Hacker News Reader

> I think we're at one of the most important points in time. USA & China, under two diametrically different systems have been able to grow extremely large economically - that means more data points to understand how to modernize other parts of the world.

It seems to me that China is following the framework that the US has set to become a superpower.

Politics: When the US was developing, only rich, educated white men could vote. In China right now, only those who are eligible to join the CCP can be involved in politics.

Slavery: While China doesn't have de facto slavery, their province/city registration system places migrants in extremely disadvantaged positions. As for the US, well, I'm sure we all know.

Protectionism & IP Theft: During the Industrial Revolution, the US was extremely active in stealing tech from Europe. And only when the US started to develop their own tech, did they start caring about intellectual property. This is also the case in Japan and South Korea, so I can see China following this path as well.

Other issues, like eminent domain, limitations on free speech, and violating the rights of individuals as long as it's in the national interest are things that a developing superpower does.

It was only after the US became a superpower, that we start to see a really big difference in the behavior of both nations.

Though I do agree that the rhetoric of both nations was vastly different from the start. The US always espoused American values, even if those privileges only applied to a subset of people. While China keeps on emphasizing a harmonious society, they really mean that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

Personally, I'd like to see the US match China's $1T pledge to the estimated $20-30T total for all infrastructure projects proposed under the Belt and Road Initiative. We often heard during the election about the outcomes if we elected a master "deal-maker" to the oval office. And BRI is "The Great Game" of the 21st Century. With the Trump-Xi relationship being perhaps the most crucial in the world today.

No doubt it is politically, economically and militarily an unpopular notion in the current climate that seeks a tougher stance on China policy. Steve Bannon, in particular, explicitly views American policy of the last 60 years as creating a "tributary state" to the PRC here in the USA.

But an intense negotiation. With lots of concessions for American enterprises in energy, aerospace, engineering, telcom, and transportation across the Silk Road region. And even partial funding coming directly from China's dollar reserves. This could end up being the "Deal of the Century" ;)

The problem I see is that politics in America has essentially devolved into merely 'entertainment' and not rooted in economic reality - so even if they wanted to, it is hard to make your proposal to the American public, especially with 'America first'. With respect to the Bannon comment, America has unequivocally benefited economically with China; it is merely how America has chosen to distribute the wealth that was the problem. [1],[2] How America chooses to distribute it's wealth has nothing to do with China.

> Although increasing trade with China might have contributed to the decline in demand for production workers, it clearly wasn't the primary force behind the trend. [3]

It is merely politically convenient to exclaim "China" when talking to the public like during the Zambian elections with Sata. "Michael Sata called Chinese “infesters” rather than “investors,” threatened to kick out Chinese workers, and pledged to implement foreign exchange controls that would prevent Chinese firms from repatriating their profits [...] One month later, Sata told the Chinese ambassador to Zambia and a group of Chinese businessmen, "My dear sisters and brothers from China, you are very welcomed in Zambia because we are all-weather friends." During a one-week visit to China in April 2013, Sata signed several investment agreements and requested that Chinese companies invest in railways, agriculture, and mining. On his return, he proudly announced to residents of a rural district that Chinese companies would develop Zambian wetlands for rice production." [4]

Same with American politics, we just shot nebulous words and concepts like, "Freedom", "democracy", etc. without understanding the underlying implications. The press highlights the any negative news about China, but how often do you hear things like this from American leadership in the mainstream media:

> “I want everybody playing in Africa,” President Obama stated during a press conference in South Africa in late June 2013. “The more, the merrier. I think that’s good. . . . It gives Africans leverage” to ensure that such economic interactions are “good for Africa.” [4] (pg. 106)

[1] https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2017/may/impact-ch... [2] https://piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/payoff-america-g... [3] https://piie.com/commentary/op-eds/us-needs-invest-minds-not... [4] http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR521.html

> politics in America has essentially devolved into merely 'entertainment'

I take it you have not read H.L.Mencken's reporting on party conventions in the 1920s. I was a bit incredulous of delegations cheering speeches by marching around the aisles for ten or twenty minutes, but I suppose there was no point in misreporting that ...

No good link in a quick search, but perhaps starting from here: https://www.dclibrary.org/node/32107

Edit: There's a sample down from the page heading "416 A Mencken Chrestomathy" in https://biblio.wiki/wiki/A_Mencken_Chrestomathy . Other books had much fuller accounts of several conventions he reported on.

Great link, thank you very much. I didn't even realize such things that are in the text were publicly written then.

> To be a modern country, it is hypothesized that the developing country needs immediately adopt American systems, laws, behavior & structures (the Washington consensus, etc.).

Rather than immediately following american "style", it is conjectured that you need to be given america's blessing and be allowed in our international world order.

> China: China is the egg, because they view modernization more or less independent (i.e., democracy is not a necessary).

Britain, Japan, Germany, France, etc all modernized when they weren't a democracy. If we are talking post ww2, south korea, taiwan, singapore, etc all modernized while they weren't real democracies.

You could be a dictatorship and still be part of the american world order - saudi arabia, kuwait, SK/taiwan for most of their history.

> that means more data points to understand how to modernize other parts of the world.

Modernization doesn't require data points. It's simply a political choice. As long as a major power isn't actively preventing you from modernizing, any country can modernize. It's simply a matter of political stability and investing in education and industry.

What makes china unique is that they are building institutions outside of the US world order ( AIIB, RCEP, BRICS, SCO and of course the belt and road initiative ).

https://www.brookings.edu/research/chinas-emerging-instituti...

But world order doesn't necessarily have anything to do with modernization.

