact that both democrats and republicans way of wanting us to get out of this recession is by economic stimulus, by borrowing the money they don't have, by inflating our dollar to nothing, while keep the people and the government further more into debt... just to spend more to stimulus the economy?

Or how about the fact all politician will say whatever it takes to get elected, while promise you the moon and the sky, and while they are in power, there is not much actual accountability of what they can do, because worst come to worst, they will just step down and another party get elected, and then repeat. repeat, while at the same time, the true master for both party are the business/special interest it self?

Many of the problem that I listed above with our nation have something directly associated with our democratic system, still think we are ok? Still think we are in A-OK shape? Still think Obama and Romney are actually different? Still think elect one or the other will make a damn difference??


How many province in China is on the verge of rebellion... ZERO, I know this is not what you are learning from Fox news at all.

Go ahead, list China's problem and I'll respond.

As for environmental law, ok let me do another copy and paste here.

"You know why the pollution is bad in China? This is directly due to the economic expansion, people all over the world complain that China is taking all the jobs, guess what? China is also taking away all of your pollution as well. Everyone open factory in China, everyone pollutes in China, in the end they take the final product and sell back home. And besides China right now is the largest renewable energy prouder in the world,and they are also investing the most in renewable energy as well. The same reason that UK's pollution was bad during industrial revolution is the same reason for China's environment."

"Consumer safety and worker exploitation, ask yourself when the West was developing, was there the same level of human right for them back then vs now? Of course, not people back then had no right, they had no insurance, life was cheap, it is only with post industrialization we achieve all that, now China is in the process of industrialization and they are doing what we have gone through for 150 years under 30-40 years, so of course they will have those problems + MORE, but ask yourself, do you rather people have all the rights they deserve which end up with massive unemployment and poverty such as the situation in Africa and India? Or would you rather people have less right, but economic growth? So that maybe in the future they can develop to the point where individual rights are valued? In early developing economy something need to be sacrificed."

Ok let's talk about Europe, you know what? I agree with you, most of Europe are democratic nation, and most of them are successful, but let's take ALL of democratic nation from US to Europe to Africa to South East Asia. Almost all nation on earth are democracy, but the fail democracy outnumber the successful one, I acknowledged Europe, are you not going to acknowledged democratic nation such as "DR Congo, Haiti, Ethiopia"?


I mean, please tell me, why are those nations with the democratic system so messed up? I mean they have elections every few years, it is free and fair, but why can't they get their act in order? Please explain.


And OH YEAH, there are TONS of superior GOVERNMENT from the Chinese over my list of democratic nations.

Let's measure by overall GDP... oh wait, let's not do that, because you will complain that GDP per capa is better than overall GDP, ok than lets measure GDP per capa

China #95 over 195, more than half of the list form 96-195 are democracies. You got the list, what NOW?????
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...PP)_per_capita

That thing that whizzed by your head? It was the point...you missed it, sadly.

Another personal insult. how original, can't say I expected anything different.

So, what you want to do is compare what you think is the best of the despotic/totalitarian governments to the worst of the supposed democratic (I love your list btw) governments, and you figure this makes some point in your favor, right?

Nope, I wrote that because YOU are the one that want to compare the best of democratic nation with the worst of non-democratic, I'm just pointing your logic.

I don't recall mentioning the DPRK. But many of the examples you list as democracies are pretty marginal. Hell, you could say that China is a democracy, since there are elections. It's pretty meaningless to call anything that has an election in it a democracy though...which is why I was trying to nail you down on an exact definition. Same with trying to nail you down on specific aspects of non-democratic governments that you feel makes whatever point you are attempting to make in this thread. Otherwise you are rambling all over the place, shifting the goal posts and generally not saying anything meaningful wrt an actual discussion or debate.

Uhh you did, read your post again, you mention North Korea in response to me, which I never mention DPRK in the first place. And again... you want to put words in my mouth that China is democratic.. AGAIN, China is not democratic. Anything else you want me to clarify? Maybe it seems muddy, because you are the one the keep getting off topic, I am having a very constructive discussion with almost everyone on this board EXCEPT you, you want me to compare standing of living of an ancient Chinese to modern American again?

