Poor democracy (India) vs. Wealthier dictatorship (China)?

[hangfan91]

Between a country that is poor but with a democracy and elections like India and a country that is doing relatively fine financially but has an oppressive government, where would you rather live?

[Boston Bread]

These countries are too diverse for me to make a judgement on where I'd rather live. Where in those countries makes a huge difference. China has an extremely large income gap between its regions, so does India. Shanghai for instance has an HDI about equal to that of Italy. So certainly a somewhat decent area of Shanghai wouldn't be a raw deal compared to an slum in either China or India.

[Beet]

False dichotomy.

[Famous Mortimer]

False dichotomy.

No one is saying it isn't. Lame cop out answer.

[MaxQue]

False dichotomy.

No one is saying it isn't. Lame cop out answer.

The working underclass is as poor in both countries.

[Cory]

Wealthier dictatorship, duh.

[Beet]

False dichotomy.

No one is saying it isn't. Lame cop out answer.

And you still think the question is meaningful? lol.

[Famous Mortimer]

False dichotomy.

No one is saying it isn't. Lame cop out answer.

And you still think the question is meaningful? lol.

So if someone asks you if you'd rather have x-ray vision or fly, do you yell "neither of those is possible!"

[Beet]

False dichotomy.

No one is saying it isn't. Lame cop out answer.

And you still think the question is meaningful? lol.

So if someone asks you if you'd rather have x-ray vision or fly, do you yell "neither of those is possible!"

The correct analogy is more like 'would you rather go to war with Iran and have a strong America or negotiate with Iran and be a cheese eating surrender monkey?' It's a leading question that implies a dichotomy which is false.

[Sbane]

False dichotomy.

No one is saying it isn't. Lame cop out answer.

And you still think the question is meaningful? lol.

So if someone asks you if you'd rather have x-ray vision or fly, do you yell "neither of those is possible!"

The correct analogy is more like 'would you rather go to war with Iran and have a strong America or negotiate with Iran and be a cheese eating surrender monkey?' It's a leading question that implies a dichotomy which is false.

What is false about it? I think the description of India as a poor democracy and China as a wealthier dictatorship is fairly accurate, no?

As for the question, the answer is wherever I would be richer. If my standard of living was the same in both places, I would obviously choose the democracy. Otherwise I would go with the dictatorship, which is actually not that bad as long as you keep your mouth shut and do your job. Democracy is great, but it still sucks to be a poor.

[Beet]

False dichotomy.

No one is saying it isn't. Lame cop out answer.

And you still think the question is meaningful? lol.

So if someone asks you if you'd rather have x-ray vision or fly, do you yell "neither of those is possible!"

The correct analogy is more like 'would you rather go to war with Iran and have a strong America or negotiate with Iran and be a cheese eating surrender monkey?' It's a leading question that implies a dichotomy which is false.

What is false about it? I think the description of India as a poor democracy and China as a wealthier dictatorship is fairly accurate, no?

There are, uh, some other differences between India and China besides those two.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Tell that to the parents of an only child who died in a car accident, who couldn't have another child because of government policy, and are now too old to. All the wealth in the world is meaningless if one has nothing to live for.

[Cory]

History has shown that people prefer a wealthy/economically stable dictatorship then a poor/economically unstable free nation. Economics trumps all.

[Indy Texas]

If I were a poor schmuck, China, because very basic things like infrastructure and public health will be somewhat better for me than in India, even in the rural areas.

If I were rich, India, because if I were rich in China, I'd probably owe too many favors to too many people who have the ability to make me disappear if I piss them off.

[Sol]

Kerala, obvs.

[Beet]

History has shown that people prefer a wealthy/economically stable dictatorship then a poor/economically unstable free nation. Economics trumps all.

How has history shown that?

[Sbane]

False dichotomy.

No one is saying it isn't. Lame cop out answer.

And you still think the question is meaningful? lol.

So if someone asks you if you'd rather have x-ray vision or fly, do you yell "neither of those is possible!"

The correct analogy is more like 'would you rather go to war with Iran and have a strong America or negotiate with Iran and be a cheese eating surrender monkey?' It's a leading question that implies a dichotomy which is false.

What is false about it? I think the description of India as a poor democracy and China as a wealthier dictatorship is fairly accurate, no?

There are, uh, some other differences between India and China besides those two.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Tell that to the parents of an only child who died in a car accident, who couldn't have another child because of government policy, and are now too old to. All the wealth in the world is meaningless if one has nothing to live for.

No one said there weren't more differences or similarities. The basic description of those countries would be accurate in the way the OP stated it. Very simplistic, sure, but accurate.

And sure, there are issues with China (or dictatorships in general) which are not that pleasant. That is why I would choose a poor democracy over a wealthier dictatorship if I wasn't a poor person in that poor country.

[politicus]

It seems to be an underlying premise for the question that India would be wealthier if it had an authoritarian government and China would be less successful if it was a democracy, both highly questionable assumptions, which makes the whole question pointless.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In fact in order to discover what India would be like with a history of authoritarian governments, you just have to look across the western border...

