[margalabargala]

Not really. There are plenty of Western entities that think in centuries (e.g. the Catholic Church) and plenty of.Chinese entities that are chasing the next moment (all the companies who cut standards on product because "to them it is the same").

This is true about the instantaneous state of the governments of the US and China rather than some intrinsic permanent cultural quality.

[satvikpendem]

Yes, I meant current governments not culture itself.

[sph]

It is sad to admit it to our Western selves, but authoritarians plan across decades, democracies across electoral terms at best.

No king wants to rule over a failed state.

[rsynnott]

> but authoritarians plan across decades, democracies across electoral terms at best.

Eh. China is really the exception there, not the norm, and it's a particularly _weird_ authoritarian state. Your average authoritarian regime is pretty short-termist, and indeed they tend to self-destruct fairly quickly.

[webnrrd2k]

History is replete with destructive, stupid and failed authoritarian rulers. King John, Ferdinand VII of Spain, etc... just basic research will uncover a lifeline of reading on the topic. Check out Mao's Great Leap Forward killed millions, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Hirohito didn't work out so well, either. The list just goes on and on.

Seriously, read about the Roman emperors, or the Crusades, or, for a more modern example, how's Putin doing on setting up his country for long-term success? How's Trump doing with America?

[sph]

True and I don’t want to defend tyrants, but if we have to be fair, we have to admit history has had thousands of kings, and not everyone was mad with power. For every Caligula, there was a Marcus Aurelius. The vast majority weren’t great, nor bad, and people kept doing their thing. We only talk about the very bad ones.

My mistake was talking about authoritarians (i.e. tyrants) rather than monarchs (i.e. dynastic rule)