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. The US can be a bit too extreme is their demands to adopt US-style system, but the US system isn't perfect by any means. But I do agree that democratic freedoms are important for the sustainable development of a country. Free press in particular. But selling out your internal market to foreign multinationals seems to be a terrible idea.

I've long felt that the EU should have been doing something similar: instead of barriers around the EU market, they should have offered free trade with any developing country, as long as they follow certain basic values like free press, human rights, and at least some degree of democracy. Economic development in exchange for European values. If handled right, I think that could have done a lot of good in the world. Now China seems to beat us to it.

I'm not sure who's hypothesizing that a modern country has to emulate the US. That's a kind of cold war point of view.

Many modern countries these days don't adopt the American system, but are striving towards being modern, pluralist democracies with functioning social systems, good governance, and sane judicial systems.

> I'm not sure who's hypothesizing that a modern country has to emulate the US.

I'm just going to focus on one element due to space; one of the core pillars of American economic thinking is the idea of free markets. Through bilateral relationships or organizations like the IMF, etc., developing nations are given a road-map of how to modernize. It may not have to be a carbon copy of America (and that was not my point), but there is certainly an element of shaping developing countries to accept American ideals. However, have you ever noticed that no country has ever modernized through free markets, it always required a lot of protectionism. [1], [2]

Free-markets is a big topic that the American government likes to complain about with regards to China. Ironically, Americans seem to think protectionism doesn't exist in America. "For example, from 2008 to 2016, the US implemented over 1,000 discriminatory trade policy measures, followed by India and Russia, with both implementing nearly 600 similar policies each. Trade-impeding measures have also increased at a much faster pace than measures to liberalize trade." [3], [4], [5]. A little hypocritical if you ask me.

> Many modern countries these days don't adopt the American system, but are striving towards being modern, pluralist democracies with functioning social systems, good governance, and sane judicial systems.

I'll assume you are contrasting with China, so I'll go point by point

* Modern: Just to reiterate, my previous spiel was that China views modernization as independent to other society structures. Their experience has proven that to be the case. Without a doubt, cities like Shenzhen are modern.

* Pluralist democracies with functioning social systems, good governance: Ultimately, the purpose of a democracy is to get the voices of citizens heard. Note that surveys show almost 90% of citizens in China are satisfied with their government while in the West, we are perpetually annoyed at them. Democracy is not a panacea for stability, success, etc.

* Sane judicial systems: That depends how you view it. In America, look at the amount of people locked up for minor drug crimes. I call that insane. In China, the law is more flexible and based on circumstances. "Despite the tough laws, authorities have usually turned a blind eye to farmers growing their own low-THC varieties because they were an important source of income for some farmers." [6] It's also important to note westerners and easterners look at the concept of Law very differently. "Easterners and Westerners have fundamentally different understandings of the nature of contracts. In the West, a contract is unalterable; in the East a contract is continually renegotiable in the light of changed circumstances (Hampden-Turner & Trompenaars, 1993). This drastic difference of view has often resulted in conflict and bitterness between Eastern and Western negotiators." [7]

[1] PDF Warning: http://ecdpm.org/wp-content/uploads/PMR-15-Politique-Develop... (pg 38 and in French)

[2] "...free market approaches have not proven to be 'very effective' in helping countries achieve this." http://www.oliverwyman.com/our-expertise/insights/2017/oct/e...

[3] http://www.oliverwyman.com/our-expertise/insights/2017/oct/e...

[4] Is China the Most Protectionist Country? No, Not By a Long Shot https://piie.com/blogs/china-economic-watch/china-most-prote...

[5] http://www.eulerhermes.com/economic-research/blog/AllInfogra...

[6] http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2108347/green...

[7] Richard Nisbett, Kaiping Peng, Incheol Choi, Ara Norenzayan - 2001 - Culture and Systems of Thought: Holistic vs. Analytic Cognition

> However, have you ever noticed that no country has ever modernized through free markets, it always required a lot of protectionism.

I think attributing this to protectionism is not really helpful. There are many protectionist states (or states with a "strong industrial policy") that don't develop at all economically.

The examples of Europe before the early 20th Century and Far Asia in the late 20th century are certainly prominent but what about the other protectionist countries during that time or today?

You can find the "most protectionist" (by some measure) countries here:

http://www.heritage.org/index/explore (Click on "Trade Freedom" and then check the top vs bottom of the list)

So we have examples and counter examples, not a strong case in favor of protectionism IMO.

he still has a valid point - no country has ever modernized through free markets. he never argued that protectionism is the key to success.

in fact, after WWII, not any country modernised itself after becoming a democracy. South Korea was in a military dictatorship, Singapore is run by a single family.

>> Many modern countries these days don't adopt the American system, but are striving towards being modern, pluralist democracies with functioning social systems, good governance, and sane judicial systems.

> I'll assume you are contrasting with China, so I'll go point by point

No, I'm saying the US is not a pluralist democracy with good governance etc. Obviously, China isn't either. If you're trying to find a modern democracy, look at some EU countries, to a lesser extend Canada, maybe New Zealand, Australia. I think those countries are becoming a guide on what to emulate, while the US is becoming more and more dysfunctional.

>I'm not sure who's hypothesizing that a modern country has to emulate the US. That's a kind of cold war point of view.

It's also the de facto point of view of western countries, and the yardstick by which they judge other countries.

(Including various "NGOs" and "world organizations" that measure the world with the same yardstick and are influenced by the same ideologies and even follow the same political goals).

You're just repeating the point by the GP. So I'll simply repeat my point: the US is becoming so dysfunctional that it cannot be called a modern democracy. You have to look to other countries, who are becoming the guide.

If the US is the yard-stick for good governance, then we're all in big trouble.