[Beet]

It seems to be an underlying premise for the question that India would be wealthier if it had an authoritarian government and China would be less successful if it was a democracy, both highly questionable assumptions, which makes the whole question pointless.

Precisely. Thank you for saying what I have been trying to get at so clearly.

Even if one were to interpret this question literally, it makes no sense. For example, if you didn't know any Chinese dialects or script, living in China wouldn't be too pleasant even if you had a few dollars more (and it's not the easiest language to learn).

[Sbane]

It seems to be an underlying premise for the question that India would be wealthier if it had an authoritarian government and China would be less successful if it was a democracy, both highly questionable assumptions, which makes the whole question pointless.

While I don't know whether China would be less wealthy if it were a democracy, I think India would have at the least had better infrastructure if it was a dictatorship. The Chinese government doesn't have to care about NIMBYs when they are planning a project. They don't have to reroute roads around temples and mosques. Obviously the fact that the people in India have more of a say is not a bad thing, but it does have consequences.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It seems to be an underlying premise for the question that India would be wealthier if it had an authoritarian government and China would be less successful if it was a democracy, both highly questionable assumptions, which makes the whole question pointless.

While I don't know whether China would be less wealthy if it were a democracy, I think India would have at the least had better infrastructure if it was a dictatorship. The Chinese government doesn't have to care about NIMBYs when they are planning a project. They don't have to reroute roads around temples and mosques. Obviously the fact that the people in India have more of a say is not a bad thing, but it does have consequences.

Having a sh*tload of "infrastructures" that cause pollution, the displacement of thousands of people, the destruction of natural landscapes or important monuments or otherwise reduce the actual quality of life of people in order to benefit large corporations isn't necessarily a good thing.

[Sbane]

It seems to be an underlying premise for the question that India would be wealthier if it had an authoritarian government and China would be less successful if it was a democracy, both highly questionable assumptions, which makes the whole question pointless.

While I don't know whether China would be less wealthy if it were a democracy, I think India would have at the least had better infrastructure if it was a dictatorship. The Chinese government doesn't have to care about NIMBYs when they are planning a project. They don't have to reroute roads around temples and mosques. Obviously the fact that the people in India have more of a say is not a bad thing, but it does have consequences.

Having a sh*tload of "infrastructures" that cause pollution, the displacement of thousands of people, the destruction of natural landscapes or important monuments or otherwise reduce the actual quality of life of people in order to benefit large corporations isn't necessarily a good thing.

I don't think the poor who would gain opportunities from this development would agree with your assessment. And I'm talking about people in extreme poverty. In addition, due to the lack of resources, these people are forced to use inefficient means to warm themselves up during the winter, causing a haze over northern India that rivals China. So it's not as if they aren't causing a bunch of pollution to begin with.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It seems to be an underlying premise for the question that India would be wealthier if it had an authoritarian government and China would be less successful if it was a democracy, both highly questionable assumptions, which makes the whole question pointless.

While I don't know whether China would be less wealthy if it were a democracy, I think India would have at the least had better infrastructure if it was a dictatorship. The Chinese government doesn't have to care about NIMBYs when they are planning a project. They don't have to reroute roads around temples and mosques. Obviously the fact that the people in India have more of a say is not a bad thing, but it does have consequences.

Having a sh*tload of "infrastructures" that cause pollution, the displacement of thousands of people, the destruction of natural landscapes or important monuments or otherwise reduce the actual quality of life of people in order to benefit large corporations isn't necessarily a good thing.

I don't think the poor who would gain opportunities from this development would agree with your assessment. And I'm talking about people in extreme poverty. In addition, due to the lack of resources, these people are forced to use inefficient means to warm themselves up during the winter, causing a haze over northern India that rivals China. So it's not as if they aren't causing a bunch of pollution to begin with.

I'm not really defending India, simply pointing out that the kind of "development" fostered by the Chinese dictatorship hasn't exactly been directed toward the poor. I mean sure, there has been a massive increase in standards of living and some of it has reached the poor as well, but if they had been intended as the main beneficiaries of government intervention, such intervention would have taken very different forms.

[compson III]

10 years from now it will likely be "wealthier democracy" vs. "poor dictatorship." Guess which characteristic is more likely to change?

There is no scope for entrepreneurship in China, unless you have no need of capital to start up your business. Look at the list of non-crony billionaires in China. Mostly the only ones are website founders, who had no need of startup capital or regulatory permits.

The Chinese leadership will not give up control of the economy, because that would mean they have to give up control of political power. And that means they are stuck in the middle income trap.

[compson III]

False dichotomy.

It is a false dichotomy and a classic cognitive error.  "China has developed in spite of an authoritarian government" is a lot less interesting story than "China has developed because it has pioneered a hybrid third-way form of state driven development."  Even though I've never heard that story articulated in a non fuzzy form.