Right back atcha. I never insinuated that you stated he was 100% right on everything, merely that "it is true." It can refer to any amount of his argument as you intended to pass. If he is going to defy classical-liberalism, you better have a bigger argument than "He use to be prime minister of Singapore"

No, China's problems are only magnified because of its lack of democratization. India has a population of over a billion too, and it's problems aren't magnified (although, most problems in the world are magnified, I would rather say not as magnified as China).

Ah yes, the guarding terms of name calling. Canada's farming population accounts for 3% of the labour in Canada -- the US and other developed nations are not far behind. China's majority is still agrarian on all counts. Plus in many of these countries, the trade is surviving on subsidies making their benefit to the economy that much lower; increasing the price of domestic foodstuff, reducing workers productivity (work in farms is only productive during crop season) and thus driving up opportunity costs that are forgone because of these subsidies; depriving other more deserving sectors of their labour within the national economy (most likely the service sector). Agricultural economics in the developed world produces a deadweight lost on all counts of its existence and so rendering its business an economic burden rather than something that drives the economy as you seem to insinuate. I don't know how you were expecting to say I had poor knowledge of economics out of this....
Countries that have a dominant agricultural economy are known to have major issues concerning governance, economic development and technological innovation. This is purely simple economic facts supported by the economic laws I have stated prior. I don't think there's a single economist out there that would deny that the majority of employment in the developed world is in the service industry.

Did I say only tooth brushes? Not at all. If failing at life is sticking to economically viable plans, than inventing other's arguments must be that much of a bigger failure.
Does China still produce tooth brushes? Yes.
I'd like to see if China makes any significant contribution to Boeing productions since I know Boeing makes goods for the US Army and they have a strict made in the US only policy regarding that. Further I only used these examples to illustrate the manufacturing gap that is present between a developed economy and China -- if you can go beyond the micro example and either agree or disagree on the actual matter.
Is the entity of China really the major producers of these goods, or is it workers living in China who work under the education/training, supervision, plans, and investments of foreign companies?
China is making progresses, there's no denying that, but it's far from the example of an authoritarian alternative to development to a post-industrial society.

What's with all these calls on ignorance. I am myself learning Chinese and getting a minor in the field as we speak. Again, refer to my statement immediately above to realise what I am actually arguing.

The only ignorant person around here is the one that argues nothing of what I'm arguing. I never denied foreign investment into China. But again, it's not because there is accelerated economic growth under an authoritarian government that these will:
a) be sustainable in the long run
b) be able to avoid democratization and liberalism if it ever wants to do more out of its economy than what foreign companies are telling her to manufacture
c) resistance to liberal changes for better long term growth are not rational, they are merely myths of anti-foreign sentiments still very present within China and that results in the idea that China can defy economic laws and forever develop using a "Chinese style" of some sort.

Singapore has had a tradition of attracting rich merchants and businesses from India, China and Malaysia/Indonesia since the 1500's. They were not just a poor fishing village when they separated, the movement was a group of rich entrepreneurs investing in that territory.

__________________

I don't see why India's democratization is so great. They have problems building highways because of beaucracy. The rail system in mumbai is horrific, an average of 11 people die in a rail system everyday. The literacy rate is 61%. The difference between the ultra rich and dirt poor is huge. I've always said that democracy does not fix social issues within the country and a big country like India is no exception.

Yes it is true that China have more farmers because as they use less machines that would've relied less on farmers. But I know that in the US they relied on migrant helpers or illegal immigrants to help them harvest and package food.

I agree with you on this one. China lacks creation of IP and brand recognition as they spend little money on advertising outside China. However, Chinese investors have to spend alot of money in developing their brand or buying others like Levono buying IBM's desktop and laptop line. However, many foreign companies are usually weary of China gobbling up their companies.

Another problem is the lack of management who understand Chinese and Western style cultures. Many people who have been to the West just didn't come back, thus the brain drain that the China's best and brightest are not working in China. I also do think China should offer more cheaper or free Education to create the educated workers of tomorrow. China has to make incentives for Chinese overseas Nationals to come back to China.