Well, you only seem to want to list the very short number of what you consider successful non-democratic countries, and then make a bunch of marginal countries representative of 'democracy' to make some obscure point that seems only meaningful to you, considering the responses to your thread so far. Again, this gets to the point you've thus far dodged, which is how are you quantifying 'best'. Is it to take all the governments that represent a particular philosophy, no matter how tenuously, and then count up the number of successful ones and failed ones? No problem...I'm pretty sure that the number of failed totalitarian governments in the 19th and 20th centuries far outweighs the number of failed democracies. You merely have to define what the fuck 'best form of government' MEANS, with something quantifiable and you'll have all sorts of meaningful responses to your question.

[/quote]


SHORT number? Vast majority of nation on earth are democratic are one way or the other, and vast majority of them fails as a government, I can say the same to you, well you only seems to want to list the very short list of what you consider to be successful democratic nations, and then make a bunch of marginal country that are not democratic to make this all manful to you. Oh and it seems even if a nation is democratic, but they are not as fullly democratic as the Western societies, you want to disqualify them, I mean never mind Haiti is democratic, it have direct election every few years, but the government can't do shit for it is own people. but it is poor, so let me guess, it does not quality in your list right?

Why don't you actually go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states

And go through each nation and see how many are democratic and how many are not, and how many of them are failing.

List how many successful democratic nations on the list, list how many fail democratic nations on that list. Then get back to me, we are going no where.

[stardave]

Originally Posted by RickJay

I admit to being unconvinced that's the case. Getting someone from abject poverty to just routine poverty is a very different thing than getting people from reasonably wealthy to even wealthier. History suggests that industrialization can be done remarkably quickly; growing a post-industrialization economy is a trickier thing.

Vast majority of nation on earth are agriculture dominated. It takes a lot to transform from Agriculture base to a industry base, and finally to service based.

For many nations, authoritarian government would do a better job to transform the economy from agriculture to industry.

For example South Korea and Taiwan, it is only after the transformation they became democratic.

Transform a poor society from the very beginning into a democracy might keep them poor forever, for example Ethiopia, Haiti, India, Philippine etc...

However it seems to me that right now, rich democratic nations that are service based is facing a new challenge, that I think that the type of the government might have a hard time to survive, to adopt the the new changes in the future.

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by stardave

Vast majority of nation on earth are agriculture dominated. It takes a lot to transform from Agriculture base to a industry base, and finally to service based.

The great bulk of income growth is to be found in the process of industrialization. China's GDP growth wouldn't be possible unless there were already rich democracies in the world for them to sell things to. They are quite literally standing on the shoulders of giants, and you've given them credit for being tall.

For example South Korea and Taiwan, it is only after the transformation they became democratic.

Sure, and Canada, the United Kingdom, France, the United States, and any number of other countries become democratic first. Japan raised itself from the ashes as a democracy, as did Germany. You haven't really provided any reason why democracy is an inferior form of government for developing a country, you just cherry pick questionable examples and say "well, it is." Given how easy it is for someone to provide counter examples that trump yours, you're not making a very good case. Why can't a country develop economically with a democratic government? The USA did it. Canada did it. Australia, the UK, Norway, the list goes on. Israel built a country out of nothing and was a democracy the whole time.

If what you seem to be saying is that the end point for China is democracy, you're sort of admitting democracy's superior... just that China isn't yet ready for it. I don't buy that that's true; China would, IMHO, be just fine with democracy and more political freedom.

[HoneyBadgerDC]

The United States is a Republic, not a Democracy.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by badger5149

The United States is a Republic, not a Democracy.

Its a constitutional republic and a representative democracy. Keep in mind Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Kampuchea were all technically republics.

[XT]

Originally Posted by stardave

Let me see, you were asking me how do I define success, I give you the answer, and now you want me to compare that with democracy.... ok. My whole point is, long before democracy, there was successful non-democracy nations all over the world, so from historical perspective. Just democracy is now, does not mean democracy is the only answer.

And yet, you've still not answered any of the questions I ACTUALLY asked you, simply danced around and waved your hands. So, I'm thinking you don't really want to debate this question in good faith...merely assert and get all hurt when folks don't buy the horseshit.

There were successful countries before democracy? Really? Well, that's a shocker! I suppose that proves your point, whatever the fuck it is. Oh, wait...it doesn't really demonstrate anything except a grasp of the non-sequitur and the ability to build men of straw.

Yeah, I respect you.

Oh, I'm all butt hurt now.

Let me ask you, what a definitions of a communist government? And now, go look up Chinese's economy and tell me is that communist?

