China Becoming a Democracy

[Beet]

Actually, certain reviled third-world dictatorships have had success economically since WW2... Spain developed rapidly under Franco. Pinochet set off an economic boom in Chile (and was the first in the wave of economic conservatism). South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore developed under authoritarian governments. All of these countries except Singapore eventually became democratic, but not until their purchasing power GDP per capita reached around $10,000-$15,000 per year.

There are important theoretical reasons for this; while there are poor democracies, there are no real wealthy countries which have remained dictatorships. As people become wealthier, they have higher expectations and a higher sense of their own self-efficacy. They are less willing to be exploited. Troops are more reluctant to shoot at middle class people than poor people. For example Taiwan, with a similiar culture to China's, had its first presidential election in 1996, when its PPP GDP/cap was $14,700.

China's PPP GDP/cap is was approximately $5,000 in 2003 according to the CIA World Factbook, so the ratio of Taiwan's PPP GDP/cap at democratization to China's in 2003 was 2.94.  Assuming an average economic growth rate of 7% annually can be maintained, and a population growth rate of 0.6%, the PPP GDP/cap grows at 6.4% annually.

The goal is to solve  (1+.064)^n = 2.94. Now, in taking the natural log of both sides,
ln(2.94) = n ln(1.064), or n = ln(2.94) / ln(1.064) or
n = 17.38.

That means China should become a democracy some time around 2003 + 17 years, or 2020, assuming an average growth rate of 7% until then. Is this kind of analysis silly? No, I don't think so, given the theoretical evidence of democratization at a certain point of economic development across countries, and the fact that it's the best kind of prediction we can make at this point.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What about my serious post?

[Beet]

your post, and your signature, are serious indeed.

yeah, I'm wondering what the hell to say about it.  but you're definitely onto something.  sh**t, I forgot to look see if you're a democrat or a republican, well nevermind, it doesn't matter.  I'll give you my standard nonpartisan rant.  oh, yeah.  I just looked down there.  math.  okay, mmmmmmm.  why are you doing the log?  seems like it should be an e-x^2 decay instead.  anyway, the case would still, more or less, hold.  yeah, you're doing that,considering  "freedom" or whatever the economists are calling that nowadays, Utility I think, and relating it to PPP.  yeah, you could say something like that, but there are far too many historical counterexamples, such as the Inca Empire, which was both socialistic and imperialistic, at the same time, but absorbing religions rather than supplanting them as the Westerners do.  And it points out, rather well, what I was saying about how We put upon the rest what we want.  I'm okay with all that, as I think it'll play out after I'm dead anyway, but now with the little boy and all, I start to think about the Demise of the Empire.  you know, progenesis and the consideration of motality and such.  so, on assumes all want to delay its demise.  debt reduction and withdrawal are a reasonable start.  with respect to china.  suck on them, don't let them suck on you. 

Yes, good points, thank you. There are historical counterexamples to be sure, I think though that western ideas would spread around no matter if we tried to or not. They might spread around slower, but they still would spread around. Especially since the ideas and other things that people want come hand in hand, such as utility.

[Beet]

the_factor,
yeah, that's right, they'll spread.  for example, the chinese automakers are evidence of just that.  And clothing fashions, and food.  KFC, for example, is a very upscale place to eat in Shanghai and Nanjing.  (yeah, I know that seems weird to you and me.)  No doubt western ideas influence the East, just as surely as Eastern ideas influence us, and to a lesser extent, the English and Germans, but especially the americans, due to proximity and trade.  My point is that Richard Gere is a buddhist because he wants to be, I eat pork often, as always with sticks, because I'm sloppy and have trouble eating with a knife and fork.  None of these ideas are forced on us.  When you go in with the attitude, as every great European Empire, including our own, has done, that we have the duty to spread to the savages what we know to be right and true.  Whether it's Catholocism, the French Language, the English Culture, or Democratic Capitalism, the underlying imperium/imperative is the same:  they really need us.  And that's ultimately what crushes great empires.  Not that citizens of post-imperial powers have it all that bad.  Opebo and a handful of others do better during imperial periods, but the vast majority of us will be better off once we take our place among the mature nations of the world.  Still, I'm fairly nationalistic and hate to see us hasten the loss of economic, cultural, and military hegemony.  Having the biggest dick on the planet is a pretty good feeling, while it lasts.

Religion, language, and culture were nationalistic ideas, not economic ones. Empires are built on economics and social institutions. America is trying to expand those economics and institutions through globalization. We are not nationalist in the European sense, and so up until 2001, Anthony Kennedy's theory didn't apply because we weren't expending more on military to do it. But even now in 99% of cases, the economics and institutions exported themselves, which is what was so magical. We now have the U.N., World Bank, I.M.F., the dollar, Wall Street, capitalism, democracy... the institutions of the American empire. Let's push it as far as it goes.