One of the advantages of an autocracy: you don't need people's approval every 5 years so you can plan for decades. When you're right it is awesome. When you're wrong, well that's what the army is for.
For one thing it's made up of fairly autonomous provinces that all compete between each others, for another the actual strategy has been heavily relying on extensive local experimentation to find growth models that can be applied nationally.
For example Jack Ma reappeared after his successful re-education.
This is a funny thing to say about a system known for its regular issuance of 5-year plans. They have festivals and everything.
while US flip flopping about invading middle east (like usual) or Greenland
When there's no real accountability, in a reasonable timeframe, it's much easier to plan long term.
It's the same within companies. When the CEO assumes he'll be around for 5 years, should he shoot for the 10 year goal and reduce outcomes in the early years? Or does he just optimize for the next 5 years, thereby neglecting the long term goal?
he is implying that China bad action can be solved by PL red Army
If you think he's wrong then tell me - what do you believe would happen there in the event of widespread social unrest or grievances against the sitting government?
Autocracies are great in the hands of a competent leader who plans the economy long term, and the grows of the country for the benefit of the country and society (look up "benevolent dictators"). They are not afraid of long term plans, or pleasing the population in the short term. He can break some eggs now to feed the whole country tomorrow. This is not something a democratic leader can afford. They live in 4-5 years cycles to please an electorate who looks for immediate benefits.
In the hands of an incompetent and abusive leader autocracy is a nightmare that's supported only by fear and violence against the people. These are most dictatorships. Society suffers but can't do anything for fear of being steamrolled by the army.
China is straddling a middle ground where the country grew by leaps and bounds, faster than anything else in history probably, but they also use a heavy hand to do this.
The real difference is how can you get rid of those
That "or" is described one paragraph down. It's the most common type of autocracy actually because it's the easiest to pull off. Incompetent and corrupt leader, access to an army, biggest temptation is for easy profit.
Democracies are very susceptible to this type of leader in the short term. They start as populists and for a while it's easy to fool people into electing them. Until pockets and bellies start to stay empty. When popular support vanishes the army might step in to take that role and it turns into an autocracy.
Successful planned economies need first and foremost a competent leader who's not tempted by short term personal gain but mainly long term gains for the country. They're rare as hen's teeth.
Some democracies for sure, having a US style president makes it much easier.
This isn't China vs the rest, this is US Capitalist view of the world vs the rest. China in this present conversation is only an example of a country that has not succumbed to the desiderata of the unrestrained Capitalist.
A successful planned economy needs an autocratic leader, or a majority of people with foresight and willingness to delay gratification working together. There were very few moments in time when this intersection happened.
The last time someone had real planned economy in Europe was in communism time, with the 5-year plans and those were a joke, paper exercises to please the leaders. Those economies slowly failed. The planning you talk about post-'90 was relatively minor, more like a few ongoing projects.
Populists and corruption invaded the scene and promised the world now, making realists/idealists look even worse. Promise of short term gain is such an easy sell that it organically became the tool of choice for would-be leaders. Worse even, once the former opposition got to power they tore down what was built by the predecessor, started over to shape it in their image, brought in their cronies. This is human nature, the US didn't invent short sightedness or gullibility, they just exploited and monetized these common flaws in people.
Only part of Hong Kong, the New Territories, was leased from China. Hong Kong Island and Kowloon were ceded to the UK in perpetuality.
The UK didn't have to give them back but it also didn't have a reliable fresh water supply for such a large city that didn't depend on mainland China.
PRC is legally fully compliant with her UNCLOS accession obligations.
I see this question a lot and as someone who has traveled to and sometimes lived in Hong Kong for the past 20 years, the truth is on a day-to-day level, there isn’t really much change.
I’m sure if you’re an activist there are huge changes. But as a regular person, life feels the same (even my local and expat friends feel this way).
Also one thing to be clear about is Hong Kong never had a democracy. The governor was always appointed by the UK. It was only when the handover was certain, the UK tried to introduce voting. The UK also tried to pressure Portugal to stop giving citizenship to the people of Macau, because the UK didn’t want to do the same for Hongkongers.
Though it is still interesting to research about Industry politics. In Europe almost all economics looked trapped into the capitalism Vs socialism trap.