Web definitions:
A communist state is a sovereign state with a form of government characterized by single-party rule or dominant-party rule of a communis...

So, what you are doing is basically waving your hands while saying that the dude in the kilt isn't a real Scotsman. China is ruled by a one party government...which is a communist government. Do you deny this? No, of course not...you want to play semantic games, split hairs and count the number of apparatchiks dancing on the head of a pin.

Finally, you are asking something worth while, from 1949 to 1977, Mao Zedong was the sole ruler in control of the nation, he governed the nation like it was his own business, as a result he made many horrible decisions which resulted in countless death, it was after this death, a more reformed government come online. The current structure of government in control is a totally different beast from the one before 1977. You know what? Let me just copy and paste

I don't know what you think that your uncited blurb proves, but I never said that today's government is the same as the one under Mao. I suppose that this explains why you cherry picked the timing though, so I guess you did actually answer the part you quoted there.

Ok, let me see, political control from the very elite of wall street and corporation, which results in tax cut to the very wealth and no regulation to destructive wall street economy. Increasingly destructive influence of corporation that outsources all of our jobs, which both party transform our nation from a production nation into the world sole consumption, which is totally base on cheap credit and debt, that is being financed by China and other nations. Also the government officials that only care about getting elected after election... then wants to do whatever it takes to keep getting elected, as a result they have to receive money from business/special interest, while they are in power, they use the least amount of their time to actually does things that benefit the nation rather than taking care the people that get them the job. Or how how about almost all of our national budget is based determined not base on what is the actually the most beneficial for the people, but base on which interest group had the most lobbying power in the government, aka the military, the prison system, the health care industry etc...

So...this IS about America. Gee, there is a shocker, right? All the stuff you mention here might or might not be true, but you've pretty much failed to demonstrate a better system. Since you obviously DO want to talk about the US and this is all just a rant, thinly disguised as a 'debate' about 'democracy', which countries in all the world do better than the US on your ranting points? Well, interestingly enough, they are all...yeah, democracies. China? It's not even close. You want to see endemic corruption, try actually GOING to China and taking a look around. The rich getting privilege while the poor toil? Do you have any understanding of the difference between a rick industrialist and the poorest workers in China as a comparison?? I'm guessing 'no'. In China they don't even HAVE elected officials in any but the lowest level and most token positions, so the government does exactly what it wants. Need to build a dam that will displace literally millions, destroy many historical cultural sites, and cause a huge amount of environmental damage? No problem...fuck the people, lets roll the 'dozers. Want to build the dirtiest coal fired plants? No worries, let the people breath cake!

China is a house of cards, and right now, today the wind is blowing. The communists in charge (the one's that don't constitute a 'communist government' in your hair splitting opinion) have remained in charge by an unwritten pact with the people...as long as they give continual and expanding economic growth they can do what they like. By and large. Of course, there is a lot of anger and resentment, and revolts aren't exactly unheard of, especially in the more rural provinces. But right now, China's growth is slowing. They are talking recession. They are talking about having to lay folks off and shut down factories. In the US or Europe when that happens you get folks going on unemployment, and some grumbling. In China, if that happens in a big way you will get a full blown revolt, quite probably bloody.

Now, to the question...HOW IS THAT BETTER THAN DEMOCRACY?

How many province in China is on the verge of rebellion... ZERO, I know this is not what you are learning from Fox news at all.

I don't watch Fox News. You didn't even bother with a Google search, did you? How about this article from 2011? Here is another one (from a non-Fox source). Different province, non-Fox source. And so on. I actually don't know how many provinces in China are on the verge of revolt. It's a non-zero number, though. There is a lot of anger and unrest in China...and much of it stems from the fact that the people don't have a representative government. The fact that you don't know this and just blew off my question with a ridiculous 'you must watch Fox' answer says a lot you, sadly.

As for environmental law, ok let me do another copy and paste here.

Let me give you some unsolicited advice...if you are going to cut and past, you might what to provide a freaking LINK to your source. For one thing, it allows folks to check out the veracity of your cite (you seem to be quoting propaganda, but who knows since you didn't source your quote?).

Go ahead, list China's problem and I'll respond.

