Unfortunately, the thread whose topic was once a good topic of debate has been closed.

I'm restarting the thread again, with the old thread's original quote. I'm going to add my opinion to the first post, however.

Personally, I think China should become a democracy. Some may argue that Democracy can't work overnight, but I'm suggesting that they take democracy at a rate at which Europe and Japan adopted democracy. Both have proven to have benifitted from democracy economically.

Some may bring up Iraq as an example of how "forced" democracy can fail. But, you can't use isolated incidents to prove all and every case. For the most part, change into democracy has benefitted most nations. Plus, there's still a chance for Iraq, the whole reason for the current situation is not because Iraqis weren't ready for democracy but because the occupation started out poorly.
If Iraqi security could get under-control then we'd see an Iraqi democracy in action.

Point is, every country is ready for democracy, every group of people can handle. No group of people are inherintly less capable of handling self-rule than any other. To even imply that is blatant racism, and it insults the people you are accussing of not being able to handle democracy.

To spread democracy promotes peace. It isn't something that I just brought up out of my @$$ but this theory was created by very intelligent men whose thinking helped bring about some of the international organizations we see today.

All nations who have shared ideologies have shared interests. Everyone one of these nations have their own interests and goals, but their goals are shared with their allies.
This kind of thinking is can be applied to human life. John Donne once said "No man is an island unto himself." Every individual has to abide by the laws that govern them and those are the laws of shared interst. What happens to you happens to me. If we all become democratic then we all care about one another.

Force democracy? Your opinion is not value or welcome here!

China today is prosperous and strong mainly because we hate foreigners' interventions.
We did it to the Japanese, Mao did it to the Russian and we will continue to do what best for our people in our own way and in our own time.


Are you too self-righteous and blind to read?


Elysee said it all “Let Chinese decide what is best for Chinese.”

Not to be rude, American is just too much a baby as compare to China.
Forcing us to do anything is a very naive attitude, but again, why would I be surprise?



You are so darn right quoting on this one; have you look at the mirror lately?

You really have neither the sincerity nor the qualification to understand us Chinese.
At the least, you are not learning another language like most of us here before start preaching to foreigners like us.


Please restrain yourself and stop embarrassing yourself.
.
.
.

Ps. I do agree with the war in Afghanistan or Iraq as a punishment. Now please go home.

Actually the way that Europe become a democracy is different from Japan, also most western European countries had democracy way before Japan has ever did.

Well, you have Germany and Italy as an exception to that. And, economically the US rebuilt all of their countries anyways.

China is unique. What people don't realize is that China was the foremost civilization in the world up until the last 150 years or so. All that time, it has been ruled by totalitarianism. It will cause chaos if it suddenly adopts democracy.

I don't know where you get this idea that China can successfully adopt democracy at the same rate as Japan or South Korea. It won't happen. China has a completely different set of problems and situation.

Democracy isn't just about changing the political system. It's about changing the way people think as well. Most chinese are still very traditional in terms of thinking. They don't understand and don't think the same way as people who live under democratic systems.

I agree that China eventually needs to become a democracy but that could be 100 years from now. What it will until then is adopt some sort of hybrid system that will work for China.

Forcing democracy down people's throats, especially Chinese people's throats won't work. We're not some small country like south korea or japan that can just change course so easily.

The people who want China to become a democracy overnight such as you just want China to be weak. One of the major advantages China has over other countries is that it finally has a group of leaders that want to make China strong and will do everything they can to make it happen. No more disunity.

I keep telling people China has democracy already.

Anyone can join the Communist Party

It is almost like forcing hardcore Islam down at American's throats: shield your women with veils, shoot your drug addicts, and chop off your rampant thieves' arms and limbs. Now you see why Iranian or Indonesian have the desire for nukes?

I love American's founding fathers Judea Christian value and that I got me to enjoy my good life here in the west. Unfortunately, the younger American generations are losing it; either liberals or republicans. I am here in Canada working hard with my fellow white Canadian to revitalize the old value back to our daily life.


