[meekaaku]

Do these people really have no clue?

China is just undergoing its own Industrial Revolution which the western world already participated in. They Chinese Industrial Revolution was sparked in the rural village of Xiaogang. The local farmers were fed up with the communist control, lack of freedom, enforced collectivism, stringent quotas and all. A group of 18 farmers (illegaly) divided their communal farm and went into competition. They outperformed the allocated quota by a large margin. Even the communist government could not ignore the results of this capitalistic experiment. Then they slowly allowed this freedom across the country. Engineers were running the country back then in the communist era too. Soon China opened up to foreign investments in their special economic zones, that enabled technology transfer.

You see, this is the natural result of private property and freedom. People will trade/exchange/compete resulting in better outcomes for all. This is the same thing that happened in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Europe/America and pretty much all developed countries.

CCP has largely adopted capitalism in the economic sector. It still controls other freedoms, mainly speech, press etc.

America is drowning in unnecessary regulations/taxes/red tape. America and Europe did move fast when it was young, just like China is doing in its young phase of this industrial revolution.

I am no American or Chinese. Just an independent observer from a third world country.

[cedws]

I can’t remember where I heard this from but I once heard that the ideal political system isn’t democracy, it’s a benevolent autocracy. While the CCP may have some corruption, I do get the impression that it is mostly benevolent and serves China’s best interests. Relative to autocracy, democracy is slow and pulls in different directions due to party politics and elections. I went to a museum in Hong Kong recently. It had a very obvious Chinese bias, but it clarified some things for me about how China sees itself. The CCP sees social cohesion as critical to the security of the state. If we look at Western countries like the US and UK, social cohesion is weakening, we’re extremely divided and addicted to bickering amongst ourselves.

Take the Charlie Kirk murder as a recent example which has sparked heated infighting between the left and right in the US. You’re all part of the same country but you pull in completely different directions and hate each other. Driving wedges like this is a tool adversaries can use to dismantle democracy.

[pjc50]

The question is always how much violence is required to suppress dissent. Especially given the recent history of Hong Kong.

Some influencer called Matt Forney was calling for a ban on the Democrat party in the wake of the Charlie Kirk murder. I can see how a one-party state might be achieved with popular support in the US.

[legacynl]

> I can’t remember where I heard this from but I once heard that the ideal political system isn’t democracy, it’s a benevolent autocracy.

I don't think this is true. An autocracy is like a super weapon. Even if the power was held by a 'benevolent' group/individual, there's no guarantee that they will keep being 'benevolent', or that someone else doesn't take over, either diplomatically or by coup.

Democracy isn't perfect, but it does protect against autocrats taking your rights away, and you having no way of defending yourself.

[meekaaku]

Most people think democracy is necessary for economic development. Taiwan/Singapore/South Korea, were pretty much authoritarian yet developed economically immensely. Democratization came much later.

Well the idea was, adoption of capitalism and economic freedom will eventually lead to political freedom. It did happen that way in many countries, but China is still yet to happen.

[crazybonkersai]

The thing is that you almost need strong authoritarian control to transition society from agrarian to industrial state. You don't achieve that with globalization and open markets, but instead you nurture and develop your industry (which of course developed democratic countries find uncompetitive and undemocratic). Once you get your industry going, you can start opening up both markets and society.

[TheCoelacanth]

I don't think that's at all accurate. Most of the early countries to make that transition had relatively high levels of economic freedom.

[legacynl]

You forget that it was ultimately the people themselves that made those countries have political freedom because they wanted it themselves right.

People knew what autocratic government was like, and couldn't get rid of it soon enough.

If any of you are playing with the idea that autocracy might actually be good for a country; do this thought experiment: instead of thinking your favorite group would wield that power, what if your least favorite group would have that power? Wouldn't you be thankful for the protections that the law gives you in that situation? Taking away the protections of people, means that there's nothing you can do when you get targeted. And in an autocratic society that's just up to a single opinion which you don't control.

[belter]

> America is drowning in unnecessary regulations/taxes/red tape.

You must be joking...

- Unlike most OECD countries, the U.S. lets employers fire workers without “just cause” or severance.

- The U.S. is the only OECD country with no national paid parental leave mandate.

- There is no federal privacy law or something like GDPR

- No nationwide rules or regulations on Payday lending caps with interest often >450% APR

- Fines for U.S. workplace safety penalties are flat and modest

- TSCA lets many chemical substances stay on the market, while for example in the EU, the REACH program requires precautionary testing and registration.

