barkxyz

I can't tell you all but among them:

- Using the murder in Taiwan as a pretext to introduce the bill when it could easily have been handled ad hoc with Taiwan.

- Claiming it was a loophole left over by the British when it was very clearly by design.

- Initially refusing to suspend the bill in the face of huge opposition.

- Taking months to fully withdraw the bill and proudly ignoring the protestors.

- Blanket refusing an independent enquiry and unwaveringly supporting police no matter how brutal and unprofessional they've become.

- Seeking permission from Xi to withdraw the bill.

- Introducing an anti-mask law instead of attempting serious reform.

- Threatening internet lock downs instead of attempting serious reform.

- Not criticising the central government for threatening military violence and flagrantly manipulating coverage of HK on the mainland.

Those are just a few that stand out to me though I'm sure there are more I've missed.

Regarding police brutality, I don't think it's fair to dismiss this as "fake news". Amnesty international, for example, have investigated and found plenty of problematic behaviour by the police: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/09/hong-kong-arb...

I don't agree that protestors are trying to tear down 1c2s. The issue seems to be that they dont trust China to stick to the agreement. Obviously if China won't honour their promises on 1c2s, independence becomes the only long-term solution.

Seems a little bit unfair not to mention the five demands in this context: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/13/what-do-the-ho...

If you really want to "interpret" the message of their movement, that would seem like a good place to start.

It was the mistakes of a highly centralized government that helped thrust those same people into poverty in the first place. Why should centralism be credited for helping pull them out but not for putting them there in the first place?

Meanwhile the West long ago eradicated the kind of poverty that still persists in China. Is that to be credited to our system of government too?

When I referred to "protectionism in general here" I was thinking mostly of its consequences for developing countries during and after their rise to prosperity. I'm afraid my history isn't really good enough to say whether this applies to the USA in the last few centuries :-) I imagine it's quite possible that it does.

I definitely get where you're coming from with optimism for China and can align with it to some extent. I do think we need to be a little careful about giving the CCP or the political structure too much credit for China's achievements when the ingenuity and hard work of the citizens seems to be the much greater part of the explanation to me. OTOH I agree they've made some good decisions along the way - infrastructure in particular. Time will tell I guess.

Whatever the outcome politically I certainly hope the Chinese people carry on along the path towards prosperity.

Thanks for the honest and detailed response. It definitely makes it easier to engage with an opposing view :-)

Firstly regarding the size of China. I do take the point that this makes administration easier. A counterpoint is that it also makes internal markets smaller. China's protectionist approach to the internet for instance likely wouldn't work in Taiwan. I'm unclear of the effect of protectionism in general here. It certainly seems to have worked well for China so far but what will happen if or when these markets are really opened up to foreign competition?

The effect of China's rise on the Asian tigers is almost certainly true. Although you could make the same argument for China benefiting from economic integration with the West. I don't think it diminishes either achievement.

I think I certainly disagree with the notion that the Chinese system is more honest. Chinese media very much gives me the opposite impression. The Great Firewall (protectionist reasons aside) doesn't speak to a "transparent and honest interface to the population" nor the state controlled media. That said, I can align with some of the things you say about democracy in the West. We would certainly do well not to delude ourselves into thinking that the West is free and China is not - though I have no doubts about which society I would choose to live in.

Lastly and most importantly for your argument, I really think its too early to say that China has avoided the stagnation that has afflicted the Asian tigers or WLDs. China's GDP per capita is only around a quarter of Japan's. I think if China were at half or three quarters of that figure and still achieving such impressive growth, I would be more convinced. Until then, we need to compare it to much more distant points in those countries' histories, when they were still posting spectacular growth figures (and in the case of Japan, also predicted to surpass the USA). The experiment needs more time to run in my opinion.

The results? China has not yet achieved the wealth of liberal democracies in the West and taken decades or centuries longer to get there. Moreover, Taiwan, South Korea and (earlier) Japan have enjoyed similar economic booms whilst (or subsequently) enjoying democracy.

Honest question: how do these data points fit into your theory?