Why would your response be meaningful, seeing as how woefully uneducated you obviously are on the subject. However, here is environmental (from the Fox sympathetic WWF). Mind, this is simply an thumbnail sketch of the huge problems China is facing environmentally...problems that their totalitarian government has not only done nothing to address but is pretty much the root cause of due to their push for ever increasing economic advancement (in order to keep their people from revolting). But, rather than link to the myriad pages that a quick Google search on 'problems in China' WOULD have told you, had you bothered, I'll just pick one (non-Fox ) list out and let you play with it, if you wish:

Problems of Chinese Economic Growth.

Pollution.

Pollution is a major problem in many industrialised cities. Increased car ownership has led to problems of smog and worsening air quality. Pollution also occurs from China’s vast industrial sector. Often regulation of pollution is very limited with untreated sewage often been poured directly into rivers.

2. Shortage of Power.

The growing demand of the Chinese economy has placed great demands on China’s creaking power infrastructure. This has led to the creation of projects like the Three Gorges Dam. This has been criticised for creating environmental and social problems. Environmentalists fear that the dam will severely impact on the natural habitats of many species.

3. Growing Income Inequality

China’s economic growth has benefited the south and eastern regions more than anywhere else. This has created a growing disparity between north and south. The agricultural north has, by contrast, been left behind. Many farmers struggle to make a living. Therefore, this has encouraged a migration of workers from north to south. China has struggled to deal with this regional inequality.

4. Property Boom

There are fears that China has been caught up in its own speculative property bubble. Especially in Beijing and the south East, houseprices have increased significantly. There are concerns that this property bubble could burst, creating negative equity.

5. Inefficient Banking Sector.

In particular the Chinese banking sector has a bad reputation for making bad loans. Many loans are not repaid back. This is a legacy of the Communist intervention in industry. Banks often made loans to large government business’ with little regard for free market principles. As a consequence it is difficult for genuine new starts to get sufficient capital funding. But, much investment is squandered.


6. Unemployment

It sounds a paradox that the Chinese economy can grow at 8% and yet unemployment is still a problem. The reason is that there are still many state owned enterprises which are grossly inefficient. Therefore, in the process of privatisation and modernisation many surplus workers are being made redundant. There is also a lot of unemployment (and disguised unemployment) in the agricultural sector.

7. Undervaluation of Yuan.

The Chinese Yuan has been tied to the dollar. As the dollar had devalued the Yuan has also devalued. However, it is argued by many (especially in the US) that the Yuan is undervalued against the US dollar by up to 40%. The impact of an undervaluation of the Yuan is that:

Increase inflationary pressure in the Chinese economy.
Make it expensive for Chinese to buy foreign goods.
Give an artificial advantage to Chinese manufacturers.

8. Overheating Economy.

Because the Chinese economy is growing so quickly there are concerns that this could easily lead to inflationary pressures. This is particularly a problem because of:

relatively loose monetary policy
undervalued exchange rate
Property Boom.
Inflation is currently 3.8%, but, there are upward pressures.

9. Huge Balance of Payments Surplus.

Maybe not such a serious problem for China. But, the US sees it as creating a great disequilibrium. The US, if not anyone else, would like to see the China use its balance of payments surplus elsewhere.

Anyway, blah blah blah...I'll skip ahead in your post some as it's mainly rant and doesn't really have much to do with what I wrote:

Another personal insult. how original, can't say I expected anything different.

Well, where was the FIRST personal insult? Oh, and you think that me pointing out that you pretty obviously missed my point is an insult?? Better watch you don't get a paper cut with skin that thin.

Nope, I wrote that because YOU are the one that want to compare the best of democratic nation with the worst of non-democratic, I'm just pointing your logic.

I have to ask...are you serious? I've asked you repeatedly for examples, and you've come back with rants, handwaving and horseshit. The bottom line here is IT'S YOUR FUCKING ASSERTION AND IT'S UP TO YOU TO BACK IT UP. If your only example of a government system being better than 'democracy' is modern day China, then you've failed miserably to support your conclusions OR your assertion. If you have other examples, feel free to provide them. Feel free to compare best to best, worst to worst or standard cock size to overall pussy tightness for all I care. Do SOMETHING, however.

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by badger5149

The United States is a Republic, not a Democracy.

Dude, this has been hashed out five thousand times on this board. Maybe ten thousand. To sum up; you are wrong. The United States of America is both a republic and a democracy. They are not mutually exclusive concepts.