- U.S. oil & gas flaring rules are a joke

[yostrovs]

Just because some regulations that you would like to exist, but don't, doesn't mean there aren't regulations that exist, but shouldn't. I'm most US states you need a license to cut hair. I'm summer states you need a license to braid hair. These licenses are actually expensive and hard to obtain, keeping a lot of talented people from actually working in the field. I bet in China you can just cut someone's hair.

[legacynl]

On the other hand, just because you can point to some regulations that exist, but you rather wouldn't, doesn't mean that regulation in itself is bad.

99% of cases, we started out without regulation, but then something bad happens what made us create the regulation.

In china everybody might be able to cut hair, but also anybody is able to drill water wells, and cause massive sinkholes and subsidence all across china. In china you can pollute all you want, and the citizens just have to deal with warnings about toxic air outside on the weather forecast.

Also I'm sure that if you were to ask an actual barber about that licensing they would be able to tell you plenty of good reasons for why that exists. It's not entirely impossible for a barber to screw up somebody's scalp when bleaching their hair for example.

[thworp]

The situation in China is actually even worse. There are environmental regulations, but enforcement is easily evaded through bribes or CCP connections. Every so often there is a disaster that forces the government to start a much-publicized campaign. A few of the worst or least connected offenders get punished and then it's back to business as usual.

So really, if you're just anybody and start polluting, you'll quickly be stopped. Meanwhile the state-owned steel mill next door has been blasting out unfiltered coal exhaust for decades.

[munksbeer]

It is very difficult for us in the West to actually know truth from fiction when it comes to China.

I don't mean offence, but how would the average person (me) in the West know if what you wrote above is true or not?

[thworp]

Look for a broad-strokes summary of environmental laws in China [0]. Note the following paragraph:

> The standards detailed in the action plan focus on several harmful substances, including particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Each of these pollutants has defined permissible levels, which are critical in guiding both regulatory authorities and industries in their compliance efforts. Over the years, the Chinese government has intensified its efforts to monitor real-time air quality and ensure adherence to these standards

Now try to reconcile this with the actual air quality [1] [2]. Note that September is far from the peak, when it gets cold and dark the air quality in many megacities becomes off-the-charts toxic.

This leaves two possibilities: either the state is too weak or too corrupt to enforce these laws. Since the PRC is far from weak and its organs are very powerful, this only leaves one possibility.

[0]: https://generisonline.com/an-overview-of-pollution-control-a...

[1]: https://aqicn.org/map/china/

[2]: https://www.windy.com/-Air-quality-index-aqi?cams,aqi,40.255...

[yostrovs]

I ask every new barber I use why the regulation. The answer is the same every time: "You don't want your ear cut off by accident". But I know why the regulation exists: it's to protect existing barbers from unlicensed competition.

[legacynl]

> But I know why the regulation exists: it's to protect existing barbers from unlicensed competition.

Ah okay, so you ask them why, and if they don't give an answer you agree with, you conclude that you're right anyway and they secretly have an ulterior motive? What kind of answer would be able to change your mind?

[yostrovs]

The barbers I talk to weren't the ones who wrote the regulation. I'm just curious about their personal opinion.

[legacynl]

> drowning in unnecessary regulations/taxes/red tape

I think that's wrong and it's biasing your interpretation of what is happening. First of all I don't think they are 'drowning', business and projects get started every day in Europe/America, and obviously there's great prosperity being created. Secondly, I don't agree they're unnecessary.

It's like saying that someone remodeling the first floor of a large apartment building, can move faster by just knocking down walls instead of first hiring a building inspector to identify the load-bearing walls.

Of course if you're an autocratic country that doesn't care about anything else than the currently stated party position, you can do things that are impossible in other places. But they're obviously going to run into problems doing this. And some kind of problems aren't of the kind that you can fix afterwards by a policy-change.

It's like the story of the tortoise and the hare. Careful consideration might slow you down at first, but it will end up saving much more time by not having to fix mistake as well as redo it better.

[epolanski]

> America is drowning in unnecessary regulations/taxes/red tape

Which regulations are unnecessary?

Those that make it more difficult to hire foreigners?

Those that put requirements on energy providers to invest in excess capacity so you don't end up in blackouts every time the grids are stressed?

Those that prevent companies from collecting minor data online?

Those that force major websites and devices to serve people with disabilities?

Or the national standards for healthcare data privacy?

I could go on and on, but every time people complain about regulations, they seem to be coming from a place where they don't realize that regulations have a purpose in general, they ain't there for the lulz.

