“… and unleash the greatest wave of shared prosperity in the world until the China model of 1970-2010.”
I know that you want to signal that you are a good leftist and play up the undeniable economic growth in China, and I understand that the fact that it was mostly about moving away from destructive left authoritarian policies plays to your message.
But you may want to consider updating the start date from 1970 to either 1977 (after Mao’s death) or even better 1979 (after Deng takes charge and reforms really start).
Growth was already positive albeit chaotic under late Mao, it’s true. But it was after Deng’s reforms began when it jumped to roughly 10% real annual growth for the next three decades.
I agree those more specific dates are better. Not trying to be a good anything here, just trying to be objective :-) China lifted 800M people out of poverty in ~40 years via ~state-led capitalism.
And I fully accept the premise of “via ~state-led capitalism” for 1979-2010.
In fact IMO the “~” is quite brilliant shorthand.
But this first 9 years cannot remotely accurately be described as “~state-led capitalism”; it was still a Maoist command economy.
And 1970 was an enormous rebound year from the Cultural Revolution’s earlier disruption; excluding 1970 lowers average growth the rest of the decade materially.
If you wanna use round numbers for your claims, just start with 1980. It’s actually all the more impressive they did it in only 3 decades. Start in 1970 and your claim is just “objectively” (😏) wrong.
P.S. I was *so* careful not to give you grief on your “shared prosperity” claim about China even *arguably* being superior to that of the liberal free enterprise system in my first comment. But if you’re gonna try to make claims of *objectively*… then I feel compelled to point out that only *some* of the prosperity was shared with all, while the basic freedoms we in the rich west take for granted were not only not shared but continued to be viciously repressed.
Insert the word “arguably” somewhere into that claim about China, and not only would you eliminate any quarrel from me, but I’d specifically agree with you.
Politics is not a product problem. It's a people problem. Any discussion of politics that strips the human being from the center of the political change at hand seems more theoretical and less genuine from folks in the trenches. Coalitions are negotiated among existing organizations. Networks of people grow by getting new people involved. The funding critique has merit but if the response of wealthy sector founders deploying capital more strategically only replaces one set of funders with another.
How do you build up and uplift the needs and energy of the affected communities? Seems to be the true way out of this mess. The model that starts by asking communities to align with a pre-set policy agenda developed by tech founders sets off red flags. Any strategy that ultimately creates deeper dependencies on a narrower funder base is increasing fragility and decreasing democratic accountability.
This seems to be another top-down funder-captured approach that mistakes sustained lobbying infrastructure for a genuine popular movement and, in doing so, undermines the kind of distributed, culturally influenced, long-term power that actually wins and sustains progress.
I don’t think I said politics is product problem. I said ‘Democrat controlled states’ have a product problem. We’re demonstrably failing to govern our very-blue cities and states..
“… and unleash the greatest wave of shared prosperity in the world until the China model of 1970-2010.”
I know that you want to signal that you are a good leftist and play up the undeniable economic growth in China, and I understand that the fact that it was mostly about moving away from destructive left authoritarian policies plays to your message.
But you may want to consider updating the start date from 1970 to either 1977 (after Mao’s death) or even better 1979 (after Deng takes charge and reforms really start).
Growth was already positive albeit chaotic under late Mao, it’s true. But it was after Deng’s reforms began when it jumped to roughly 10% real annual growth for the next three decades.
I agree those more specific dates are better. Not trying to be a good anything here, just trying to be objective :-) China lifted 800M people out of poverty in ~40 years via ~state-led capitalism.
“… ~40 years via ~state-led capitalism.”
Again: No.
And I fully accept the premise of “via ~state-led capitalism” for 1979-2010.
In fact IMO the “~” is quite brilliant shorthand.
But this first 9 years cannot remotely accurately be described as “~state-led capitalism”; it was still a Maoist command economy.
And 1970 was an enormous rebound year from the Cultural Revolution’s earlier disruption; excluding 1970 lowers average growth the rest of the decade materially.
If you wanna use round numbers for your claims, just start with 1980. It’s actually all the more impressive they did it in only 3 decades. Start in 1970 and your claim is just “objectively” (😏) wrong.
P.S. I was *so* careful not to give you grief on your “shared prosperity” claim about China even *arguably* being superior to that of the liberal free enterprise system in my first comment. But if you’re gonna try to make claims of *objectively*… then I feel compelled to point out that only *some* of the prosperity was shared with all, while the basic freedoms we in the rich west take for granted were not only not shared but continued to be viciously repressed.
Insert the word “arguably” somewhere into that claim about China, and not only would you eliminate any quarrel from me, but I’d specifically agree with you.
I see your point 🙂
Politics is not a product problem. It's a people problem. Any discussion of politics that strips the human being from the center of the political change at hand seems more theoretical and less genuine from folks in the trenches. Coalitions are negotiated among existing organizations. Networks of people grow by getting new people involved. The funding critique has merit but if the response of wealthy sector founders deploying capital more strategically only replaces one set of funders with another.
How do you build up and uplift the needs and energy of the affected communities? Seems to be the true way out of this mess. The model that starts by asking communities to align with a pre-set policy agenda developed by tech founders sets off red flags. Any strategy that ultimately creates deeper dependencies on a narrower funder base is increasing fragility and decreasing democratic accountability.
This seems to be another top-down funder-captured approach that mistakes sustained lobbying infrastructure for a genuine popular movement and, in doing so, undermines the kind of distributed, culturally influenced, long-term power that actually wins and sustains progress.
I don’t think I said politics is product problem. I said ‘Democrat controlled states’ have a product problem. We’re demonstrably failing to govern our very-blue cities and states..