Dictatorships fundamentally cannot compete with democracies, as the incentives of the dictator do not align with good outcomes for the population or country
Yet inequality keeps growing in these so-called democracies. There are ups and downs to all systems. China benefits from having the ability to carry out long-term projects. Of course, they are at the whims of Xi Jinping, but if the plans are sound then they will benefit from the commitment. Take climate change, for example, where the US pulled out of the Paris climate agreement just because Trump got elected. Meanwhile China has been at the forefront of battery and solar tech manufacturing. It’s not out of benevolence, just mainly because they don’t have much oil of their own, plus it’s a market they plan on cornering. For another example, look at the crumbling US infrastructure where funding struggles to get passed with all the squabbles between the two dominant parties.
Either way, it’s not as simple as labeling something either a dictatorship or a democracy and claiming something WILL follow. After all, a lot of these so-called democracies are more like plutocracies.
I don’t think you could solve inequality by taking the same amount away from everybody.
Are you implying that a very fair, equal and supportive society that had a slightly lower total GDP would be inherently inferior to one with a higher GDP but realistic inequality?
America will soon face a strong reckoning for how much they fucked around. Time to find out.
Haha funny. Still the world’s only super power.
That’s why the shrieking about China has been amplified lately.
Dictatorships fundamentally cannot compete with democracies, as the incentives of the dictator do not align with good outcomes for the population or country
Yet inequality keeps growing in these so-called democracies. There are ups and downs to all systems. China benefits from having the ability to carry out long-term projects. Of course, they are at the whims of Xi Jinping, but if the plans are sound then they will benefit from the commitment. Take climate change, for example, where the US pulled out of the Paris climate agreement just because Trump got elected. Meanwhile China has been at the forefront of battery and solar tech manufacturing. It’s not out of benevolence, just mainly because they don’t have much oil of their own, plus it’s a market they plan on cornering. For another example, look at the crumbling US infrastructure where funding struggles to get passed with all the squabbles between the two dominant parties.
Either way, it’s not as simple as labeling something either a dictatorship or a democracy and claiming something WILL follow. After all, a lot of these so-called democracies are more like plutocracies.
Inequality is not some inherently bad thing.
At the levels it’s at now? It absolutely is. You’d maybe have a point if everyone’s base needs are being met, but it’s not even close.
If given the choice, would you solve inequality if it made everyone 10k poorer?
I don’t think you could solve inequality by taking the same amount away from everybody.
Are you implying that a very fair, equal and supportive society that had a slightly lower total GDP would be inherently inferior to one with a higher GDP but realistic inequality?
“Still” implies there is an end, I agree ;)