> There are indeed cameras everywhere. This is gonna sound super naive - but I genuinely don't understand why. There's no crime. I know you'll say it's to prevent protests. Which might make sense for major streets, but even random alleyway corners will have a couple of cameras.
Petty crime used to be super bad (10-15 years ago) especially in big cities and the cameras essentially allowed police to crack down. Now it's for surveillance in case something happens imo and you won't be able to hide
It really wasn't. I've lived in a medium sized city in China (Xiamen) for the last 20 years, with spells in Shanghai and Shenzhen, and petty crime has never been super bad.
I think the explanation for the cameras is simpler: they like control, and cameras offer more.
Haha, yes, that's true. On my worst nights, I might even have been involved in one or two...
That's not the same as street crime being bad, though. I've had a phone stolen in Xiamen; a friend has been mugged. But these were always rare events. Compared to bad areas of big cities elsewhere, Chinese cities were always low-crime.
That would already be pretty bad on Chinese standards. Growing up in Shenzhen, I remember in the 2000s my dad would always put me on his shoulders when we were in the crowds. Things weren’t nearly as rosy as they are now.
Those cameras always made me feel physically safe. They helped me get back a couple of deliveries taken by the wrong people during COVID when everything had to be left downstairs in piles. But yeah, I definitely don’t miss them. But after a while, you do just stop noticing them. And occasionally, you feel glad they were there. But mostly, you don’t really think about them. But that’s just me; it could have been different for others.
The rural skyscrapers, at least in my hometown are all empty and meant as an investment vehicle / way to own property in your village. My family bulldozed our old village home for a 10 floor building, one for each branch of the extended family. My parents own a floor, with two other floors belonging to two different uncles, and the rest of the floors are empty. As far as I know most of the building in the village are like this.
It was crazy to me that even with how depopulated the village was since I grew up there as a kid, these multi floor apartments would still be built left and right. Even more crazy was the idea that you’d want to live in the same building as all your siblings, parents and inlaws. Guess I’m just too westernized to understand
whenever the topic of national sentiments come up i feel like i should note that dwarkesh, along with many members of the community here, belong to a part of the tech and finance industries that have arguably been the biggest winners of the entire american socioeconomic order over the past two decades or so. they tend to work in pockets of dynamism and competence, and live in gated communities literal and figurative that allow them to be somewhat shielded from the social dysfunctions affecting middle of the bell curve america over the same period of time. meanwhile, their direct counterparts in china have been the biggest losers over the past few years, what with the ccp's crackdown on tech, the strangling of vc money, the shift of focus to manufacturing and other less glamorous and more grueling industries. things have been especially bad for them, and the relatively chill life of coding and watching boy meets world that they thought they were promised based on the american model did not come. they are right to be disappointed, but i also think their negative sentiments may be amplified because of their visibility and relatability to people here.
Your list of intellectuals is very concerning. These people are influencers and podcasters and it really confirms that if you ask podcasters who the intellectuals are they will just tell you other podcasters.
The second part of my reply concerns the main reason I am still optimistic about US victory in our era of great power competition between US and China. Having studied the PRC system over the last few years, I have to say that I am extremely impressed by its ingenuity, its focus on productivity, and tech advancements, as well as human capital improvements. Most importantly, the Chinese simply accomplish things. Coming from a country (India) which represents the nation-state equivalent of the talker that does not do much, China is unique in being a doer, even if it does not talk as much. This is why they are where they are, and I don't think the Chinese juggernaut is going to stop anytime soon.
But China's one party state system does have some flaws, and these seem to have been particularly amplified under Xi Jinping (or so I have heard). The biggest problem is that China's legal system is the best example of a system where there is RULE BY LAW, but not necessarily rule of law. This is a major difference from the American system, where even if the legal system is incredibly inefficient, it also represents a mechanism that provides a competent and level-playing ground to different actors, no matter the power differential between them outside the court room. This is also true, tho not to the same level, with USA's regulatory system. Look at the amount of time it is taking the US govt to possibly remove TikTok from the country for example. If the CCP really wants to do something like this in China, it would be a far quicker process, and even tho that can seem like a useful thing in the short-term, in the long-term, systems like this create an environment of distrust, which is never good for long term capital formation and investment.