Sure, there's always things to look at and review, that's the nature of progress, but to say that companies are drowning in regulations, what are those regulations?

Are you sure we can't find plenty of examples that would require more?

[pjc50]

I'm very sympathetic to this point - regulations are usually there for a reason, and it's important to know what it is - but there's always a grey area between genuine public need and regulatory capture by special interests, which the incredibly dysfunctional nature of US politics hides.

The big ones are probably zoning and protectionist car regulations.

(Note that having a one party state makes a lot of the problems of partisanship go away. However, the problems of "working towards the leader" and the tendency to hide unfavorable news leading to poor decisions are still there. The tradeoff that China has is that, so long as high levels of growth can be delivered, political unrest can be contained, or dealt with by blaming "corrupt local officials" who can then be "dealt with".)

[epolanski]

Yes, in China the government comes, takes your land, pays you pennies, and builds a railroad on it.

Yes, in China there's less regulations when building nuclear plants, that makes it easier to do so there. Where would you rather live, close to a Chinese or an American one knowing the second had to nail 10 times more rules and inspections?

[meekaaku]

Some are necessary and some are not, or can be streamlined. In the context of the article, where it discuses China can develop things fast while America cannot, lets take California highspeed rail. - The Buy America law hinders supply choice - Crash test standards are much higher than Europe - Lot of consultation/assessment and pretty much any lobby group could block the construction - Sue friendly environment, so makes things costly.

[dotnet00]

America is not drowning in unnecessary regulations, it's just struggling to accept that the rest of the world is recovering from the various atrocities of the past few hundred years, from which America remained relatively isolated due to its several lucky circumstances.

[maxglute]

>independent observer from a third world country.

Have you ever lived in China or the west to see the systems work? What makes your observation worthwhile?

>clue

If it was so easy most developing countries more free, i.e. less politically controlled would be replicating PRC. But they're mostly not. Overwhelmingly not. What happens in most places is wealth/elite capture process grab most of the gains, which is typically meagre to begin with (i.e. not enough to lift out of low/middle income level), because most places don't have leadership in place to attract FDI to get that ToT to move past middle income. PRC didn't just "get" that all that because a commune did well and go lol free market, they playedout/engineered an entire Sino-Soviet breakup and slap Vietnam to invite US to the party after USSR (who was also tech power at the time) was stingy with ToT (due to other dram). Then it's meticulous process of state manipulating politics / organizing infra construction and JVs to get what's theirs.

THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS WITH ALL MODERN DEVELOPED SUCCESSES, i.e. asian tigers, they get on the good side of the rich hegemon + some competent execution. Even petro / resource state, muh free market isn't enough. Need to badwagon with someone who can offer ToT. Conversely all the resources in the worlds (IR, VZ) doesn't matter if you're sanctioned by the hegemon and prevented from muh free market activities if you can't even buy the tech stack to extract, or if you did can't see in the common market.

> pretty much all developed countries

Essentially all old stock developed countries developed from excess extraction from colonialisms/slavery. It wasn't freedom, it was some form of market + imperial industrial policy. Bluntly it was simply taking a shit load from others from barrel of the gun to accumulate riches that snowballed growth. Loot a bunch of people and use the gains to buy yourself nice things, put your kids and grand kids+ through school, and 200 years later they think it was because of the market.

PRC moving FAST without that stupid levels of external extraction or basically direct subsidies from US (most of the other tigers, or newly minted wealthy petro states essentially all US satraps) is wholly different scenario. It's actual state-building and domestic mobilization (bluntly: extracting domestic labour) maybe not explicitly by engineers, but by career bureaucrats under an incentive structure where their career path is tied to building national power. PRC also unique outlier in that they are large enough to resist US containment now that US decided to breakup and contain. Big enough to now be 2nd bandwagon option since PRC has enough tech stack to replace US in most categories.

Contrast to now shitholes like Iran and Venezuela, was doing well when band wagoning with US, then broke up, and US acrimonious in breakup, so they get less than nothing for spurning US in the first place. It wasn't because they somehow got more authoritarian / corrupt - scraps of pie usually enough in sufficiently rich countries, it wasn't because they can't free market inside country either, it's because they lost access to global market ran by US, which is fundamentally not a free market but a pay to access market, i.e. postwar PRC/CCP couldn't even pay to modernize postwar due to sanctions. Hence they turn into basket cases when that access is lost, because there's isn't a magic domestic configurable, free market or not that can make up for enforced isolation due to loss of global access.