In time, the Americans Might will mean nothing to the world, unless the American go home and mind their business.

Democracy is not a priority. Just keep the economy going and the country will be fine.

not now maybe in 10 years

Exactly it's like Deng Xiaoping said himself "It doesn't matter whether the cat is black or white, as long as it catches the mouse".

Aside from your "China was the foremost civilization in the world" statement, I pretty much agree with most of your other points. It is still too early for China to adopt democracy, and there are no economic advantages either at the moment. China should focus more on developing the nation before considering democracy as an alternative political system.

I agree.

China isn't adverse to democracy. It's just that it's not a priority, or a goal. Why should it be? A political system conforms to the country, it shouldn't be the other way around. We've seen great economic growth with our current system, and that's fine.

What is it with so many people and there fascination with wanting china to adopt democracy. I say if its not broke why fix it!

It's because of people like michinobu_zoned. I still can't tell if this guy is a China-basher or that he genuinely believes in Chinese democracy. And even if he does, I can't figure out why he thinks democracy will make China into a more prosperous nation. I think the opposite will happen.

Russia and India are good examples of democracy gone wrong.

What is michs background?

India is actually one of the fastest developing potential superpowers, second only to China. If anything, it's a successful example of democracy, for a number of other reasons aswell (such as the unification of dozens of independant states and thousands of ethnic groups, which is quite a feat in itself). Although Russia's economy declined after adopting democracy, they are also developing quite fast now (although there has been increasing racism in the cities lately). However, the demographical, economical and sociopolitical situations in each country is different. While democracy may be suitable for some countries such as India, it would probably be unsuitable for some countries such as China (at least for now).

You just won't give up, will you? Without the high level of literacy, certain level of income, and a fair legal system, democracy won't work. I am not trying to diss India by the way. For all I know that India is a prime example how democracy can fail a state which is not ready for it. Democracy has not brought social justice, wealth, and efficiency to India. On the contrary, ex-authoritarian regimes such as Taiwanese, South Korean, and Singaporean govt have changed the lives of her citizens without practicing single bit of democracy for 30-40 years. China is on the exact same path. When China is ready, the democracy will flourish in her own way. The least thing China needs is American assistance for building democracy. The US has a very bad record at that. And even if democracy flourishes in China, don't expect China will be an American lapdog.

Because they know democracy is a perfect posion pill to countries that are not ready for it. They wish China collapses on her own weight. Russia is another good example here. The funny thing is some of these fourmers dissing China lack of democracy are people from Taiwan and South Korea. Their governments were not exactly democratic a few years ago. (I am not one of those Taiwanese by the way. )

Man you may as well give up trying to say what the reality on India is. Tenji has also tried in the previous thread and looking at the post after yours, people won't bother listening.

Like I've just said in my previous post, India is a successful example of democracy. The country has plenty of social justice (the caste system has already been banned decades ago) and a rapidly developing economy (which is rare for a developing democratic nation). An authoritarian government similar to China just wouldn't have worked for India, simply because the country didn't have a sense of unity like China did. You can't just apply the same political system to different situations and expect the same results.


The only cure for ignorance is education.

Seems more like propaganda to me. India is more like a limited representative democracy with the Hindu elites controlled most of the political power. There is NO grassroot democracy in India. Most Indian peasants are illiterate and do not participate in elections. Social justice is also absent for minorities in India. Indian muslims and women get killed and raped all the time. To put it short, India is a flawed democracy.

The prime minister of India is a Sikh. The current president of India is also a Muslim. The previous President of India was from the Dalit (Untouchable) caste. One of India's most powerful prime ministers was also female. In comparison, has America ever had any minority or female presidents? Peasants in India have the right to vote just like any other Indian citizens. Muslims are not treated any worse than Hindus but there are isolated incidents of hate crimes (usually in Kashmir), much like in any other country. As a democracy, India is no more or no less flawed than any other democratic nation, but given its size and complex demographics, it's often considered a successful democracy.