Let's go over this again; a democracy is a nation state in which the citizenry is given the power, through direct or indirect means, to have a say in the passage of legislation and manner of governance. A republic is a nation state in which the government is not the private concern of those who rule the country (in other words, it isn't a monarchy or other heriditary interest.)

The United States is both a republic and a democracy.
Australia is a democracy, but is not, technically, a republic.
China is a republic, but not a democracy.
Saudi Arabia is not a democracy and is not a republic.

[stardave]

Originally Posted by RickJay

The great bulk of income growth is to be found in the process of industrialization. China's GDP growth wouldn't be possible unless there were already rich democracies in the world for them to sell things to. They are quite literally standing on the shoulders of giants, and you've given them credit for being tall.

Then again, why are they the only one done it? Why not India? If you make it sound like industrialization is so easy, where are all other nations that are poorer than them going on the similar path?

Oh and the argument is that they are successful is because because they are lucky that we consume what they produce, that argument is extremely egocentric, do China want to pollute itself because just because it want jobs? So that it can give the privilege of selling the items back to United States?

Sure, and Canada, the United Kingdom, France, the United States, and any number of other countries become democratic first. Japan raised itself from the ashes as a democracy, as did Germany. You haven't really provided any reason why democracy is an inferior form of government for developing a country, you just cherry pick questionable examples and say "well, it is." Given how easy it is for someone to provide counter examples that trump yours, you're not making a very good case. Why can't a country develop economically with a democratic government? The USA did it. Canada did it. Australia, the UK, Norway, the list goes on. Israel built a country out of nothing and was a democracy the whole time.

You miss some thing else, Canada, UK, France, US are the FIRST nations on earth that actually started the industrialization process, and when it was happening, people didn't have much rights did they? Woman can't vote, black, minority can't vote, can't get the same job etc... social equality was far less than today. And post war Germany and Japan was not really Independence or free, both Germany and Japan was under heavy control of the victors of WW2, and also the fact that they were also one of the first few nations on earth start started the industrialization process before the war helps, they already got the culture the expertise. But name me one nation that had no record of industrialization and got rich from an agriculture society.

If what you seem to be saying is that the end point for China is democracy, you're sort of admitting democracy's superior... just that China isn't yet ready for it. I don't buy that that's true; China would, IMHO, be just fine with democracy and more political freedom.

No, I am actually not saying the end point for China is democracy, I am saying it is possible that the current system can they have can work just as fine without democracy, centralized government control with free market, and the ability to mass mobilize social and technology investments. Maybe they can Incorporated some kinda of democratic system within the government to be more accountable for the people, but in the end, the main decision makers would be non democratically selected.

Also the argument that non democratic nation such as China would be less accountable for it is people might not be true, in fact if only one party wants to say in power forever, they better do what the people want or there will be a revolution, however in a muti-party state for example US, the ones that really controls the government are the special interests, and they can donate money to both party for them to get elected, as one party angers the people the other party would take over, then the process would repeat forever, so in the end, the politician don't have to be responsible for their actions.

[stardave]

Originally Posted by XT

And yet, you've still not answered any of the questions I ACTUALLY asked you, simply danced around and waved your hands. So, I'm thinking you don't really want to debate this question in good faith...merely assert and get all hurt when folks don't buy the horseshit.

There were successful countries before democracy? Really? Well, that's a shocker! I suppose that proves your point, whatever the fuck it is. Oh, wait...it doesn't really demonstrate anything except a grasp of the non-sequitur and the ability to build men of straw.



Oh, I'm all butt hurt now.





So, what you are doing is basically waving your hands while saying that the dude in the kilt isn't a real Scotsman. China is ruled by a one party government...which is a communist government. Do you deny this? No, of course not...you want to play semantic games, split hairs and count the number of apparatchiks dancing on the head of a pin.



I don't know what you think that your uncited blurb proves, but I never said that today's government is the same as the one under Mao. I suppose that this explains why you cherry picked the timing though, so I guess you did actually answer the part you quoted there.



