Is the Chinese Economy About to Fall Off a Cliff?

[Jacob]

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.

Yeah, Wikipedia reflects the actual definition. Here's Merriam-Webster:

REPUBLICAN
: of or relating to one of the two major political parties in the U.S.

: relating to or based on a form of government in which representatives are elected and there is no king or queen

REPUBLIC
: of, relating to, or having the characteristics of a republic

: a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) :  a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) :  a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

Oxford Dictionary:

REPUBLICAN
(Of a form of government, constitution, etc.) belonging to or characteristic of a republic:

REPUBLIC
A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

Nowhere does it mention a subset of democracy that happens to fit the US set-up.

there is a definition of republican government that fits the china or USSR model, correct.

That is the definition, outside of one that's apparently evolving presently in certain sections of the US.

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.

There are not "technically multiple definitions." There's the actual long-standing definition that is reflected in dictionaries and political science courses, and there is the new definition that has started showing up in certain local US contexts in the last decade or so. It may have nothing to do with the GOP, but in my observation the term is only used the way you and your Beijing friend uses it by right-leaning Americans and the people who take instruction from them.

Usually, it shows up when someone argues that a certain political process or policy is undemocratic and the counter argument is that that's not a problem, because "the US is a REPUBLIC, not a DEMOCRACY."

Of course, English definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive, so if you keep at it for a while maybe it'll become more than a localized definition.

[LaCroix]

china's form of government fits under some of those definitions but not all of them.

you claim there is one single definition, yet you cite two authorities that show there is more than one definition.

even if the oxford definition was the sole definition, there are different ways to construe that definition that in essence morphs it into several definitions. as one example, some people will construe "people" in a narrow sense, others will construe it broadly. if you believe republicanism has a single definition since its inception, then you are incorrect.

i consider myself left-leaning, and i vote for the democrat party in the US. i don't take instruction from the GOP.

[Admiral Yi]

One would think with the fracking boom North Dakota could afford some capital letters now.

[Jacob]

china's form of government fits under some of those definitions but not all of them.

you claim there is one single definition, yet you cite two authorities that show there is more than one definition.

even if the oxford definition was the sole definition, there are different ways to construe that definition that in essence morphs it into several definitions. as one example, some people will construe "people" in a narrow sense, others will construe it broadly. if you believe republicanism has a single definition since its inception, then you are incorrect.

I believe that the right-wing-talkshow-sphere definition of "republic" that posits the US as a "republic" distinct from a "democracy" is a load of hogwash. That is all.

i consider myself left-leaning, and i vote for the democrat party in the US. i don't take instruction from the GOP.

But you adopt their talking points

[Jacob]

One would think with the fracking boom North Dakota could afford some capital letters now.

They all get better jobs with the oil companies, so none are left for anyone else except at sky-high prices. Similar to the housing, in some ways.

[Maximus]

One would think with the fracking boom North Dakota could afford some capital letters now.

They need a capitol first.

[LaCroix]

I believe that the right-wing-talkshow-sphere definition of "republic" that posits the US as a "republic" distinct from a "democracy" is a load of hogwash. That is all.

But you adopt their talking points

for the sake of the argument, let's assume right-wing-talkshows do not believe the US is a democracy.

i believe the US government fits under a definition of democracy and a definition of republic. if the US wasn't a republic, the government would be in violation of the constitution.

therefore, because i disagree with right-wing-talkshows, then i cannot adopt their talking points.

[LaCroix]

One would think with the fracking boom North Dakota could afford some capital letters now.

i have to wait until next summer before i start making oil money. 

[Jacob]

US government fits under a definition of democracy and a definition of republic. if the US wasn't a republic, the government would be in violation of the constitution.

Yeah, the US is a democracy and it's a republic. No argument there.

therefore, because i disagree with right-wing-talkshows, then i cannot adopt their talking points.

Well... you could have been bamboozled, but I think this line of conversation has kind of run its course at this point.

[Monoriu]

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 rule of law is trendy now on the mainland.  This was the phrase most used in the official announcements after the conclusion of the 4th Central Committee meeting a few weeks ago.  Of course, when they say "rule of law", they really mean "we'll use legal means to rule over the population" rather than "we'll restrict our powers as written in the law".

[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 rule of law is trendy now on the mainland.  This was the phrase most used in the official announcements after the conclusion of the 4th Central Committee meeting a few weeks ago.  Of course, when they say "rule of law", they really mean "we'll use legal means to rule over the population" rather than "we'll restrict our powers as written in the law".

It's back in vogue, is it?

[Monoriu]

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.

There is some talk about "administrative reform", since political reforms are out of the question.  Things like make the courts more independent in civil cases, make it easier for the population to get government permits (it is a nightmare now). 

[Jacob]

There is some talk about "administrative reform", since political reforms are out of the question.  Things like make the courts more independent in civil cases, make it easier for the population to get government permits (it is a nightmare now).

What do you mean it's a nightmare to get government permits? It's easy enough. You just have to know the right person and pay them a suitable fee.

[Monoriu]

There is some talk about "administrative reform", since political reforms are out of the question.  Things like make the courts more independent in civil cases, make it easier for the population to get government permits (it is a nightmare now).

What do you mean it's a nightmare to get government permits? It's easy enough. You just have to know the right person and pay them a suitable fee.

I remember a few months back, a representative in the People's Congress made a chart about the kinds of permits that a normal person would need to get in the course of his life, and the names of the government departments involved.  You need a permit for everything including having a baby, buying a house, moving to another place etc and each permit requires multiple approvals from different bureaucracies.  That chart is like a huge banner and it made an impression. 

[jimmy olsen]

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?

The Constitution specifically requires the states to have Republican forms of government.