[1]: https://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2014/02/growth-an...
[2]: https://www.ft.com/content/8b5ae298-a065-11e2-a6e1-00144feab...
[3]: http://www.moneyobserver.com/opinion/gdp-makes-stocks-grow-f...
[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-corruption_campaign_under...
Even In the longer ter, individual investors may well personally do very well (be on the good side of the supreme ruler and the possibilities are very good).
- The risk that a stable leader with increasingly unlimited power will lead to stagnation, deep corruption, or war.
- The risk that a disruptive leader emerges after Xi and is not countered in time by government mechanisms (e.g. internal elections within the party).
Historic consensus seems to be that the former is the bigger danger, which is why even the CCP previously put a limit on presidential terms.
It's more about an institution vs a single man.
As a party dictatorship with routinely transitioned politicians, China's government has been fairly stable in recent times. Xi clearly isn't necessary in any regard, he's trying to make himself necessary. Hu Jintao was a stable leader that oversaw one of the fastest economic expansions in world history. He also wasn't necessary, in terms of remaining perpetually in power. Xi inherited that nicely built-up economic position. It's the policies that Xi follows/implements that will determine investor confidence, just as it was for Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin (also a stable leader that didn't need to remain in power perpetually). Xi is properly replaceable like the others, insofar as he doesn't implement political changes that forcibly make him otherwise. The power move that Xi appears to be going for, is all down to his personality, rather than necessity, which is in stark contrast with the prior two Presidents.
But then, he's 64, he has another 5 legit years, so he'll be 69 when his 2 terms end. He might not have that much time. But who knows...
The Chinese communist obviously don't have a democratic mandate. But I think it would be a mistake to think that they don't have widespread popular support.
The problem with the CCP is that there is no real feedback loop. Their support is very fragile, and it would just take one recession to break it (they have no "lets throw the turkey's out" pressure valve).
My guess is that CCP is going to be popular and safe at the realm as long as growth is strong (so maybe we agree there).
People in China can only express their discontent by rioting (which happens in China, a lot). They have no other real way of communicating with officials, they can't even make sneaky jokes on the internet anymore to express their dissatisfaction. That alone is a very dangerous situation.
The point is, no matter how great Hu is as an individual the danger is that granting him perpetual unquestioned power creates a precedent for a future monster to gain a similar lock on power. In a democracy, the voters can depose a monster peacefully. In the cureent Chinese system a monster would only get 2 terms. So the question is, are you prepared to accept Hu getting power to life, at the risk of a future person to get it being a Mugabe, or Gaddafi, or Amin?
In a system with very few constraints on absolute power, is it really prudent in the long term to remove all of the remaining ones? Finally, how much can you trust the judgement of someone willing to impose that risk on his country for his own benefit?
Japan-
Shinzo Abe: 2012-current
Singapore-
Halimah Yacob: 2017-current
Lee Hsien Loong: 2004-current
South Korea-
Moon Jae-in: 2017-current
Lee Nak-yeon: 2017-current
Taiwan
Tsai_Ing-wen: 2016-current
Alternatively (with apologies for playing a bit fast and loose in terms of President/Prime Minister/Secretary - political systems come in many shapes and sizes) and note that in some of these political party doesn't make much sense - when a military strongman stages a coup and holds power for a decade and a half, is there really a ruling political party?
Japan-
Liberal Democratic Party: 1955-1993, 1994-2009, 2012 to present
Singapore-
People's Action Party: 1959 to present
Lee Kuan Yew: 1959 to 1990
Goh Chok Tong: 1990 to 2004
South Korea-
Syngman Rhee: 1948 to 1960 (interestingly, exempted himself from an eight-year limit in 1954)
Park Chung-hee: 1963 to 1979 (took power in military coup, assassinated)
Taiwan-
Chiang Kai-shek: 1950 to 1975
Kuomintang Party: 1950 to 1996, had the advantage of being a single-party state until roughly late eighties
Obviously, no: the headline is significant; east asian governments are subject to policy change and reform even within a single party rule; and this is a canard. There is a difference between indefinite rule by an abstract "party" and indefinite rule by an actual person. And China is crossing that gap.
Why - will such a civil war spill beyond China's borders?
An invasion of Taiwan would likely garner a similar response. Heightened tensions, international sanctions that don’t seem to do much, and yes, increased military presence in nearby allies. Outright war would be costly and endless and frankly unwinnable.
> Outright war would be costly and endless and frankly unwinnable.
I'm not sure why you think this is the case. If the US were to try to invade China, then yeah it would basically be unwinnable. But why would the US do that? They would only be trying to contain them. If they could help thwart and invasion and then shutdown the Chinese navy, then they would basically already have won by any reasonable measure.
The U.S. doesn't have much history promising Ukraine defense as it was part of the U.S.S.R. during the Cold War. In contrast, Taiwan was practically there since 1949.
Taiwan's economy is multiple times the size of Ukraine's and is comparable to the likes of Saudi Arabia. To not defend Taiwan would send a very bad signal to all American allies that unless you're worth more than Taiwan, we'll sell you out. Assuming China continues to grow more powerful, this also means South Korea would be in danger as well. This is not even accounting the fact that if China controls Taiwan, China will control a majority of sea lanes to Korea and Japan. If she wished then she could interfere with oil supplies to those countries.
Plus the U.S. already goes great lengths to restrict China from acquiring U.S. technology, much of which has supply lines and partners in Taiwan. Letting China take Taiwan would mean a massive change unless you think we'll just accept that every Taiwanese company now will be forced to put backdoors for the Chinese.
I know you're joking, but ...
it was a cyber war, and it's still happening :)
North Korea is so fragile that it would follow shortly thereafter. South Korea (a US ally) would have a huge mess on their hands.
Japan (another US ally) has got an ocean to protect it, but given the huge shipping volume in the region, shiploads of refugees would try crossing anyway.
So that means that the US would have even more reason to intervene than in other conflicts.
I don't know how much Russia cares about it's eastern territory, but it's unlikely they'd sit around doing nothing.
By now there are 4 countries with nuclear weapons involved, and I haven't even mentioned India and Pakistan, who usually don't appear to be the interventionist type, but they have a common border with China. Who knows how they might react.
Basically, any war involving China is bound to be WW3 levels of bad.
In China's specific case, India and China are fighting over borders. China and the US (allies) are running into issues over resources in the South China Sea. Also Russia and the US both are increasingly their navy presence in the Pacific. It's a powder keg waiting to go off for sure.
Xi is a fine leader — I don't believe problems would start with him. More so his successor who may have decades of rule.
China is setting the stage for an actual dictator.
If Linus were bad at his job, you'd only have to find someone better and start pulling your kernel source from them. No civil war necessary.
But he didn't repeal a term limit. There was a two-term limit in precedent, but not in law, so FDR didn't have to repeal anything. But people saw that, and put a two-term limit in law. Any future FDR or Xi in the US will have to change the law. And yes, that will set off warning alarms in the US, if it ever happens.
Agreed.
> ... warnings won't be enough to stop it from happening.
Here I disagree. For it to happen in the US now would require a constitutional amendment. I don't see any way that would happen now. Especially since seeking one would make the alarm bells ring much louder.
Or, for it to happen now would take ignoring the constitution. I'm pretty sure that would trigger a civil war.
Either way, in the US it's much harder than just having a party congress decide that it will be so.