Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by rainygold 3037 days ago
If anything, investors will be encouraged to invest in China due to this news. Xi has been a stable leader for the country. This news simply means more of the same.
4 comments

More of the same would be keeping the term limit, this signals a regression to the worst tendencies in humanity, eroding the laws that are designed to prevent them. Even if Xi is a stable leader for the next 30 years, will the next leader to take advantage of the removal of term limits be the same?
If you want to see regression to the worst tendencies in humanity look no further than democratically elected Tony Abbott going on an ideological crusade to undo everything Julia Gillard’s government achieved. The same is playing out with Trump dismantling everything the Obama Administration accomplished.
Worry about that after 30 years then. I don't pretend i can predict what's going to happen at that time frame. Isn't AI supposed to take over everything by then?
Assuming we're talking about foreign investors. Quite simply that's going to depend on the policies, not whether Xi is in there or not.

As a party dictatorship with routinely transitioned politicians, China's government has been fairly stable in recent times. Xi clearly isn't necessary in any regard, he's trying to make himself necessary. Hu Jintao was a stable leader that oversaw one of the fastest economic expansions in world history. He also wasn't necessary, in terms of remaining perpetually in power. Xi inherited that nicely built-up economic position. It's the policies that Xi follows/implements that will determine investor confidence, just as it was for Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin (also a stable leader that didn't need to remain in power perpetually). Xi is properly replaceable like the others, insofar as he doesn't implement political changes that forcibly make him otherwise. The power move that Xi appears to be going for, is all down to his personality, rather than necessity, which is in stark contrast with the prior two Presidents.

Peaceful power transitions are great for stability.
Who of the previous leaders of China have been unstable?
I doubt they meant to imply previous leaders were unstable. Stability is good for investment, and the current government is stable. A new leader could be any of the kinds of leader that make investors look elsewhere.
I think this subthread is arguing about which is larger:

- The risk that a stable leader with increasingly unlimited power will lead to stagnation, deep corruption, or war.

- The risk that a disruptive leader emerges after Xi and is not countered in time by government mechanisms (e.g. internal elections within the party).

Historic consensus seems to be that the former is the bigger danger, which is why even the CCP previously put a limit on presidential terms.

Of course they didn't mean to, but their argument bears this implication. Hard to argue for improvement when the status quo was just as good.
How can you have stability when you're at the whims of a dictator. Having a dictator is quite different from a single-party rule that changes its leaders.

It's more about an institution vs a single man.

Yes this was the point I was trying to make. It is the status quo. That can only be good for business.
The status quo was a stable political system that is now changed for a dictatorship.
Your account is 4 days old and only comments are pro-China party comments. Hum.
Sample size = 2.
Jiang Zemin?