Well, there's several people here who always said that democratization of China is necessary today and yet many Chinese, including Lee Kuan Yew, believe that economic and social progress is more important than democratization.
a) Nobody knows that it is sustainable in the long run, but they are working oin it. IE, working with Africian countries to secure natural resources, working with foreign companies to invest in it, and even if there's a global recession, they can always use its excess money to create jobs to build in its infrastructure.
b) I don't see there's an issue with democratization and capitalism for China, they are able to do it for such a long time. And Yes, I think they can do more than just manufacture stuff.
c) I don't think they are resistant to liberal changes, at least on the non-political front, as there are already some resistance from the Western Countries to hinder them to grow. Hopefully things will change.

True, but changes in China as China is much bigger than Sigapore, changes won't reach countryside until much later than the rural areas.

Interesting article. The "Beijing concensus" sounds not so different from Lee's own policies. Perhaps that's why he's so positive about it?

I think that in a perfect world a centrally-planned (guided), stable economy would be the best of all worlds. The danger of course it that it relies on the excellence of the leadership. With a less-than-excellent leadership the economy struggles and the people have no way to turn to something better.

This is all good stuff. It's just a bit odd hearing from a guy who used the libel laws so enthusiastically to quell all criticism.

__________________
No Fear No Hate No Pain No Broken Hearts

You're absolutely right about that. It is not perfect, but at least going in the right direction.

The problem with the western Media was that they cared more about Tibetan Monks and their 'human rights' issues rather than the death and destruction that the Tibetan monks caused in Lhasa.

Comparing China to India is baseless as India has many of its problems as well, its just that it is not magnified by your biased western media. As Pug_ster has clearly indicated to you some of the problems that you choose to ignore, there are many other problems that they need to look at as well. The food prices are sky rocketting in the country and the inflation is rising to more than 7% due to shortages of food. It is also due to their so called liberacy, many of their projects that could benefit their people are not implemented or are slow in implementation. Choosing to ignore their problems and exagerate the problems China is facing will do no good and it does not show the maturity of your argument.

If you keep arguing with me about the current position where US, Japan, Canada or any other developed nations for that matter, is more advanced than is China, you are just wasting my time. These are not up for argument. These are facts! China is developing now. I have to keep stressing this again and again and it is pointless for me to explain it more. What has passed are history, what are present are facts, the predictions are for the future. What you keep arguing is the present situation where there are no basis for argument. It is already a fact, that China is less develop than western countries. What I am trying to tell you is that China is working hard towards improving itself and be develop as you guys are and they are moving it right.

China has 1.3 billion people. view it here, People's Republic of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia China has as of 2002, 90.9% (male: 95.1%; female: 86.5%) of the population over age 15 are literate. Lets take a modest 900 million of that population of over 15 years of age. close to 800 million of people are educated. Lets take another figure out of it, merely 1% are engineers. There would be more than 80 million engineers in China already much more than the population of few contries combined. If 30% of that population is very well educated, which is not impossible, over 200 million well educated citizen are already in China contributing. If you cannot see the bright future of this copuntry, I would have no more basis of arguing with you as you can shut your common sense and believe whatever you chose to believe.

Democracy is not a clear one and only pill to cure all social deseases. Different country has different problems, culture, educational background and may view democracy differently. Let me give you an example. If majority of the citizen are in hunger and low educated, would you think it will blosom if democracy prevails? They are fighting and thinking of how to put food on the table and solve their hunger, and less would they think of whether their voices are heard. Take India for example. Their problems are already being stated and I do not want to further discuss on it. Another funny thought is that people like you can receive authoritarian from your bosses while you are at work but does not seem to take authoritarian socially even if the things done are right. To me, it all depends on results that show. In a company, the CEO is making its calls, has a common goal and force you to achieve them or you will be fired. You are not objecting it. It seems to me you guys are really contradicting to yourself.

About singapore's past, it is already a history and you can check it through the internet without much explanation from me. And yes, there are many foreign direct investments flowing into the country to help it blosom. But it is not that the investment comes naturally. Singaporeans led by MM Lee Kuan Yew made the effort to mordernise the city and improve the law, transportation and ease of doing business that the investors are confident in coming to the country. They have transformed themselves many times over to suit the need of the society and world at large. By the way, MM Lee Kuan Yew is running the country like a corporate and is an authoritarian, something that is so bothering to you.

Yes, they have problems with some example of a highway and another rail traffic problem. That's a pretty far cry from the problems in China concerning democratization (+ the traffic problems in China). You said democracy does not fix social issues and you have been proven so wrong on all counts that you reverted to ignorance. If you think our previous debates would show any
proof against the social axiom of liberalism, you are quite mistaken. Plus democracy never fixes all problems, I never stated that, but many of the problems China has could easily be fixed by people's involvement within the government. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

What a pointless defensive argument. I does not deserve my attention.