In fact, they also create distrust among citizens and local companies too. The best example of this is the treatment of Jack Ma himself. Jack Ma, to many people, represented Chinese capitalism. His company may not have been perfect, but it was path-breaking. One fine day, because Xi was not happy with him, he was effectively sent into exile, and his control over his company was weakened. THIS WOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPEND IN USA. And this imo is the key difference between US & China. I don't think there are any wealthy Americans, even Chinese-Americans, who want to leave the US, because they know the US system grants certain protections to anyone there.
This is simply not true in PRC. While the CCP system also promotes merit, it is also clear that there is a top dog: the CCP, and increasingly under Xi, solely Xi and his coterie of advisors. This is always going to be a restriction for China. Most outsiders, and even people within China, cannot really imagine themselves with the ability to bring about change in China, while they believe they can in America. As long as people retain these beliefs and dreams about the American system, which are built on its openness just as much as its success, America will continue to have an edge on China. As we have been hearing of late, its time for a billion Americans (despite the backlash this has generated)
In this system, everyone, particularly capitalists, have to be careful about not doing anything that hurts Xi. Safe to say, this is not a dynamic that is healthy for continued investment into society . This is why you had people wanting to leave in their conversations with you, because people desire stability and consistency.
In my opinion, the Chinese system was absolutely incredible from 1978-2012, and Chinese industry is right now reaping the rewards of that era. Despite the EV and solar wins happening under Xi, and even though I will give him credit for his handling of the real estate crisis, I think the system has weakened under Xi, and his centralizing tendencies have only further amplified that. This might not seem so obvious now, but the weaknesses and dysfunction will become obvious sooner. I will refer back to my comment made on your book review post on 2 books you read about China. What made the Chinese system unique was that despite being authoritarian, it was incredibly decentralized, with tons of discretion to lower level officials to go against each other and compete, in a way that the central leadership would not even have imagined. The decentralization caused some issues, such as excessive investment into real estate, but was also a boon for Chinese economy, as evidenced by my example of how different Chinese ministries took on the monopolist telecom ministry and turbo-charged China's telecom revolution. From what I have heard about Xi and his governance style, this would simply not be possible under him.
In that sense, in trying to counter corruption (which was important), Xi has thrown the baby out with the bathwater, removing the essential strengths of China's decentralized authoritarian system. In its place has risen an ecosystem marked by complete consolidation of power in the hands of Xi and his small circle of advisors. Such dynamics are never healthy, because the Emperor ends up being surrounded by clowns, who merely sweet-talk him, and deny him good advice.
This is not discussed as much in the West, but China's decision to engage in unprovoked violence against India in Galwan in 2020, while China was already isolated amidst the COVID pandemic, is the perfect example of this. The episode has permanently set India-China relations back decades, led to the banning of TikTok and many other Chinese businesses from India, and contributed to an active feeling of distrust in the relationship. To this day, I cannot understand why he would do that, other than poor advice or the inability of his advisors to point out to him that it is a bad idea. Another great example of this is his COVID Zero policy, that led to continued lockdowns despite their negative economic effects and unpopularity, not to mention questionable effectiveness.
I will end by saying that the competition between the US and PRC systems is exciting to watch, simply because despite their flaws, both countries are juggernauts, who are going to take humanity to new heights. Despite my love for the PRC (some might say I'm China pilled), I do hope USA's more open system does win out, simply because in a world of AI slop, we need transparent systems to win. However, I think co-existence is the name of the game long-term.
1. On the Comparison Between “Rule by Law” and “Rule of Law”
The author claims that China’s legal system exemplifies “RULE BY LAW” rather than “RULE OF LAW,” and contrasts this with the U.S. legal system, which they argue provides a level playing field.
Issues:
Oversimplification: While the U.S. legal system does emphasize fairness, it is far from perfect. It suffers from inefficiencies, high litigation costs, and inequalities in access to justice. Characterizing it as a “completely fair playing ground” ignores these realities.
Neglecting Practical Effectiveness: While China’s legal system is criticized for political interference, it is often more efficient in resolving economic or civil disputes. Dismissing its effectiveness outright is an unbalanced view.
2. On the Jack Ma Incident
The author cites Jack Ma’s treatment as an example of something that “would never happen in the U.S.”
Issues:
Not Entirely True: While U.S. systems emphasize property rights and corporate independence, they do intervene in cases involving corporate giants. For instance, Facebook, Google, and Amazon face antitrust investigations, and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg has been subject to intense scrutiny. Historical cases like the breakup of Standard Oil show that U.S. interventions are not unheard of.