So...this IS about America. Gee, there is a shocker, right? All the stuff you mention here might or might not be true, but you've pretty much failed to demonstrate a better system. Since you obviously DO want to talk about the US and this is all just a rant, thinly disguised as a 'debate' about 'democracy', which countries in all the world do better than the US on your ranting points? Well, interestingly enough, they are all...yeah, democracies. China? It's not even close. You want to see endemic corruption, try actually GOING to China and taking a look around. The rich getting privilege while the poor toil? Do you have any understanding of the difference between a rick industrialist and the poorest workers in China as a comparison?? I'm guessing 'no'. In China they don't even HAVE elected officials in any but the lowest level and most token positions, so the government does exactly what it wants. Need to build a dam that will displace literally millions, destroy many historical cultural sites, and cause a huge amount of environmental damage? No problem...fuck the people, lets roll the 'dozers. Want to build the dirtiest coal fired plants? No worries, let the people breath cake!

China is a house of cards, and right now, today the wind is blowing. The communists in charge (the one's that don't constitute a 'communist government' in your hair splitting opinion) have remained in charge by an unwritten pact with the people...as long as they give continual and expanding economic growth they can do what they like. By and large. Of course, there is a lot of anger and resentment, and revolts aren't exactly unheard of, especially in the more rural provinces. But right now, China's growth is slowing. They are talking recession. They are talking about having to lay folks off and shut down factories. In the US or Europe when that happens you get folks going on unemployment, and some grumbling. In China, if that happens in a big way you will get a full blown revolt, quite probably bloody.

Now, to the question...HOW IS THAT BETTER THAN DEMOCRACY?



I don't watch Fox News. You didn't even bother with a Google search, did you? How about this article from 2011? Here is another one (from a non-Fox source). Different province, non-Fox source. And so on. I actually don't know how many provinces in China are on the verge of revolt. It's a non-zero number, though. There is a lot of anger and unrest in China...and much of it stems from the fact that the people don't have a representative government. The fact that you don't know this and just blew off my question with a ridiculous 'you must watch Fox' answer says a lot you, sadly.



Let me give you some unsolicited advice...if you are going to cut and past, you might what to provide a freaking LINK to your source. For one thing, it allows folks to check out the veracity of your cite (you seem to be quoting propaganda, but who knows since you didn't source your quote?).



Why would your response be meaningful, seeing as how woefully uneducated you obviously are on the subject. However, here is environmental (from the Fox sympathetic WWF). Mind, this is simply an thumbnail sketch of the huge problems China is facing environmentally...problems that their totalitarian government has not only done nothing to address but is pretty much the root cause of due to their push for ever increasing economic advancement (in order to keep their people from revolting). But, rather than link to the myriad pages that a quick Google search on 'problems in China' WOULD have told you, had you bothered, I'll just pick one (non-Fox ) list out and let you play with it, if you wish:



Anyway, blah blah blah...I'll skip ahead in your post some as it's mainly rant and doesn't really have much to do with what I wrote:



Well, where was the FIRST personal insult? Oh, and you think that me pointing out that you pretty obviously missed my point is an insult?? Better watch you don't get a paper cut with skin that thin.



I have to ask...are you serious? I've asked you repeatedly for examples, and you've come back with rants, handwaving and horseshit. The bottom line here is IT'S YOUR FUCKING ASSERTION AND IT'S UP TO YOU TO BACK IT UP. If your only example of a government system being better than 'democracy' is modern day China, then you've failed miserably to support your conclusions OR your assertion. If you have other examples, feel free to provide them. Feel free to compare best to best, worst to worst or standard cock size to overall pussy tightness for all I care. Do SOMETHING, however.

Oh wow, look at all the "fuck" words being used, you sure have proven your point. Whatever I said that you don't like are by default rambling, and yes, you know what? You are right, China for the past 30 years are pure evil, no human right, build dam that benefits no one, except for the enjoyment of killing millions in the process, pollutes it is environment for the sake of polluting, falsify economic data to cover up that fact they have indeed not raise 500 million people out of poverty, where there is very few rich elite while 99.9999999999% are surviving like rats. The fake economic growth benefits no one, in fact it is actually all because of force slavery child labor, yes, they are on the verge of collapse any second now. Every everything that I present to you are communist PR, you are too good, you caught me, please contact your nearest CIA to get me arrest. China bad... USA GOOD

American on the other hand is all ok, democracy is working well, our nation is strong, we have absolutely no need to do anything, there is absolutely nothing that China's system have over democracy, no matter how much problem we have, no matter if we are on the verge of bankruptcy, there no way in hell that China can be ever better than we, you know why? BECAUSE WE ARE AMMERICAAA!!!!!!!!!!!

Please use more "fuck" words in your next reply. Otherwise, I won't believe you.