You don't know if that's true. I can say from my end that it's most likely going to be the case that a faster approach to democracy, would be the better route based on history. Also, for the most part, US assisted democracies usually have a good track record, just that you have a couple that didn't turn out so well. It doesn't mean that ALL of them are like that, however.

As for economic prosperity, China would do well economically regardless of Communist or Capitalist I believe. It's the Chinese people who build China's economy, not their government.


Russia is a good example... Of how Communism can backfire.
China doesn't necessarily have to collapse on her weight. There are other ways to go about doing it.

lol, education may be a cure, but when the student is unwilling to learn, effort to educate is wasted.

Don't say I didn't warn you

There are many example of failed democracies in South America and Africa. There is no guarantee democracy will lead to better lives for their citizens.

Even in the USA democracy allowed for a war in Iraq and the teaching of creationism to their children.

In 20 years, without the influx of smart Asian American students, the average American will be as well educated as those developing nations. Clinging onto religious teaching of creationism/intellegent design over actual science.

What was the biggest project that came out of the USA election cycle recently...build a multi-billion dollar Great Wall along the Mexican boader....You know China tried that 5000 years ago...It didn't work.

To be quite honest democratic government system is not the end all of social development for any nation.

Using USA system as a paradigm any participant in the system knows there is no value in the election cycle where politicians routinely lie to the public on various issues using marketing techniques refined for selling carbonated drinks. Why do you think voter turn out is so low in the USA? Because democracy doesn't work.

That's why PRC has 10% growth and USA 3% this year, because people in the PRC aren't wasting their time preaching to the USA to accept Communism, they're working their butts off to make lots and lots of money.

Wow, you have absolutely NO knowledge of India whatsoever. I pity your ignorance......

Your ABSOLUTELY right froglee! India fu-king SUCKS! Oh pity poor old me to have been born in such a cesspool of corruption, filth, decay, madness, insanity, termites, etc. Let me just cry myself to sleep now, always cursing God why I wasn't born a Chinese.

Not only is that an incredibly racist arguement, but what evidence can you base your claim? Sure, you can find smart Asian and dumb Americans but you can't go to the extreme and say everyone is like that, blanket statements are usually false.

Part of the problem with people on this forum, is that they're highly illogical and make most of their arguments based soley on opinions and feelings.

Again, where are you getting this? What wall? Are they actually building a wall or do you have people wanting to build a wall? Where's your sources?


You see, the conclusion just made could make for a valid argument, but your premises make it unsound because you failed to prove their accuracy.

Sure, one can say that democracy as a political system is not necessarily the final product of a nation's development, but it's not enough to say that without showing how you logically came to that conclusion.

I can say that gravity exists because what goes up must come down. The argument could be based on sound reasoning, but if I can't prove that for everything that exists in the univerese, what goes up will always go down in all cases, then there's no way to prove the argument's validity.


Let me see if I can construct a sound argument based on what you just said.

I think what you're trying to say is because American voter turn out is low, democracy doesn't work.
If voting turn-out in America is low, then, for every political system in the universe, democracy doesn't work.

I think it's pretty stupid to say that Democracy doesn't work just because voter turn-out is low. It's true that voter turn-out is low in America, I think, based on what may be a general intuitive understanding of what low voter turn out is with most people.

But, that doesn't prove Democracy doesn't work. You can't really use one isolated example to prove something universally. I think your argument is invalid.



Let's try to follow your logic again in this example, "Because, citizens of the People's Republic of China are work hard and don't try to spread their political views, ecnomic growth in China is much higher than in the United States."

I agree on both your premise and conclusion. I think both are true, Chinese don't try to spread politically views at least not in the sense that you and I probably agree on, and they do work hard based on what an intuitive understanding of what hard work is that I think you and I share.