Simplistic View of Jack Ma’s Case: Jack Ma’s situation is tied to systemic financial risks posed by Ant Group, not merely a personal issue. While political factors may have played a role, reducing the incident to individual punishment oversimplifies the complexities.
3. On Centralization and Quality of Advisors
The author argues that centralization under Xi Jinping has led to poor decision-making because “the emperor ends up surrounded by sycophants.”
Issues:
Overgeneralization: All political systems face challenges in feedback and information flow. Even U.S. presidents have been criticized for being influenced by interest groups or internal factions. Centralization in China might limit diversity in decision-making, but it also enhances efficiency in policy implementation, such as poverty alleviation.
Ignoring Nuanced Dynamics: The author dismisses the diversity in China’s governance structure. Local governments still have discretion, particularly in economic policy experiments, which adds complexity to the system.
4. On the Deterioration of India-China Relations
The author attributes the 2020 Galwan Valley clash to “bad advice” or a failure of Xi Jinping’s advisors to warn against it.
Issues:
Lack of Evidence: The motivations behind the Galwan clash are complex, involving long-standing border disputes and geostrategic considerations. Attributing it solely to “bad advice” lacks substantiation.
Neglecting India’s Policy Shift: India’s hardening stance toward China predates Galwan and is part of broader geopolitical competition. Simplifying the conflict as a one-sided decision by China is reductive.
5. On the Long-Term Advantages of U.S. vs. China
The author claims that Americans believe they can change their system, while people in China lack this belief due to the one-party state.
Issues:
Cultural Context Overlooked: American and Chinese societies are shaped by different historical and cultural contexts. Chinese citizens may prioritize tangible outcomes, such as economic growth, over systemic change. Viewing “belief in systemic change” as an exclusive advantage for the U.S. overlooks this nuance.
Ignoring U.S. Challenges: The U.S. system faces its own issues, including racial disparities, political polarization, and social divisions, which undermine trust in institutions. These challenges also affect citizens’ belief in their ability to enact change.
6. On Xi Jinping’s Governance Style
The author suggests that Xi’s anti-corruption efforts have removed the strengths of China’s decentralized authoritarian system, leading to systemic weaknesses.
Issues:
Overlooking Positive Outcomes: While centralization has reduced local autonomy, it has also curbed corruption and improved public trust in governance. These effects are not fully acknowledged.
Underestimating Reform Goals: Local decentralization historically spurred economic growth but also caused inefficiencies, environmental damage, and debt issues. Xi’s reforms aim to address these systemic problems.
7. On the Importance of Transparency in the Age of AI
The author asserts that transparent systems like the U.S. are better suited for challenges posed by AI.
Issues:
Neglecting Efficiency vs. Transparency: Transparency is important, but efficiency is equally critical. China’s centralized system has driven rapid advancements in AI and 5G, while the U.S. has struggled with internal competition and slower policy execution.
Binary Framing of AI Governance: Transparency is just one aspect of effective AI governance. Implementation capacity and risk management are equally vital, and the author’s argument oversimplifies this balance.
Quite a convoluted comment. It occurs to me that policy thinkers in India often put themselves in a hegemonic position, to believe that bilateral relations/trades largely benefit China, and to reduce that would be a hit towards China rather than India.
I could confidently say that what Xi, or the Chinese general public thought at the incident was exactly that Indians, maybe because of their language proximity to the west, had quite unrealistic assessment and expectation of bilateral relationship. The common Indian strategy to walk in the middle and seek rent by threatening to join the other party is one of the most despised actions in Chinese perspectives. China understands that as the weakling’s position to ditch all the heavylifting be parasitic and somehow India still comes to possess an unfathomable amount of ego.
From India’s perspective, it would be a great honor for say Xiaomi to operate in their market. Ban TikTok, give a boot to other Chinese companies that once helped India’s modernization(think Alibaba enabled Paytm, smartphone makers enabled local supply chains etc) was all on the table. China, after the border clash and India “retaliations”, came to realize in a similar American “engaging with China was a mistake” fashion, that entering India market was both unprofitable and dangerous.
The Indian reaction to 2020 border clash was analogous to China threatening to sever relations with the US in the 2000s. Even so China wouldn’t want to throw out the American companies, because they were here to help! It would only be reputable to Indian nationalists themselves to “stand up against China”, because you are shooting exactly at the one who may help you become the next manufacturing giant, who currently possesses the manufacturing capacity and knowhow.
