Too simplistic.
Neither country is wholly capitalist or communist, both are a mixture.
So they are better at BOTH than the US?
Thank you kindly.
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Too simplistic.
Neither country is wholly capitalist or communist, both are a mixture.
I know which looks more productive. Whether it's better or not is a value judgement.So they are better at BOTH than the US?
Thank you kindly.
Communist party not in power in China until after WWIII know which looks more productive. Whether it's better or not is a value judgement.
The US method:
- choose political leaders in a media-driven popularity contest every few years
- lobby those politicians from every angle during their short few years in office
- argue endlessly about climate and energy
- eventually decide EVs will be good for the nation
- tilt the market slightly in favour of EVs (tax credits, government loans)
- wait
- keep waiting
- watch a few startups fizzle out (sorry Fisker)
- hope that an entrepreneur like Elon just happens shows up
- hope that he finds investors (shares/VC) to give him the money to build a factory, hire staff
- hope he survives an endless stream of opposition from dodgy politicians, unions, stock shorters,
- hope that he makes EVs
The Chinese method:
- have one political party for 100 years
- discuss the future of the nation as a committee, planning 50 years ahead
- gather advice on climate and energy from your experts
- decide EVs will be good for the nation
- shoot anyone who disagrees (I jest)
- fund a new government 'department' to run the operation
- move 50,000 farmers, bulldoze farms, build 10 power stations, 100 factories, train 100,000 staff
- make EVs
have one political party for 100 years
True. It was 1949 when the Chinese Communist Party assumed power. So not 100 years, but 67 years ago.Communist party not in power in China until after WWII
I know which looks more productive. Whether it's better or not is a value judgement.
The US method:
- choose political leaders in a media-driven popularity contest every few years
- lobby those politicians from every angle during their short few years in office
- argue endlessly about climate and energy
- eventually decide EVs will be good for the nation
- tilt the market slightly in favour of EVs (tax credits, government loans)
- wait
- keep waiting
- watch a few startups fizzle out (sorry Fisker)
- hope that an entrepreneur like Elon just happens shows up
- hope that he finds investors (shares/VC) to give him the money to build a factory, hire staff
- hope he survives an endless stream of opposition from dodgy politicians, unions, stock shorters,
- hope that he makes EVs
The Chinese method:
- have one political party for 100 years
- discuss the future of the nation as a committee, planning 50 years ahead
- gather advice on climate and energy from your experts
- decide EVs will be good for the nation
- shoot anyone who disagrees (I jest)
- fund a new government 'department' to run the operation
- move 50,000 farmers, bulldoze farms, build 10 power stations, 100 factories, train 100,000 staff
- make EVs
But also rapid devolution, as is happening now.The chaos and destruction built into the U.S. system does have one “advantage”: rapid evolution. The strong and adaptive thrive out of necessity. The weak die.
But also rapid devolution, as is happening now.