Long-winded, as anyone familiar with the New Yorker would expect. But still very good.
Whatever its other weaknesses, China has the enormous advantage that the people really in power are focused on raising China to global dominance. Vs. those really in power in America are, at best, worried about their personal status and wealth at the end of the next fiscal quarter.
What you said about "next fiscal quarter" is exactly right, and goes along with us (in the US) only thinking politically in 4 year cycles... which means on average we are thinking only 2 years ahead.
China is the master of the long-game. It's shortest cycles are 5 year tactical plans. Their strategic plans go far beyond.
I don't know what the solution is in the US (and West in general) to be able to think 25+ years ahead, as no material incentive would do the job; only cultural/society/civilizational goals make someone think that far ahead (religion does too).
If the US can't think that far ahead for the same reasons as China, maybe we need to find things we care about long term and tie economic development to that (family, religion, and even our potential extreme longevity).
> I don't know what the solution is in the US (and West in general) to be able to think 25+ years ahead, as no material incentive would do the job
Eliminate share buybacks. Raise the top tax bracket to 95% on earnings over $10m. Executive shares cannot be exercised until retirement if you really want to get aggressive.
The nuclear option would be stocks cannot be used as collateral for loans, it would shore up 90% of the nonsense overnight and have 0 negative impact on 99.99% of the general public.
I think having wealth tax would make rich push money to innovations and production more aggressively.
Why would the elites ever agree to that?
It's already too easy for those in power to control popular opinion, and only getting easier, so you're not going to get mass protests or revolutions that upset the status quo.
How would raising the taxes force people to think 25 years ahead?
If I can reinvest my profits to grow my business or pay most of it out in taxes I’m probably reinvesting it if there’s a long term gain to be had.
Unlike trickle down economics, it’s not just a failed theory. It’s something we’ve seen in action and it works as expected.
Taxing profits incentivizes reinvestment over reaping.
This was the role of those "unelected bureaucrats" in the US that some folks decry.
It is far shorter than a fiscal quarter - the next market open is all that matters.
with the president trying to sell early access to his market moving "truths"
> and goes along with us (in the US) only thinking politically in 4 year cycles
One of the two parties spends most of their intellectual capital on acquiring and maintaining power. The other party spends theirs on policies which they rarely have power to enact.
> ...only cultural/society/civilizational goals make someone think that far ahead ...
Not saying I was paying close attention to America from 1850 to 1950, but a variety of cultural and social factors - especially less hyper-individualism, and people's futures being far more closely tied to the success of their families, neighborhoods, towns, etc. - lead to very priorities.
The Chinese leadership realized one doesn't exclude the other.
Also, a leadership that is so enormously autocratic simply has to juggle fewer balls at the same time.
> ...one doesn't exclude...
Yes, but I don't see that realization as noteworthy. Does history record a nation which never found its own advancement hobbled by the scheming of its petty local officials?
> ...has to juggle fewer balls...
When things aren't going so well, trying to stay in power adds more balls (to juggle) than being an autocracy takes away. And "things aren't going so well" usually indicates that less-competent autocrats are in power - meaning that they are less able to juggle any number of balls.
The Chinese desire to raise China to global dominance is exactly a concern w/ status and wealth. It's naive to think that America and China are any different in the degree to which leadership is driven by these concerns. One simply hopes that the facts-on-the-ground (i.e. geography) structures this pursuit in such a way to provide peace and prosperity to normal people.
America, for a time, made appeals to things beyond power and status when it talked about "freedom". Nowadays this has been debased to just mean the freedom to attain power and status. Americans are deeply resentful about this, and their thinking will remain incoherent until they move past this.
China never made appeals beyond power and status. Communism essentially claiming that power and status are all that exist, and that peace is produced by removing the ability for specific people to asymetrically amass it, which is equally incoherent as the Americans just on a different time-scale.
Because of better middle-term planning, China is in the better position to amass status and wealth. But this is not all because they are somehow less concerned with status and wealth.
Both powers have near zero long-term planning, because anyone with an iota of wisdom knows that status and wealth are fleeting.
China had an enermous corruption problem, what are you talking about? Xi has been on an anti-corruption campagin since 2012 and they are just getting rid of top leaders like just last month. And I am sure his "anti-corruption" campaign is totally not ignoring some aspects.
While Trump might be an outlier in how obvious the grift is, that doesn't make China suddenly the good guys who only care about their country or the people when they are not busy bulldozing them into drains like they did in 1995.
1995 was a different leader in a different time. Let us not forget at one point, America forced walked people on The Trail of Tears. American Amnesia is very potent and powerful, we easily forget about last week, year, century
When did we go from bad guy to good guy?
Yes, let us not forget The Trail of Tears which happened two hundred years ago.
> China increasingly says to autocrats, Would you like to stay in power? I can help you with that.
> This is one of the safest places in the world, if you’re not a dissident
> In March, authorities abruptly barred the two founders of an A.I. startup called Manus from leaving the country.
Did you even read the article?
> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that".
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
True, that's the site standards.
I notice that you didn't answer any of his actual points, though...
It's best not to go back and forth with someone like that. They did not answer my only question in their pass-by commentary, so I feel no need to respond to the quotes they pulled from the article (not their points), on top of the better path of disengaging after rule breaking.