It would be a vital task for China now to make sure the next supply side powerhouse is *not* India, but preferably a set of friendlier ASEAN economies. Just imagine what that means for India.
Lol, I'm gonna be a frank, I was and am pretty pro-China. I don't like the demonization of the Chinese. All you have done in return is rant incoherently. But I guess whatever works with you lol.
I would further add that India, and the US of that matter, seems to care a lot about the potential collapse of CCP, and make prediction on some fixated ideological grounds with many wishful thinkings and secondary guesses. I would argue that it’s a an acquired obsession from USSR’s collapse. Policy thinkers in China couldn’t care less about the political futures of the US, much less India.
The truth about China is that both the social and the political landscape arguably changes a lot quicker than people may believe. The broad political sentiment is a construct set on the economic realities and some niche but viral online discussions. A lot of people even in China could not grasp how quickly their economic surroundings change, that they still rely on assertions necessarily true just a few years ago but not now. It would be advised for the China observers just to observe more and make less conclusions. Talk less and you will appear smarter.
"There are indeed cameras everywhere. This is gonna sound super naive - but I genuinely don't understand why. There's no crime. I know you'll say it's to prevent protests. Which might make sense for major streets, but even random alleyway corners will have a couple of cameras. Are they really trying to prevent someone from fomenting insurrection between 2 garbage cans? Beijing in particular had police officers at attention at what seemed like every street corner."
1. hikvision takes the head of local police in charge of procurement out to a few nice meals...
“There are indeed cameras everywhere. This is gonna sound super naive - but I genuinely don't understand why. There's no crime. I know you'll say it's to prevent protests. Which might make sense for major streets, but even random alleyway corners will have a couple of cameras. Are they really trying to prevent someone from fomenting insurrection between 2 garbage cans? Beijing in particular had police officers at attention at what seemed like every street corner.” You got the cause and effect wrong. It’s precisely because of those cameras that there is no crime. When I was younger, crime is rampant too.
I assume you've thought about and Kevin Rudd in trying to understand China better. He'd be an amazing podcast guest of course but he doesn't really do podcasts now he's ambassador as far as I can tell. But I read his books and watched his panels and speeches and I learned a ton especially in finding out new things from which to branch off. In the unlikely event you haven't, do. Really singular guy.
The trip sounds super cool. There aren't a lot of better feelings than being a productive traveler.
This is a very balanced take. Thanks for sharing. Kinda wished that you would do a podcast on this more. The world needs more bridges, understanding, empathy and acceptance.
great opener. great summary. US subsidizes demand and restrict supply, China the other way around. couldnt have said it better.
on cameras everywhere - ofc control may be the biggest reason, but public safety is also part of it. if someone like Luigi Mangione happens in beijing or shanghai, you can bet he wont make it out of the back alley of the Hilton hotel before being captured by 5 cameras, or even 5 cops.
on demographic problem and youth unemployment at the same time - those unemployed young adults were born 20+ years ago and only graduated and (trying to) join the workforce now. the demographic problem, however, significantly deteriorated only since 5-7 years ago. they are not overlapping and contradicting problems, but there's maybe a possible casualty linking the two: because of the current youth unemployment problems, current couple are hesitant to become parents.
on lack of public intellectual landscape: to be an intellectual, you need freedom to express that intellect, essentially freedom of speech. no voice recorder is going to become an opinion leader. that why china isn't short of influencer or KOL (the wang hongs) cuz putting up and selling lipstick arent censured.
all in all what a great post. hope you find a way around the great firewall and go to china again, and post a follow up. thanks vm
I think you should interleave some photos
done!
> There are indeed cameras everywhere. This is gonna sound super naive - but I genuinely don't understand why. There's no crime. I know you'll say it's to prevent protests. Which might make sense for major streets, but even random alleyway corners will have a couple of cameras.
Petty crime used to be super bad (10-15 years ago) especially in big cities and the cameras essentially allowed police to crack down. Now it's for surveillance in case something happens imo and you won't be able to hide
It really wasn't. I've lived in a medium sized city in China (Xiamen) for the last 20 years, with spells in Shanghai and Shenzhen, and petty crime has never been super bad.
I think the explanation for the cameras is simpler: they like control, and cameras offer more.
Might be a fair few fist fights in Mingfa on a Friday night…
Haha, yes, that's true. On my worst nights, I might even have been involved in one or two...
