You’ve got to choose some objective numbers that reflect reality.
Fair. I choose the number of legal oppositional parties and the number of peasants prevented from migrating to cities by the hukou system.
the repression in today’s China is much lower than these historical examples, and not obviously worse than in the US
The former is obvious, the latter is a spicy take. Of course, the US isn’t exactly having its best moment these days, but I still doubt that the percentage of Americans who would prefer living in China would be even within one order of magnitude of that of hopeful Chinese immigrants.
Why are your numbers more indicative, though? There’s tons of possible numbers to choose from that go every which way. When I was figuring out for myself how to compare countries, I tried to choose numbers that were hardest to fudge, most indicative of bigger trends and least cherrypicked. That seems like the only way to clear things up, like defining QALYs in EA.
About migration as a criterion, consider Filipino migrants in Saudi Arabia. The Philippines are a flawed democracy, while Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy with a poor human rights record and a higher incarceration rate. Why the migration then? Economic reasons. If China becomes as rich per capita as the US, I’m not sure they’d be as eager to migrate. Migration often depends on which country is richer, not which country is more free.
Well, I mean, congrats on your choice, but why are your numbers more indicative than mine? Looks to me like you’re just cherrypicking. Everyone can cherrypick.
I’m not claiming that they’re more indicative, but I do claim that they aren’t obviously less indicative. Since everyone can cherrypick, it’s not clear in what way are objective numbers better than vibes anyhow.
Ok, cool, imagine China becomes as rich per capita as the US.
IMO CCP-led China will never come close, and the level of repression is an important factor of that. Small-ish petrostates aren’t relevant here.
Under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, China has achieved miraculous growth and eradicated absolute poverty despite a similar level of repression. What exactly leads you to believe that, under such repression, China could never reach the level of development enjoyed by the United States? Why not consider what might happen if the repression were relaxed? For example, what if the household registration system and the detention and deportation system were abolished? Rural residents lacking basic urban job skills would flood into cities in a disorderly manner and establish slums, which would severely hinder urban planning and trigger a deterioration in public order. At the same time, a significant portion of the government’s main revenue comes from land sale proceeds. Without these systems, the government would be unable to generate revenue from urbanization and use it for critical infrastructure such as high-speed rail, which would in turn severely impact economic development!
What exactly leads you to believe that, under such repression, China could never reach the level of development enjoyed by the United States? Why not consider what might happen if the repression were relaxed?
My impression is that things are as relaxed as they are going to get, and the trend these days seems to be in the direction of increasing repression.
China and the UAE are, in fact, quite similar: the UAE’s GDP comes primarily from non-oil sectors, and these industries rely heavily on the kafala system to bring in cheap labor from the Third World. Meanwhile, at least over the past few decades, China’s developed coastal regions and major cities (such as Shanghai) have developed labor-intensive industries to take on international industrial outsourcing, while its densely populated inland regions (such as Henan) have served as internal colonies and sources of cheap labor.
Fair. I choose the number of legal oppositional parties and the number of peasants prevented from migrating to cities by the hukou system.
The former is obvious, the latter is a spicy take. Of course, the US isn’t exactly having its best moment these days, but I still doubt that the percentage of Americans who would prefer living in China would be even within one order of magnitude of that of hopeful Chinese immigrants.
Why are your numbers more indicative, though? There’s tons of possible numbers to choose from that go every which way. When I was figuring out for myself how to compare countries, I tried to choose numbers that were hardest to fudge, most indicative of bigger trends and least cherrypicked. That seems like the only way to clear things up, like defining QALYs in EA.
About migration as a criterion, consider Filipino migrants in Saudi Arabia. The Philippines are a flawed democracy, while Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy with a poor human rights record and a higher incarceration rate. Why the migration then? Economic reasons. If China becomes as rich per capita as the US, I’m not sure they’d be as eager to migrate. Migration often depends on which country is richer, not which country is more free.
I’m not claiming that they’re more indicative, but I do claim that they aren’t obviously less indicative. Since everyone can cherrypick, it’s not clear in what way are objective numbers better than vibes anyhow.
IMO CCP-led China will never come close, and the level of repression is an important factor of that. Small-ish petrostates aren’t relevant here.
Under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, China has achieved miraculous growth and eradicated absolute poverty despite a similar level of repression. What exactly leads you to believe that, under such repression, China could never reach the level of development enjoyed by the United States?
Why not consider what might happen if the repression were relaxed? For example, what if the household registration system and the detention and deportation system were abolished? Rural residents lacking basic urban job skills would flood into cities in a disorderly manner and establish slums, which would severely hinder urban planning and trigger a deterioration in public order. At the same time, a significant portion of the government’s main revenue comes from land sale proceeds. Without these systems, the government would be unable to generate revenue from urbanization and use it for critical infrastructure such as high-speed rail, which would in turn severely impact economic development!
My impression is that things are as relaxed as they are going to get, and the trend these days seems to be in the direction of increasing repression.
China and the UAE are, in fact, quite similar: the UAE’s GDP comes primarily from non-oil sectors, and these industries rely heavily on the kafala system to bring in cheap labor from the Third World. Meanwhile, at least over the past few decades, China’s developed coastal regions and major cities (such as Shanghai) have developed labor-intensive industries to take on international industrial outsourcing, while its densely populated inland regions (such as Henan) have served as internal colonies and sources of cheap labor.