autocracy regime and China's rapid growth

[Ferry]

Do you agree that autocracy regime has contributed to China's rapid growth in the past three decades?

Since China has grown rapidly in the past ten years and at some time were under the rule of one party, It is natural to conclude that there may some advantages of autocracy in promoting economic growth.

 

[Judicial review]

Do you agree that autocracy regime has contributed to China's rapid growth in the past three decades?

Since China has grown rapidly in the past ten years and at some time were under the rule of one party, It is natural to conclude that there may some advantages of autocracy in promoting economic growth.

It depend on what that person with all that power does with that money. Personally, the risk with that type of government is that 1 person surrounds himself with a select group of advisers, when in a free market run by many elected officials or multiple branches you get to hear from everybody and the people in power over time get replaced. This allows for auto correction of an economy.

Think of President Obama with absoulute power over the entire economy and whatever he says goes with zero checks and balances. The poor would get more money and the rich would get less, and the government would go bankrupt due to value of currency declining. This is a huge risk.

I'd chose the opposite of a autocracy just due to less risk. In an economy the less risk there is the better and more stable the economy. Another simular example - Business owners need multiple years of tax certainty to be able to hire and expand. When 1 person at the drop of a hat can make a huge economic decision that affects the entire economy how can everybody living in that environment predict anything without risking everything and potentially going out of business?

 

[Ferry]

Do you agree that autocracy regime has contributed to China's rapid growth in the past three decades?

Since China has grown rapidly in the past ten years and at some time were under the rule of one party, It is natural to conclude that there may some advantages of autocracy in promoting economic growth.

It depend on what that person with all that power does with that money. Personally, the risk with that type of government is that 1 person surrounds himself with a select group of advisers, when in a free market run by many elected officials or multiple branches you get to hear from everybody and the people in power over time get replaced. This allows for auto correction of an economy.

Think of President Obama with absoulute power over the entire economy and whatever he says goes with zero checks and balances. The poor would get more money and the rich would get less, and the government would go bankrupt due to value of currency declining. This is a huge risk.

I'd chose the opposite of a autocracy just due to less risk. In an economy the less risk there is the better and more stable the economy. Another simular example - Business owners need multiple years of tax certainty to be able to hire and expand. When 1 person at the drop of a hat can make a huge economic decision that affects the entire economy how can everybody living in that environment predict anything without risking everything and potentially going out of business?

So you point is that democracy has advantages in providing check and balances for the leader, and in this way prevents the leader making disastrous decisions. Further It is implied that autocracy could be better when the leader is more competent than all the others and tends to make decisions more properly.

Since it is unusal to have 1 person who are more competent than others, China's experience is special rather than general.

Do I conclude your arguments correctly?

 

[Judicial review]

Do you agree that autocracy regime has contributed to China's rapid growth in the past three decades?

Since China has grown rapidly in the past ten years and at some time were under the rule of one party, It is natural to conclude that there may some advantages of autocracy in promoting economic growth.

It depend on what that person with all that power does with that money. Personally, the risk with that type of government is that 1 person surrounds himself with a select group of advisers, when in a free market run by many elected officials or multiple branches you get to hear from everybody and the people in power over time get replaced. This allows for auto correction of an economy.

Think of President Obama with absoulute power over the entire economy and whatever he says goes with zero checks and balances. The poor would get more money and the rich would get less, and the government would go bankrupt due to value of currency declining. This is a huge risk.

I'd chose the opposite of a autocracy just due to less risk. In an economy the less risk there is the better and more stable the economy. Another simular example - Business owners need multiple years of tax certainty to be able to hire and expand. When 1 person at the drop of a hat can make a huge economic decision that affects the entire economy how can everybody living in that environment predict anything without risking everything and potentially going out of business?

So you point is that democracy has advantages in providing check and balances for the leader, and in this way prevents the leader making disastrous decisions. Further It is implied that autocracy could be better when the leader is more competent than all the others and tends to make decisions more properly.

Since it is unusal to have 1 person who are more competent than others, China's experience is special rather than general.

Do I conclude your arguments correctly?

Yes. More risk in a autocracy. It's not worth the reward.