That's not the same as street crime being bad, though. I've had a phone stolen in Xiamen; a friend has been mugged. But these were always rare events. Compared to bad areas of big cities elsewhere, Chinese cities were always low-crime.
That would already be pretty bad on Chinese standards. Growing up in Shenzhen, I remember in the 2000s my dad would always put me on his shoulders when we were in the crowds. Things weren’t nearly as rosy as they are now.
Those cameras always made me feel physically safe. They helped me get back a couple of deliveries taken by the wrong people during COVID when everything had to be left downstairs in piles. But yeah, I definitely don’t miss them. But after a while, you do just stop noticing them. And occasionally, you feel glad they were there. But mostly, you don’t really think about them. But that’s just me; it could have been different for others.
I got my bicycles stolen 7x in 2 years in Beijing. That sort of petty crime made life a bit more inefficient! Also got pick pocketed another time
https://open.substack.com/pub/slkanthan/p/why-i-feel-bad-for-americans?r=1l8ac8&utm_medium=ios
Fire post
https://substack.com/@slkanthan/note/c-83208657?r=1l8ac8&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
Listen to Simon carefully https://youtu.be/BqvHN1BJLXg?si=iedKDMLKik1xdhJP
https://open.substack.com/pub/slkanthan/p/why-i-feel-bad-for-americans?r=1l8ac8&utm_medium=ios
The rural skyscrapers, at least in my hometown are all empty and meant as an investment vehicle / way to own property in your village. My family bulldozed our old village home for a 10 floor building, one for each branch of the extended family. My parents own a floor, with two other floors belonging to two different uncles, and the rest of the floors are empty. As far as I know most of the building in the village are like this.
It was crazy to me that even with how depopulated the village was since I grew up there as a kid, these multi floor apartments would still be built left and right. Even more crazy was the idea that you’d want to live in the same building as all your siblings, parents and inlaws. Guess I’m just too westernized to understand
whenever the topic of national sentiments come up i feel like i should note that dwarkesh, along with many members of the community here, belong to a part of the tech and finance industries that have arguably been the biggest winners of the entire american socioeconomic order over the past two decades or so. they tend to work in pockets of dynamism and competence, and live in gated communities literal and figurative that allow them to be somewhat shielded from the social dysfunctions affecting middle of the bell curve america over the same period of time. meanwhile, their direct counterparts in china have been the biggest losers over the past few years, what with the ccp's crackdown on tech, the strangling of vc money, the shift of focus to manufacturing and other less glamorous and more grueling industries. things have been especially bad for them, and the relatively chill life of coding and watching boy meets world that they thought they were promised based on the american model did not come. they are right to be disappointed, but i also think their negative sentiments may be amplified because of their visibility and relatability to people here.
Your list of intellectuals is very concerning. These people are influencers and podcasters and it really confirms that if you ask podcasters who the intellectuals are they will just tell you other podcasters.
Putting the word intellectual in the same sentence as Joe Rogan is particularly unusual.
Great point. A million miles from intellectuals. Populists in fact. True intellectual? Stieglitz? Jason Hickel?
The second part of my reply concerns the main reason I am still optimistic about US victory in our era of great power competition between US and China. Having studied the PRC system over the last few years, I have to say that I am extremely impressed by its ingenuity, its focus on productivity, and tech advancements, as well as human capital improvements. Most importantly, the Chinese simply accomplish things. Coming from a country (India) which represents the nation-state equivalent of the talker that does not do much, China is unique in being a doer, even if it does not talk as much. This is why they are where they are, and I don't think the Chinese juggernaut is going to stop anytime soon.
But China's one party state system does have some flaws, and these seem to have been particularly amplified under Xi Jinping (or so I have heard). The biggest problem is that China's legal system is the best example of a system where there is RULE BY LAW, but not necessarily rule of law. This is a major difference from the American system, where even if the legal system is incredibly inefficient, it also represents a mechanism that provides a competent and level-playing ground to different actors, no matter the power differential between them outside the court room. This is also true, tho not to the same level, with USA's regulatory system. Look at the amount of time it is taking the US govt to possibly remove TikTok from the country for example. If the CCP really wants to do something like this in China, it would be a far quicker process, and even tho that can seem like a useful thing in the short-term, in the long-term, systems like this create an environment of distrust, which is never good for long term capital formation and investment.
