• nbafantest@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Dictatorships fundamentally cannot compete with democracies, as the incentives of the dictator do not align with good outcomes for the population or country

          • hark@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yet inequality keeps growing in these so-called democracies. There are ups and downs to all systems. China benefits from having the ability to carry out long-term projects. Of course, they are at the whims of Xi Jinping, but if the plans are sound then they will benefit from the commitment. Take climate change, for example, where the US pulled out of the Paris climate agreement just because Trump got elected. Meanwhile China has been at the forefront of battery and solar tech manufacturing. It’s not out of benevolence, just mainly because they don’t have much oil of their own, plus it’s a market they plan on cornering. For another example, look at the crumbling US infrastructure where funding struggles to get passed with all the squabbles between the two dominant parties.

            Either way, it’s not as simple as labeling something either a dictatorship or a democracy and claiming something WILL follow. After all, a lot of these so-called democracies are more like plutocracies.

              • hark@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                11 months ago

                At the levels it’s at now? It absolutely is. You’d maybe have a point if everyone’s base needs are being met, but it’s not even close.

                  • Zink
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    I don’t think you could solve inequality by taking the same amount away from everybody.

                    Are you implying that a very fair, equal and supportive society that had a slightly lower total GDP would be inherently inferior to one with a higher GDP but realistic inequality?