I read some opinions about HK protests, and they were saying, basically, that HK youth has no chance to buy an apartment and live a good middle class life, hence the revolt.
This is something that is not captured in GDP growth metric. To me it makes perfect sense. What is the point of, say, 5% GDP growth if you pay 1/2 of your salary as rent and will never accumulate enough dough for downpayment?
> See, for example, Venezuela.
“Progressive” and “socialist” aren't mutually exclusive, but neither does the latter imply the former; “progressive” and “authoritarian” might overlap, but Venezuela's government isn't an example as it isn't progressive.
My main problem is with the connotations. Progress = good, authoritarianism = bad, so "progressive populism" sounds good, and "authoritarian populism" sounds bad. The wording is probably deliberately designed to paint one side as better than the other. In fact, though, "progressive populism" can wind up being every bit as authoritarian and ugly and brutal as "authoritarian populism" can.
The idea that the protests are principally economic doesn't contradict that they have a political dimension, indeed, it makes the likelihood that the protestors would seek and sacrifice for political change greater.