In fact, they also create distrust among citizens and local companies too. The best example of this is the treatment of Jack Ma himself. Jack Ma, to many people, represented Chinese capitalism. His company may not have been perfect, but it was path-breaking. One fine day, because Xi was not happy with him, he was effectively sent into exile, and his control over his company was weakened. THIS WOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPEND IN USA. And this imo is the key difference between US & China. I don't think there are any wealthy Americans, even Chinese-Americans, who want to leave the US, because they know the US system grants certain protections to anyone there.
This is simply not true in PRC. While the CCP system also promotes merit, it is also clear that there is a top dog: the CCP, and increasingly under Xi, solely Xi and his coterie of advisors. This is always going to be a restriction for China. Most outsiders, and even people within China, cannot really imagine themselves with the ability to bring about change in China, while they believe they can in America. As long as people retain these beliefs and dreams about the American system, which are built on its openness just as much as its success, America will continue to have an edge on China. As we have been hearing of late, its time for a billion Americans (despite the backlash this has generated)
In this system, everyone, particularly capitalists, have to be careful about not doing anything that hurts Xi. Safe to say, this is not a dynamic that is healthy for continued investment into society . This is why you had people wanting to leave in their conversations with you, because people desire stability and consistency.
In my opinion, the Chinese system was absolutely incredible from 1978-2012, and Chinese industry is right now reaping the rewards of that era. Despite the EV and solar wins happening under Xi, and even though I will give him credit for his handling of the real estate crisis, I think the system has weakened under Xi, and his centralizing tendencies have only further amplified that. This might not seem so obvious now, but the weaknesses and dysfunction will become obvious sooner. I will refer back to my comment made on your book review post on 2 books you read about China. What made the Chinese system unique was that despite being authoritarian, it was incredibly decentralized, with tons of discretion to lower level officials to go against each other and compete, in a way that the central leadership would not even have imagined. The decentralization caused some issues, such as excessive investment into real estate, but was also a boon for Chinese economy, as evidenced by my example of how different Chinese ministries took on the monopolist telecom ministry and turbo-charged China's telecom revolution. From what I have heard about Xi and his governance style, this would simply not be possible under him.
In that sense, in trying to counter corruption (which was important), Xi has thrown the baby out with the bathwater, removing the essential strengths of China's decentralized authoritarian system. In its place has risen an ecosystem marked by complete consolidation of power in the hands of Xi and his small circle of advisors. Such dynamics are never healthy, because the Emperor ends up being surrounded by clowns, who merely sweet-talk him, and deny him good advice.
This is not discussed as much in the West, but China's decision to engage in unprovoked violence against India in Galwan in 2020, while China was already isolated amidst the COVID pandemic, is the perfect example of this. The episode has permanently set India-China relations back decades, led to the banning of TikTok and many other Chinese businesses from India, and contributed to an active feeling of distrust in the relationship. To this day, I cannot understand why he would do that, other than poor advice or the inability of his advisors to point out to him that it is a bad idea. Another great example of this is his COVID Zero policy, that led to continued lockdowns despite their negative economic effects and unpopularity, not to mention questionable effectiveness.
I will end by saying that the competition between the US and PRC systems is exciting to watch, simply because despite their flaws, both countries are juggernauts, who are going to take humanity to new heights. Despite my love for the PRC (some might say I'm China pilled), I do hope USA's more open system does win out, simply because in a world of AI slop, we need transparent systems to win. However, I think co-existence is the name of the game long-term.
1. On the Comparison Between “Rule by Law” and “Rule of Law”
The author claims that China’s legal system exemplifies “RULE BY LAW” rather than “RULE OF LAW,” and contrasts this with the U.S. legal system, which they argue provides a level playing field.
Issues:
Oversimplification: While the U.S. legal system does emphasize fairness, it is far from perfect. It suffers from inefficiencies, high litigation costs, and inequalities in access to justice. Characterizing it as a “completely fair playing ground” ignores these realities.
Neglecting Practical Effectiveness: While China’s legal system is criticized for political interference, it is often more efficient in resolving economic or civil disputes. Dismissing its effectiveness outright is an unbalanced view.
2. On the Jack Ma Incident
The author cites Jack Ma’s treatment as an example of something that “would never happen in the U.S.”