We could go into a long process of trying to give exact defintions of hard work and spread of political views, similarly you could go into a long detail as to why five plus five equals ten based on the philosphy of the foundation of mathematics and the rigid axiomatic framework of mathematical logic. But, it is enough to base go by the intuitive ablities that even small children are capable of using to understand simple abstract concepts.

In anycase, I still think your last argument is invalid. The inference between Chinese people working hard and not spreading political views, and Americans having lower economic growth is false.

Just because both are true, doesn't prove your argument. The reason, I believe, that American growth is much lower than Chinese growth is due to the fact that the USA's economy is much larger than that of China already. There isn't much room for growth when you're already that big.

A similar example would be the growth rate of someone in puberty and an 18-year old male. For the most part, the latter has done most of his growth and is near complete development so naturally his growth rate will be slower than that of the pre-teen.

People's Republic of China is very young. The USA has the oldest government in the world. People like to say that the US is young, and that's true culturally, but the US has the one of the longest standing governments in existence as well as having THE oldest constitution on the planet.

It only makes sense that young nation-states such as the People's Republic of China would have faster growth. It doesn't prove that Communism works, or that Democracy has failed.

The only way to that they have the better system is to see who has the best peak in their life-spans. People's Republic of China or the United States of America?

Based on the USA's track record, I think the USA has the better system and China does not.


Naw, India is doing pretty well for what it's been given to work with.

PS, if no one can beat me logically on this matter I think it means that I won the debate, and that China really should adopt democracy. I think that would be the case if this were a real debate.

I don't think Froglee will be able to understand the sarcasm in your post.....

Stop trying to save the world. Let me list some American internal problems for you to think:

- the pension system problems.
- the health care system problems.
- the social security problems.

Can you save yourself first? Every each one of them is a huge huge problem American people will face not too far down the road.

This is why I doubt michinobu's sincerity. American way or no way.
He needs to realize that USA’s social moral decay has deterred thousands to doubt her version of “democracy.”
If democracy is truly working at home, then he win with or without debate and no need wasting his time convincing people here.






So out of touch!
He should go to China and observe the miracle of the century. It is people like him are ruining the USA.

michinobu_zoned,


http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/lib...61026-voa02.htm

Don't you think you should read current events more, this issue was the corner stone of the mid-term election in the USA. If you are an American don't you feel kind of ignorant for not participating in the democratic process of the USA and keeping up with current events.


But you would sound stupid for saying that. Gravity is 1 of the 4 funidimental forces in physics. It is the weakest of the 4 forces. The grand unification theory is in pursuit of seeking a mathematical representation of all 4 forces in a single relationship with limited success thus far.

You must have had an easy education in the democracy you grew up in.


Not really I only need to state the "Theory of Induction" for intergers.

See how simple things are when one obtains a real education, instead of trying to spead political propoganda of their host country.

Taking you as an example as an average example of a "stupid" American you can see why America is lagging behind. Poor education, bad BS ability, and lack of focus for personal success.

A country of losers with a loser leader can't hardly be expect to retain "superpower" status, even with their beloved democratic government system.

Care to explain how democracy will lead to your personal success when you have to complete against better educated people who are not hindered by democracy or burdened with the need to spread their political system globally.

democrat or republicans...take your vote.

PC or Liberals

vote for @$$ clowns #1 or @$$ clowns #2. Will not change the outlook of the country one way or another.

That is what you called a democracy?

Hamas was voted in democratically. So was Hitler. So why is this democracy so good? HAMAS is democratically elected and yet it is still under sanctions from the western powers and Israel. Why? Why are the iraqi people not embracing the democratic system if it is so benificial to human kind? China has been in existence for thousands of years and yet it has never had a democratic system. This will not change anytime soon...so don't hold your breath.

Well, I think we've made it all QUITE clear that democracy is far from perfect, it has its flaws, its not perfect as so many westerners and Americans think of it that way.

