[baursak]

Half of Chinese economy are state-owned enterprises, and it's been even more so earlier. Mainstream assumption is that liberalization of the rest of their economy was the main factor in phenomenal Chinese growth over the past decades, but there's an argument to be made that maybe it was a mix of central planning of key sectors and liberalization of non-key sectors. In either case, when compared to neoliberal Reagan-Thatcher policies in the US and elsewhere, Chinese approach of long-term planning beyond the next quarterly earnings report seems like a better bet so far.

[taurath]

We run all of our companies like China runs its economy. It’s funny to realize sometimes how dogmatic we are about this or that type of government being objectively best. Democratic republics have become failed states too. Sometimes I admire their ability to actually get shit done (transit systems etc).

Of course, if I were a dissident I’d rather be in the US.

[vidarh]

If you look at GDP per capita growth be it China or other places, the striking thing is that stability seems to matter more than almost any level of policy differences.

E.g. you can see China's growth skyrocketing after the end of their semi-regular ideological purges, but Deng's large-scale reforms seems to not have affected the rate of growth much.

Presumably when a regime remains stable, people learn to work around even quite severe constraints given enough time.

That of course does not mean that reforms may not be helpful in making life better for people (or worse), but that they may mean less in terms of overall economic growth than avoiding rapid change.