Issues:
Not Entirely True: While U.S. systems emphasize property rights and corporate independence, they do intervene in cases involving corporate giants. For instance, Facebook, Google, and Amazon face antitrust investigations, and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg has been subject to intense scrutiny. Historical cases like the breakup of Standard Oil show that U.S. interventions are not unheard of.
Simplistic View of Jack Ma’s Case: Jack Ma’s situation is tied to systemic financial risks posed by Ant Group, not merely a personal issue. While political factors may have played a role, reducing the incident to individual punishment oversimplifies the complexities.
3. On Centralization and Quality of Advisors
The author argues that centralization under Xi Jinping has led to poor decision-making because “the emperor ends up surrounded by sycophants.”
Issues:
Overgeneralization: All political systems face challenges in feedback and information flow. Even U.S. presidents have been criticized for being influenced by interest groups or internal factions. Centralization in China might limit diversity in decision-making, but it also enhances efficiency in policy implementation, such as poverty alleviation.
Ignoring Nuanced Dynamics: The author dismisses the diversity in China’s governance structure. Local governments still have discretion, particularly in economic policy experiments, which adds complexity to the system.
4. On the Deterioration of India-China Relations
The author attributes the 2020 Galwan Valley clash to “bad advice” or a failure of Xi Jinping’s advisors to warn against it.
Issues:
Lack of Evidence: The motivations behind the Galwan clash are complex, involving long-standing border disputes and geostrategic considerations. Attributing it solely to “bad advice” lacks substantiation.
Neglecting India’s Policy Shift: India’s hardening stance toward China predates Galwan and is part of broader geopolitical competition. Simplifying the conflict as a one-sided decision by China is reductive.
5. On the Long-Term Advantages of U.S. vs. China
The author claims that Americans believe they can change their system, while people in China lack this belief due to the one-party state.
Issues:
Cultural Context Overlooked: American and Chinese societies are shaped by different historical and cultural contexts. Chinese citizens may prioritize tangible outcomes, such as economic growth, over systemic change. Viewing “belief in systemic change” as an exclusive advantage for the U.S. overlooks this nuance.
Ignoring U.S. Challenges: The U.S. system faces its own issues, including racial disparities, political polarization, and social divisions, which undermine trust in institutions. These challenges also affect citizens’ belief in their ability to enact change.
6. On Xi Jinping’s Governance Style
The author suggests that Xi’s anti-corruption efforts have removed the strengths of China’s decentralized authoritarian system, leading to systemic weaknesses.
Issues:
Overlooking Positive Outcomes: While centralization has reduced local autonomy, it has also curbed corruption and improved public trust in governance. These effects are not fully acknowledged.
Underestimating Reform Goals: Local decentralization historically spurred economic growth but also caused inefficiencies, environmental damage, and debt issues. Xi’s reforms aim to address these systemic problems.
7. On the Importance of Transparency in the Age of AI
The author asserts that transparent systems like the U.S. are better suited for challenges posed by AI.
Issues:
Neglecting Efficiency vs. Transparency: Transparency is important, but efficiency is equally critical. China’s centralized system has driven rapid advancements in AI and 5G, while the U.S. has struggled with internal competition and slower policy execution.
Binary Framing of AI Governance: Transparency is just one aspect of effective AI governance. Implementation capacity and risk management are equally vital, and the author’s argument oversimplifies this balance.
did you ask AI to critique my comment? Nothing wrong, but curious.
Quite a convoluted comment. It occurs to me that policy thinkers in India often put themselves in a hegemonic position, to believe that bilateral relations/trades largely benefit China, and to reduce that would be a hit towards China rather than India.
I could confidently say that what Xi, or the Chinese general public thought at the incident was exactly that Indians, maybe because of their language proximity to the west, had quite unrealistic assessment and expectation of bilateral relationship. The common Indian strategy to walk in the middle and seek rent by threatening to join the other party is one of the most despised actions in Chinese perspectives. China understands that as the weakling’s position to ditch all the heavylifting be parasitic and somehow India still comes to possess an unfathomable amount of ego.
From India’s perspective, it would be a great honor for say Xiaomi to operate in their market. Ban TikTok, give a boot to other Chinese companies that once helped India’s modernization(think Alibaba enabled Paytm, smartphone makers enabled local supply chains etc) was all on the table. China, after the border clash and India “retaliations”, came to realize in a similar American “engaging with China was a mistake” fashion, that entering India market was both unprofitable and dangerous.