I still find it strange that googling Tiananmen Square in images shows the world famous picture of that Chinese student facing down that row of tanks and pictures from the 1989 protest whereas googling the same query in Google China shows workers cleaning and preparing the square for celebrations, no trace of the protests at all. Its good and bad if you ask me, I'm split on China's restrictions on some freedoms and the media.

Because Google is a product of a democratic society?

I think most of S.America would disagree with you.

You got that right.

I already knew about the fence Bush signed a bill to pay the down payment on. I voted in the mid-term elections and voted democrat.
I'm against illegal immigration, and one of the many things I disagreed with the Republicans on was their view on illegal immigration. Bush only signed the fence deal because they were afraid of losing their conservative voters, while Democrats chose not to pick a side on the matter.

Some Democrats supported Bush on the open borders idea, and some, like the Democrat who ran against the incumbent in my district (and lost), wanted to close the borders.


I only brought up the theory of gravity to prove what I meant from a logical stand-point. To help you better understand the logical connections I was making and your lack thereof.

I said, and I quote, "You see, the conclusion [To be quite honest democratic government system is not the end all of social development for any nation] just made could make for a valid argument, but your premises make it unsound because you failed to prove their accuracy. Sure, one can say that democracy as a political system is not necessarily the final product of a nation's development, but it's not enough to say that without showing how you logically came to that conclusion. I can say that gravity exists because what goes up must come down. The argument could be based on sound reasoning, but if I can't prove that for everything that exists in the univerese, what goes up will always go down in all cases, then there's no way to prove the argument's validity."

I only used gravity as an example. I could've used any arbitrary argument to make my case, that your argument is illogical. It seems that you went off in a tangent and brought up some physics trivia, still not proving a logical connection in your argument.


Dude, I already know about that. I may have got side-tracked a little when I said that, but I was just saying that we don't have to go into great detail on the definition of certain terms as we can understand them intuitively.

I admit, that really didn't have much to do with your argument having no logical validity, but I was just saying that we don't have to argue the definitions of hardwork and such as that would take too long.



Still, you failed to show a logical connection in your argument. Instead, you tried to make yourself look smarter than me by using random facts about physics and mathematical theory. Your argument's logic is still flawed and thus you can't prove why you're right through means of logic and reasoning.


Still, can't use only one case to make a universal existential.

For, everything that exists in the universe, the average American is "stupid", because you (by you I mean me) exist.

You're saying my existence proves that the average American is stupid. The inference is false, because my existence doesn't prove whether or not Americans are stupid.

I do exist, and Americans may or may not be stupid, but you've failed to show a logical connection here in your argument.


Personal success? You know, I'm going to have to ask you to define "personal success" or just "success" on that one.
If what you mean by "personal success" you mean happiness, democracies are probably better at giving that to people than Communism, as democracy grants protection of certain civil liberties and allows for more economic freedom.
China may have a huge economy, but it's still trying to catch up to the rest of the world as far as average salary. The average Chinese person is poor by international standards. People in Saudi Arabia have more income than people in China.
As for a whole, China is the first time in history when Communism is working to some extent for the whole group. But, communism has never proven to be good for personal success as it heavily restricts personal freedoms.

As for the better education, the US has a better education system than China. So, does Japan, France, Britain, Germany, etc.
According to nationmaster.com, China doesnt even rank in the top 111. Dijobouti is more educated than China. Check the source:http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_sch_...xpectancy-total

I guess the burden to spread democracy globally is indeed a burden. But, as Uncle Ben said to Peter Parker, "With great power comes great responsibility." It is a superpower, or a great power's responsibility to aid in international distress. It doesn't make the US evil or necessarily selfish, although having the great burden of being a superpower has its perks.

I don't claim Democracy to be peftect, but it is a better system than fascism or totalitarianism or Communism. History has shown democracies to be the most successful and the most happy.


I never said the US is perfect. The US has some serious trials ahead for it. However, average person wage is still higher in democratic countries than in non-democratic, and democracies allow for the most individual expression. Democracies allow for more happiness and peace. "The pursuit of happiness" is even written in the US constitution. Democracy is still a good system as it allows for most happiness.