[The Second Stone]

Originally Posted by Gagundathar

So, in my opinion, I agree with Mr. Churchill when he said, "[n]o one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

This is my opinion too. If only we could encourage really smart and altruistic people to run for office.

[mmmbeer]

The United States is a Democratic Republic. Democratic being an adjective to describe what we are which is a Republic. In a Democracy, the people vote directly. We don't. The Democratic part is that we elect our leaders who are supposed to vote as to what is good for us, instead of what we want.
Democracy was universally known to be a horrible form of government at the time of the founding of our country. It is just mob rule. 9 wolves and a sheep voting about what's for supper is the illustrative joke. That's Democracy.

[Consensus]

This endless debate over which nation with its political system performs best is not vey meaningfull in this discussion. I was hopefull when I saw the subject, but all became undone after reading a couple of posts. How disappointing.

I'd much rather see the discussion continue on why we are unable to think of a better system when we are all able to point out democracys shortcomings.
Whatever your personal conviction might be one thing is for sure, we have a long way to go for a true improvement on democracy to arrive.

[Lemur866]

I have no problem imagining that someday in the future we'll have a better, fairer, and more effective political system than liberal democracy.

However, the system that proves superior to democracy is not going to be one the failed systems of the past, dusted off and given a new paint job. Those who advocate for the superiority of authoritarian systems tend to ignore the fact that the dictators of the past had a tendancy to run their countries off a cliff from time to time. You know, get your country involved in a war, steal everything worth stealing, institute horrible economic policies, murder everyone in the wrong ethnic group or social class, and on and on.

Or, sometimes not. The only difference between Mussolini and Franco is that Franco stayed out of WWII, and quietly repressed Spain for decades until he died in bed. But then after Franco died, the Spaniards took a look around at their neighbors, and decided that if they copied what their neighbors were doing their country might not be so much of a shithole.

Autocratic government brought China out of desperate poverty and vicious repression into normal poverty and normal repression. But autocratic government is what gave China the poverty and repression in the first place. Mao could have instituted the reforms that have created today's China back in the 50s. Instead he starved and murdered millions.

Well, how did Mao come to be in a position to make such choices. As he famously said, political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. The communists won the civil war, and Mao was the leader of the communists, and so Mao became absolute dictator, and whatever he decided was carried out, regardless of consequences.

But how does the dictator get to make those decisions? A dictator can give orders, but the people below must carry them out, otherwise he's not a dictator but a nut in a mental institution. And so the police and the military must be loyal to the dictator. But why don't the people in the army just shoot the guy? Because there are enough people who will obey orders to shoot anyone who doesn't obey, those who don't want to obey will obey anyway.

So the problem with advocating authoritarian government is, how do you make everyone obey the wise and benevolent leader? What happens when they disagree with the father of the country? Take them out and shoot them? Send them to the camps? When the country seems to be running well, then there is little need for repression. People see that their lives are better today than tomorrow, and so they don't complain. But then things go bad--the war is going badly. There is famine, flood, plague, economic dislocation. People start thinking that maybe the dear leader isn't doing such a good job.

Now what?

How does the country change the mind of the dear leader, because we've established that the people are idiots who can't be trusted. Only the leader is competant to make decisions. But if he doesn't make good decisions, how can the ignorant rabble judge him? The example of China is obvious here.

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by stardave

Then again, why are they the only one done it? Why not India? If you make it sound like industrialization is so easy, where are all other nations that are poorer than them going on the similar path?

I named what, half a dozen? Canada, the United States, Australia, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom. Do you want more?

You miss some thing else, Canada, UK, France, US are the FIRST nations on earth that actually started the industrialization process, and when it was happening, people didn't have much rights did they?

Not as many as we have today. But those were democracies. The government was chosen by a voting base, not by a single political party. I'm sorry if you don't like the fact that there are examples to counter your claims, but that's too bad.

But name me one nation that had no record of industrialization and got rich from an agriculture society.

Since all human society comes from non industrial origins, the answer to this question is... all rich countries.

[Bryan Ekers]

I can't figure out what stardave is arguing, but gosh-darn if he's not arguing it hard.

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by Lemur866

. . . However, the system that proves superior to democracy is not going to be one the failed systems of the past, dusted off and given a new paint job. . . .

