[js8]

I read the summary from the review and I am not convinced that neoliberal US and EU have a less extractive governance structure than China has, as the authors seem to claim. It's been a decade since the book was published and China is still going strong. We will see.

[dash2]

China has become more and more authoritarian under Xi, its GDP growth stats may be dodgy, and recently its housing bubble has popped big-style. It could go the way of Japan. I agree with your last sentence, all the same.

[zorked]

China is the #1 trading partner of nearly every country in the world. That's all you need to know about how bad they are doing.

[MichaelZuo]

How do you know this?

I don’t want to single this out but tangible proof of a net increase in ‘authoritarian’ decision making, compared to say a decade ago, has never been posted on HN, as far as I know.

Most of the in depth analysis I’ve seen suggests that although enforcement actions have become stricter over the past decade, the actual number of new laws and regulations has gone down.

And more importantly, the number of contradictory laws and regulations (between central authorities, and between the centre and provinces) has gone way way down.

So there’s much less leeway to punish on a whim or trap someone in a double bind, compared to a decade ago. Which suggests a net decrease, if anything.

[vlovich123]

It depends on if you’re talking about authoritarianism as it relates to the average person or the political and ruling class. There have been a lot of reports of Xi getting rid of a lot of potential adversaries when he announced himself ruler for life and the imprisonment of Jack Ma and stripping him of his wealth for making challenging statements against Xi seems pretty authoritarian.

[MichaelZuo]

Does it makes sense to discuss it relative to the ‘political and ruling class’?

Since they pretty much all have party cards already. And the moment they give it up means they’re kicked out from any decision making, from what I understand.

Yes internal factions within the party can arbitrarily punish each other for made up reasons all day long, every day of the year.

So in a sense it was already authoritarian without limit.

But that’s not new, nor different from any other big political party.

[vlovich123]

The kind of punishment authoritarian regimes dish out is much more severe in ways that you couldn’t do in the US (imprisonment, seizure of assets, death). In fact I’d argue it’s the only kind that matters. Authoritarian regimes rarely go after normal people unless they speak out actively against the government (which China does) and instead focus on controlling and censoring anyone in a position of power and let the implicit censoring of the entire population flow downstream from that.

[cherryteastain]

US does all the nasty crap China does. Less brazenly, but it's certainly there.

> imprisonment

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_cam...

The Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a United States military prison...As of August 2024, at least 780 persons from 48 countries have been detained at the camp since its creation, of whom 740 had been transferred elsewhere, 9 died in custody, and 30 remain; only 16 detainees have ever been charged by the U.S. with criminal offenses.

> seizure of assets

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_Unit...

In the United States, civil forfeiture (also called civil asset forfeiture or civil judicial forfeiture)[1] is a process in which law enforcement officers take assets from people who are suspected of involvement with crime or illegal activity without necessarily charging the owners with wrongdoing...To get back the seized property, owners must prove it was not involved in criminal activity.

> death

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_Un...

> go after normal people unless they speak out actively against the government

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange

[MichaelZuo]

If the party membership is revoked first, then the person wouldn’t be part of the ‘political and ruling class’ any longer.

Then they would just be a citizen who might formerly have been some bigshot, i.e. the second case.

It still doesn’t seem to make sense to discuss any increases relative to the first case, since in 2012 it was already unlimitedly authoritarian.

[inglor_cz]

The difference between oligarchy that deliberately maintains balance of power and interests between, say, dozens or hundreds of prominent players, and a one-man rule where the "courtiers" are just richer than an average citizen, but equally subjugated to the Dear Leader, is enormous.

Both Russia and China developed since 2000 from one to the other, and I wonder what the end game will be. In Russian case, the development led to re-establishment of the imperial idea and an attempt to conquer formerly held lands by force; that is something that the oligarchs wouldn't start, but a neo-Tsar absolutely did.

Communist China used to be way less externally aggressive than Russia / USSR, but I don't like the current military gestures by Xi. Not at all.

[MichaelZuo]

So the degree of authoritarian decision making felt by ‘courtiers’ within the party can vary from year to year?

I guess that is possible, but if that’s the case, wouldn’t that naturally be their goal? To concentrate power and authority in one place, or person, that they can more readily manipulate.

[feedforward]

People were saying when the PRC was founded 75 years ago it would collapse any day now. They were saying this during the cultural revolution. They were saying it earlier this year, as China sent a robot to the far side of the moon to collect moon rocks and bring them back to earth. And they're still saying it. I'm not holding my breath.

[kiba]

Just because PRC didn't collapse doesn't mean PRC perform well. On the contrary, the current strength of PRC is probably a reversion to mean, what China would be like if it wasn't so mismanaged, and yet decades late from where they could be.

States can endure a lot of mismanagement. Look at North Korea for instance. What we won't know is when we hit the breaking point.

What is happening in Russia may lead to an eventual collapse, though unlikely. There are some signs of a loss of monopoly on violence as the system is pushed to its breaking point. Hopefully that won't happen, but it's a scary possibility nonetheless.

[doctorpangloss]

There are HN posters with the ability to see hard data inside America's largest tech and manufacturing businesses, but don't investigate the question, "How much of what you buy every day was made in China?"

[jltsiren]

You have a short-term perspective. All kinds of governance structures can work for a single human lifetime, if they manage to get the right people to the right places. But those people will eventually retire and die. Good institutions make it more likely that their replacements will also be competent and have the right motivations and incentives.

PRC has enjoyed ~45 years of stability and economic growth under four leaders. Until now, the leaders have retired voluntarily, and there has been an ordered transition of power to the successor. But Xi Jinping is clinging to power in a way his predecessors didn't. If he stays beyond 2027, it will be interesting to see if China can survive his death.

[CyberRymden]

Do you actually think China has fairer courts, more open financial markets, and better business environment than the EU or US? For the longest time Hong Kong had to fill those gaps for China in order for the country to attract capital.

Regardless, even if China does today the explanation still holds considering China only transformed a few decades before the book was written.

[JetSpiegel]

I think China is a worse country to live that the US or EU, but a better business environment. China's State Capitalism is simply more efficient than the neoliberalism hellscape that came up from the Soviet Union's collapse.

I see the rest of the world becoming more similar to China than the other way around, unfortunately. The US is already a pseudo-Soviet state economically, and is on the brink of becoming a dictatorship on top of that.

[blackhawkC17]

> I see the rest of the world becoming more similar to China than the other way around, unfortunately.

I hope they enjoy the mediocrity that comes with state-dominated economies.

> The US is already a pseudo-Soviet state economically.

Maybe I'm blind, but I have no idea how someone looks at the USA and concludes this.

[JetSpiegel]

Extremely inequality that keeps increasing, political movements that try to change this are killed in the crib, a dying empire.

Just because the Central Comittee is called Blackrock, doesn't mean the American economy is not being more and more centrally planned. Free Enterprise is dying.

I mean economically, the political system is still "free" (less and less), it's not a dictatorship (yet).

[blackhawkC17]

> Just because the Central Comittee is called Blackrock, doesn't mean the American economy is not being more and more centrally planned.

Of course, you'll mention BlackRock, the never-ending boogeyman for people with little economic knowledge.

[nabla9]

Not really:

https://data.worldbank.org/share/widget?contextual=aggregate...