[saulrh]

China is socially repressive and an environmental catastrophe in progress, but it's also one of the fastest-advancing nations in the world. Chinese citizens were starving to death en masse as recently as the 70's. The fact that they've pulled themselves out of that kind of industrial slump is amazing.

Wikipedia says that Singapore is the best trade center in Asia and one of the best in the world. It also has the best credit and the best markets. Socially, it's a bit repressive, but it is apparently doing very well economically.

Of course, without much data the argument is useless. It would be interesting to see a pile of charts comparing scientists and engineers in politics to economic success; with only three or four data points it's a a toss-up.

[smsm42]

One thing to consider here is that it may be fast advancing because it is advancing from such a low positions. With more than a billion people, Chinese economic potential is enormous, far exceeding any other country. The fact that the have almost the same GDP as Japan while having more than 10 times more population and huge natural resources can be explained only by broken political and economic system. It is slowly moving out towards being somewhat less broken, but one would be deeply mistaken taking this as a sign that one should take it as an example to follow in its current state.

[trb]

What I tried to say (and perhaps didn't) was scientists won't necessarily be good for a country, not that they'd be bad.

The german minister of justice, Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, did a lot of good for the german internet. Her decisions were very rational and fact-based, yet she holds a law degree.

There just are too many good politicians without science degrees for the sweeping generalisation "scientists are good and lawyers bad".