Is anything truly new even possible? Or might it depend on some future technological advance? I can see the possibility of a robot master, but not of our simply deriving some new way of thinking about the problem. 5,000 years of our very best thought hasn't given us anything new.

Those who advocate for the superiority of authoritarian systems tend to ignore the fact that the dictators of the past had a tendancy to run their countries off a cliff from time to time. You know, get your country involved in a war, steal everything worth stealing, institute horrible economic policies, murder everyone in the wrong ethnic group or social class, and on and on.

This is why I don't think anyone here is seriously advocating an authoritarian system. The philosophical ideal of a "benevolent despot" is a sort of abstract ideal. It's like when they say that, for each of us, there is a "perfect match" somewhere out there. Okay, maybe, but how do I find him/her?

A benevolent despot combines the best features of wise, knowledgeable, sincere, caring leadership with the raw power to get things done. But it's like powering your car with anti-matter: if just one little thing goes wrong, KaBoom! (Kim Jong Il!)

So, while discussions like these almost always entail a nod toward the benevolent despot as the "best possible form of government," no one really advocates it, because it's only tautologically the best, but not at all practical. There's no way to get there...and no way to fix it if it goes bad.

[SecretaryofEvil]

Originally Posted by Lemur866

Autocratic government brought China out of desperate poverty and vicious repression into normal poverty and normal repression.

Best single sentence of the thread.

[Wulabo]

Of course it isn't. That's why the founding fathers of the American Experiment had the foresight to craft a Constitutional Republic. The safeguards against the dangers of democracy are rife in the Constitution. From the electoral college to the two houses of the Congress. When and where the notion that this is a democracy came from eludes me, but it's certainly a popular idea. haha. One that has insisted on tearing down the very safeguards against democracy so carefully woven into the original concept of this country.

[Grey]

You're a democratic republic - fuck we just re-rehashed this up thread.

[PrettyVacant]

Democracy as we know it isn't a problem, the problem is unfettered capitalism - a lot of people are keen to conflate the two.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by stardave

... the GLF happened under Chairman Mao, he had absolute control of the nation, he run it like a personal business, no one can stop what he wanted to do, and it was his sole decisions which doomed China into this tragedy,...Oh yeah Cultural revolution, same thing, Mao did it.

That's my point.

You are claiming that benevolent dictatorship is better because the rulers can react quickly to do things that benefit the country and no one can stop them. The trouble is, they can also do things that hurt the country, and no one can stop them.

Now I don't' know if China had became democracy, if they had became free market overnight with shock therapy, can they be equally successful? No one can know

Then I guess you don't have an answer to your own OP either.

Regards,
Shodan

[Deeg]

Originally Posted by Wulabo

Of course it isn't. That's why the founding fathers of the American Experiment had the foresight to craft a Constitutional Republic. The safeguards against the dangers of democracy are rife in the Constitution. From the electoral college to the two houses of the Congress.

These were not put into place as safeguards against democracy. The logic behind having two houses is beyond the scope of this thread but, in a nut shell two, having two houses spreads out the power it encompasses and makes it harder for a small group to wield undue influence.

The Electoral College was more a result of slavery than safeguards. It allowed Southern states to count slaves in the apportionment of electoral votes without giving them an actual vote. Madison himself preferred a popular vote. Wikipedia has a good article.

[XT]

Originally Posted by stardave

Whatever I said that you don't like are by default rambling, and yes, you know what?

No, your ramblings are ramblings, whether I like them or not.

You are right...

Well, now that we've cleared that up.

China for the past 30 years are pure evil, no human right, build dam that benefits no one, except for the enjoyment of killing millions in the process, pollutes it is environment for the sake of polluting, falsify economic data to cover up that fact they have indeed not raise 500 million people out of poverty, where there is very few rich elite while 99.9999999999% are surviving like rats.

Straw must be on sale this week. You've built an army of straw men here, armed with your own rambling and ridiculous hyperbole.

The fake economic growth benefits no one, in fact it is actually all because of force slavery child labor, yes, they are on the verge of collapse any second now. Every everything that I present to you are communist PR, you are too good, you caught me, please contact your nearest CIA to get me arrest. China bad... USA GOOD

The strawmen are marching two by two huzzah....huzzah!

Please use more "fuck" words in your next reply. Otherwise, I won't believe you.

Seemingly it's the only thing in my post you got, so perhaps I should use it more. It's nice that you were able to understand one word in my post, at least...