▲ 138 ▼ Younger Americans are friendlier to China (www.economist.com) submitted 2 years ago by nekandro@lemmy.ml to c/world@lemmy.world 157 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] MarcoPOLO@sh.itjust.works -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) If you like people not being poor, you like the CPC permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Hitler and Putin also lifted a lot of people out of poverty and addressed terrible economies. They provided stability. That in no way however means that they are supported by people who want to eliminate poverty. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) The thing is those examples you gave really are not comparable to the massive and sustained economic growth China has experienced since their economic reforms in the late 80s. Putin has only overseen a modest economic recovery following the disaster that was economic shock therapy in the 90s. As for Hitler, he provided the German economy with whatever you would call the exact opposite of stability. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago I believe Putin's appeal is having led the country out of that economic disaster, so even though there isn't massive growth under him, he was elected and maintained power for taking them out of the very bad times. I should've clarified my comment on Hitler a bit, because you're right there haha. Similar to Putin, Hitler got Germany out of their economic disaster. That recovery is what actually got him Time person of the year. Everyone's well aware what followed however. There's a phenomenon where the leader at the end of an economic crisis, or a leader jumpstarting their economy, gets very high support. That leader though isn't infallible. Hitler drove Germany to ruin, and Putin has caused devastating damage to Russia. My point in all this -- getting a good economy does not necessarily mean a politician or political entity will always do the best for their country. In this case, I think invading Taiwan would be the beginning of their end. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Hitler and Putin also lifted a lot of people out of poverty and addressed terrible economies. They provided stability. That in no way however means that they are supported by people who want to eliminate poverty. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) The thing is those examples you gave really are not comparable to the massive and sustained economic growth China has experienced since their economic reforms in the late 80s. Putin has only overseen a modest economic recovery following the disaster that was economic shock therapy in the 90s. As for Hitler, he provided the German economy with whatever you would call the exact opposite of stability. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago I believe Putin's appeal is having led the country out of that economic disaster, so even though there isn't massive growth under him, he was elected and maintained power for taking them out of the very bad times. I should've clarified my comment on Hitler a bit, because you're right there haha. Similar to Putin, Hitler got Germany out of their economic disaster. That recovery is what actually got him Time person of the year. Everyone's well aware what followed however. There's a phenomenon where the leader at the end of an economic crisis, or a leader jumpstarting their economy, gets very high support. That leader though isn't infallible. Hitler drove Germany to ruin, and Putin has caused devastating damage to Russia. My point in all this -- getting a good economy does not necessarily mean a politician or political entity will always do the best for their country. In this case, I think invading Taiwan would be the beginning of their end. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) The thing is those examples you gave really are not comparable to the massive and sustained economic growth China has experienced since their economic reforms in the late 80s. Putin has only overseen a modest economic recovery following the disaster that was economic shock therapy in the 90s. As for Hitler, he provided the German economy with whatever you would call the exact opposite of stability. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago I believe Putin's appeal is having led the country out of that economic disaster, so even though there isn't massive growth under him, he was elected and maintained power for taking them out of the very bad times. I should've clarified my comment on Hitler a bit, because you're right there haha. Similar to Putin, Hitler got Germany out of their economic disaster. That recovery is what actually got him Time person of the year. Everyone's well aware what followed however. There's a phenomenon where the leader at the end of an economic crisis, or a leader jumpstarting their economy, gets very high support. That leader though isn't infallible. Hitler drove Germany to ruin, and Putin has caused devastating damage to Russia. My point in all this -- getting a good economy does not necessarily mean a politician or political entity will always do the best for their country. In this case, I think invading Taiwan would be the beginning of their end. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago I believe Putin's appeal is having led the country out of that economic disaster, so even though there isn't massive growth under him, he was elected and maintained power for taking them out of the very bad times. I should've clarified my comment on Hitler a bit, because you're right there haha. Similar to Putin, Hitler got Germany out of their economic disaster. That recovery is what actually got him Time person of the year. Everyone's well aware what followed however. There's a phenomenon where the leader at the end of an economic crisis, or a leader jumpstarting their economy, gets very high support. That leader though isn't infallible. Hitler drove Germany to ruin, and Putin has caused devastating damage to Russia. My point in all this -- getting a good economy does not necessarily mean a politician or political entity will always do the best for their country. In this case, I think invading Taiwan would be the beginning of their end. permalink fedilink source parent