IBM died long ago (the usual outcome of natural monopoly). But yes, China can develop its name and reputation like Japan did, though my comparison between China and the "west" is still very relevant despite the immediate progresses in China.

Here's a great incentive -- offering the same rights and freedoms as most countries throughout the world. I don't think free education is the solution though, paying for education filters the dedicated students from the others and encourages independent studies.

Lee Kuan Yew is Singaporean, not Chinese.

Saying nobody knows what development is sustainable is suggesting that there has yet to be post industrial development, while that is completely false.
What is sustainable is letting those affected the most decide what is sustainable or not for every micro examples of it happening -- thus votes by the population.

You don't see an issue concerning the fact that a government is not accountable to the people? You don't see an issue that local issues aren't dealt with? You don't see an issue at directed policies by a central power that relates little to the people but somehow makes policies for the latter?

.

What of this very article? What of all you apologists opposition and the CCP opposition to elections? You have no reason to oppose a working system other than national pride. This is made evident by the "Beijing consensus" or doing it "Chinese style"

They're not only bigger, they're much different.

__________________

Liberacy?
Anyways, their problems are economical. China has economic problems too (despite the CCP's best effort to ignore them). Food prices are increasing world-wide, including China. Inflation is not a case of democracy. The Federal Reserve or the Central Bank of the country is directly responsible for that. They decide the rate of inflation based on economic standings, it's not like their decisions are voted by anyone in the public realm. And inflation in moderation is good for creating employment. Considering India's surplus of labour pool, it's not a bad idea to have policies that create employment.
Further, the only reason I compared China and India was based on your generalized premises. Of course there are many problems in China and in India and they differ widely, but China has many more and they are "magnified" not because of population (since both countries have high population, according to your premise my comparison was fully valid). The only reason the CCP is targeted to such extents is because it is not elected. Solution, have elections.
Plus there's absolutely no telling the speed of economic growth. That is simply foolish at best. The market tells the economy to grow, not some central authority.

I hate to bring this up, but you're the one that "started it" for a lack of a better phrase. Who said China is "comparable" to developed countries? I compare and prove that wrong, now there are no comparisons to be made
I know China is developing, I NEVER stated otherwise. Now THAT is a waste of time. But does it not make sense to develop the way that has proven successful. Is that not a fact?

Was this a response to any of my posts? I'm utterly confused by what you're doing.
Yes, students in China get an education....censored by the centralized government and lacking analytical criticisms on top of lacking diversification of intellectual sources. There's a reason that Chinese credentials are not as widely accepted as credentials of other countries. There's a reason very few widely accepted academic papers come from China despite its giant student population. En bref, there's a lot more to education than literacy. People can read, that's great, now if only there wasn't so much censorship so they could read something substantial.....hmmmm.

I never said democracy was the cure to all answers, but it is the only remedy from absent, lowly related central state policies by an elite class who can relate very little to every constituency, especially one that adds up to 1.3 billion over an area roughly the size of the US + include 37 + different minorities. Different cultures, different believes, different problems; all the more reasons for a decentralized state and people's involvement that will respond to each of these culture, believes and problems. I don't understand how you can admit that these issues of heterogeneity within society exist and yet advocate for a central government.
I don't think you need a BA to realise that pooling resources to irrigate more water into the fields will result in higher crop yields. A central government might not know that a village in Nigeria needs that, but surely the community affected would -- at least for their better interest. Of course, the problems aren't all like that, so even the more reason to allow those affected to have the final say, not some obscure elite in the capital that's probably never been there or mayby never heard of it before.
Your analogy between work hierarchy and governmental authoritarianism is pretty irrelevant. Biggest issue with such comparison; I have a choice of work, I can quit my job if I don't like how things are running. I can't fire an authoritarian government though. This provide a MAJOR accountability from both parties. Working for wages is a trade, whether you realize it or not. You have an interdependent relation with you boos. He needs you just as much as you need him. An authoritarian state on the other hand, has full bargaining monopoly. It needs you and if you don't like it, too bad.

Again, I'll refer to the sheer scope of size between Singapore and China and you'll see why there's absolutely no way China can get away with a Singaporean model. Singapore is a freaking city for God's sake, this only perpetuates my calls for a decentralized government. And like you said about India, Singapore has so many different issues and benefits that China does not have.

__________________