The Indian reaction to 2020 border clash was analogous to China threatening to sever relations with the US in the 2000s. Even so China wouldn’t want to throw out the American companies, because they were here to help! It would only be reputable to Indian nationalists themselves to “stand up against China”, because you are shooting exactly at the one who may help you become the next manufacturing giant, who currently possesses the manufacturing capacity and knowhow.
It would be a vital task for China now to make sure the next supply side powerhouse is *not* India, but preferably a set of friendlier ASEAN economies. Just imagine what that means for India.
Lol, I'm gonna be a frank, I was and am pretty pro-China. I don't like the demonization of the Chinese. All you have done in return is rant incoherently. But I guess whatever works with you lol.
I would further add that India, and the US of that matter, seems to care a lot about the potential collapse of CCP, and make prediction on some fixated ideological grounds with many wishful thinkings and secondary guesses. I would argue that it’s a an acquired obsession from USSR’s collapse. Policy thinkers in China couldn’t care less about the political futures of the US, much less India.
The truth about China is that both the social and the political landscape arguably changes a lot quicker than people may believe. The broad political sentiment is a construct set on the economic realities and some niche but viral online discussions. A lot of people even in China could not grasp how quickly their economic surroundings change, that they still rely on assertions necessarily true just a few years ago but not now. It would be advised for the China observers just to observe more and make less conclusions. Talk less and you will appear smarter.
Dan Wang's letters are excellent. https://danwang.co/
Always classics
Great post!
As an Australian who's lived in China, this was an excellent summary. Key take aways:
1. We need to do better with Chinese students at our universities
2. We need to better understand Chinese culture, language and people
Reading, writing and sharing blogs like this help with both. Thank you!
"There are indeed cameras everywhere. This is gonna sound super naive - but I genuinely don't understand why. There's no crime. I know you'll say it's to prevent protests. Which might make sense for major streets, but even random alleyway corners will have a couple of cameras. Are they really trying to prevent someone from fomenting insurrection between 2 garbage cans? Beijing in particular had police officers at attention at what seemed like every street corner."
1. hikvision takes the head of local police in charge of procurement out to a few nice meals...
2. jobs program
“There are indeed cameras everywhere. This is gonna sound super naive - but I genuinely don't understand why. There's no crime. I know you'll say it's to prevent protests. Which might make sense for major streets, but even random alleyway corners will have a couple of cameras. Are they really trying to prevent someone from fomenting insurrection between 2 garbage cans? Beijing in particular had police officers at attention at what seemed like every street corner.” You got the cause and effect wrong. It’s precisely because of those cameras that there is no crime. When I was younger, crime is rampant too.
I assume you've thought about and Kevin Rudd in trying to understand China better. He'd be an amazing podcast guest of course but he doesn't really do podcasts now he's ambassador as far as I can tell. But I read his books and watched his panels and speeches and I learned a ton especially in finding out new things from which to branch off. In the unlikely event you haven't, do. Really singular guy.
The trip sounds super cool. There aren't a lot of better feelings than being a productive traveler.
This is a very balanced take. Thanks for sharing. Kinda wished that you would do a podcast on this more. The world needs more bridges, understanding, empathy and acceptance.
the supply/demand note is really well put. also “too yimby” lol
i wrote up some similar (and diff!) observations on a trip to China earlier this year: https://open.substack.com/pub/jasmine/p/china-2024
going to read this up too!
great opener. great summary. US subsidizes demand and restrict supply, China the other way around. couldnt have said it better.
on cameras everywhere - ofc control may be the biggest reason, but public safety is also part of it. if someone like Luigi Mangione happens in beijing or shanghai, you can bet he wont make it out of the back alley of the Hilton hotel before being captured by 5 cameras, or even 5 cops.
on demographic problem and youth unemployment at the same time - those unemployed young adults were born 20+ years ago and only graduated and (trying to) join the workforce now. the demographic problem, however, significantly deteriorated only since 5-7 years ago. they are not overlapping and contradicting problems, but there's maybe a possible casualty linking the two: because of the current youth unemployment problems, current couple are hesitant to become parents.
on lack of public intellectual landscape: to be an intellectual, you need freedom to express that intellect, essentially freedom of speech. no voice recorder is going to become an opinion leader. that why china isn't short of influencer or KOL (the wang hongs) cuz putting up and selling lipstick arent censured.
all in all what a great post. hope you find a way around the great firewall and go to china again, and post a follow up. thanks vm