Is the Chinese Economy About to Fall Off a Cliff?

[DGuller]

It will be interesting to see if they can continue to improve government accountability without adopting representative government of some form.

Mono is: Chairman Lmao.

[Siege]

Malthus been saying the Chinese is about to fall for the last 10 years.

[KRonn]

These predictions appear multiple times every year.  They have yet to come true.

I use the same line of thought to convince myself that I'm immortal.  Everyone who has ever died was not me, so if this trend continues I should be fine.

I want to live to be 100 years old so I'll be immortal, because as George Burns the wise comedian used to say, very few people die over the age of 100..   

[Malthus]

Malthus been saying the Chinese is about to fall for the last 10 years.

Huh? I've never expressed any opinion on the matter, far as I can remember.

[LaCroix]

There have been huge changes in Chinese society in the past few decades, not only in terms of economic development but in governance as well.  Of course, they still have a long way to go, but they've made progress.  It will be interesting to see if they can continue to improve government accountability without adopting representative government of some form.

met a beijing native the other night who supported republicanism. he wanted a two-party system like the united states. he wasn't some liberal arts major, either -- aviation student employed by air china.

[Jacob]

met a beijing native the other night who supported republicanism. he wanted a two-party system like the united states. he wasn't some liberal arts major, either -- aviation student employed by air china.

Did you just unironically use "republicanism" to describe US style democracy?

[LaCroix]

Did you just unironically use "republicanism" to describe US style democracy?

i used republicanism because (1) the student said he wanted a republican form of government, like the US; (2) republicanism is a fine way to characterize US style democracy regardless of any specific definition different groups may have for it; and (3) the US was founded on republican ideals

[Admiral Yi]

They already have a republican form of government.

[Jacob]

They already have a republican form of government.

Yeah, exactly.

[Jacob]

Did you just unironically use "republicanism" to describe US style democracy?

i used republicanism because (1) the student said he wanted a republican form of government, like the US;

So an ESL mistake. Fair enough.

(2) republicanism is a fine way to characterize US style democracy regardless of any specific definition different groups may have for it;

Well, the actual definition is:

Republicanism is the ideology of governing a society or state as a republic (la. res publica), where the head of state is a representative of the people who hold popular sovereignty rather than the people being subjects of the head of state.

Though I have noted attempts to redefine it to mean "the way government works in the US" on occasion. Presumably because some low-information GOP types resent the "democracy-Democrats" connection, and would rather live in a place where the system of government shares a name with their party of choice.

(3) the US was founded on republican ideals

As was the People's Republic of China.

[The Minsky Moment]

The real question is how far away is China from the development level that historically is inconsistent with non-inclusive and representative institutions, and will they somehow be able to get around it.

They want the Singaporean/Hong Kong model.  Efficient administration and no democracy.

We discussed this on the other thread but there are other big differences between PRC (mainland) and HK other than the lack of electoral franchise for the highest leadership positions.  HK has a charter of freedoms, a powerful independent judiciary, an honest and neutral civil service, all with many years of historical experience.    Singapore is weaker on civil liberties but has real rule of law and an efficient autonomous civil service.  Singapore has real elections - sure the system is strongly tiltled against the opposition but the PAP keeps losing support and if the trend continues the opposition will eventually break through.

PRC still has a long way to go to get to where Singapore and HK are now and while the rhetoric is there about rule of law, the reality isn't.  The Party doesn't accecpt or understand the concept of judicial independence, and Xi's corruption drive is IMO ultimately counter-productive, treating the symptom rather the causes.  Any anti-corruption effort in a one-party state without an autonomous civil service ultimately will reduce to factional score-settling.  The victims may be truly guilty, but the prosecution is selective which undermines the point.

[Jacob]

I don't know if the rhetoric is even there on the rule of law. I seem to recall "the rule of law" being put on the black list a few years back, as it was apparently used as a disguise for anti-government activities and troublemaking.

[The Minsky Moment]

There have been huge changes in Chinese society in the past few decades, not only in terms of economic development but in governance as well.  Of course, they still have a long way to go, but they've made progress.  It will be interesting to see if they can continue to improve government accountability without adopting representative government of some form.

All true.
It's also true that for the last 35 years you would have lost a lot of money betting against the Party.
But developmentally it seems PRC is getting close to hitting the Roh line (or whatever you want to call it).  The ability to improvise and adapt has been extremely impressive but perhaps too much so - having grown so far so quickly, the PRC may have economically outpaced the groth of its institutional capacity for further development - time is short and they are running out of runway.

[The Minsky Moment]

Malthus been saying the Chinese is about to fall for the last 10 years.

Wrong Jewish lawyer.
I gave a 50-50 on a financial collapse around the time of the first big NPL crisis. 
Got it wrong.  Well, half wrong.

[LaCroix]

(2) republicanism is a fine way to characterize US style democracy regardless of any specific definition different groups may have for it;

Well, the actual definition is:

Republicanism is the ideology of governing a society or state as a republic (la. res publica), where the head of state is a representative of the people who hold popular sovereignty rather than the people being subjects of the head of state.

Though I have noted attempts to redefine it to mean "the way government works in the US" on occasion. Presumably because some low-information GOP types resent the "democracy-Democrats" connection, and would rather live in a place where the system of government shares a name with their party of choice.

(3) the US was founded on republican ideals

As was the People's Republic of China.

your definition is from wikipedia. you may use wikipedia's definition as your "actual definition," but i don't find it persuasive. GOP has nothing to do with this conversation.

there is a definition of republican government that fits the china or USSR model, correct. however, in common discussion at a bar, when one person says a word that technically has multiple definitions, the common definition known to both parties is applied. if you want a smoking buddy, you don't walk up to someone and ask if he wants to go out back and suck on a fag.