Again Democracy is not perfect, nothing is. However, it's still the best system. You can't prove me wrong without giving me a substantial amount of examples to prove otherwise. Two examples aren't enough to disprove democracies benefits. You can't even provide one example of a non-democratic nation having more happiness or freedom or best spread of wealth than a democracy.

Because, no one has yet to disprove my claim that democracy is the best system, I still stand correct in my argument that democracy is best.

Maybe the best system for you. But definitely not for those failed democracy all over the world.

You don't have any compelling reasons why China should take up another social experiment based on your opinion.

PS - Peter Parker's clone screwed his wife while Spider man took a break from it all - said the logical man in a democracy.

If democracy is the best system for China, why is China not a domocratic system? Surely it had thousands of years to develop into a democracy, but it is still not a democracy. Why? When things evolve, doesn't it naturally evolve to become better? Then why hasn't the governing system of China evolved to become a democracy? You said it yourself. Democracy is not perfect, so why should China risk its growth rate and stability to adopt something that is not perfect anyways?

Happiness and freedom? Chinese people are not happy and free? Do you believe Chinese people are still shackled government owned farm fields like during the days of Mao? You seem ignorant. It is okay, you are not alone. People who claim "My country's political system is the best in the world and every country should adpot it" are usually ignorant or has a mind of a 10 year old.

Your argument for democracy is pointless, at the end of the day you have achieved nothing and your argument for China to become democratic means nothing because China is still not a democracy and that will be the way whether you like it or not. The only thing you pointed out or proved to us is your own personal view of democracy. But fortunately for the rest of the world, you are a nobody.

Proof by questions and disproof by single imperfections. Trying to find single isolated incidents of where countries have failed to implement democracy successfully doesn't disprove democracy as a whole, or that democracy is wrong.
Similarly, you can't say that because some guy tore a ligament lifting weights, then no one should lift weights to get stronger. Or, ask why go outside if people got shot by lightning going outside? If the benefits outweigh the risks, then it's worth having or doing.
I proved, objectively, that democracy is the best system. That overall, Democracy promotes the most amount of happiness, distribution of resources, and is the best system to protect individual civil liberties.
No one has proven otherwise, so until then I stand correct in my beliefs.

Hmm, where are the proofs of your assertions?

China may not be democratic. However, the mainland chinese do have ways to change their government. I was reading that a university in northern china did not issue creditentials to some students who paid money to sign up for classes. There were 10,000 students who rioted , smash school buildings , smashed computers. Mainland chinese will get their points across if they feel they are cheated. And of course , the local government there tried to quarantee the campus, and denied all TV media reporters.
Money is the ultimate democracy. With money anyone can do just about anything. Mainland chinese government had better hope that the economy does not slow down, or the US does not impose economic sanctions, or else their rule of China will come crashing down. If anyone does not support democracy. Then don't live in a democratic country. You are free to move anywhere you like.

Yeah, but the process of changing government is much longer, more difficult, and more riskier. You could very well die because of it. The people don't have much of a system of checking, and punishing politicians.

Really? how does the USA plan to punish Bush II for murder under false pretense?

Democracy will only work if there is Religion because Democratic Laws are based on the Religion. If you remove Religion from Democracy, materialistic values in the Government and People will prevail which will eventually lead to Communism.

Communism with Religion is called Socialism.
Dictatorship with Religion is called Fascism.
Dictatorship without Religion is called Communism.

A good kind of government is one that:

• does the more to protect individual rights than any other type of government
• grants the most amount of liberty possible out of any other kind of government
• most distribution of goods, resources, and wealth
• has the best system possible for preventing government corruption
• allows for most amount of change without political instability for any kind of government.

If you're a government that meets those criteria, then you are a good government.

For all political systems in history, constitutional republics and constitutional monarchies that come in the form of represenative democracies (also known as liberal democracies), have done the most to provide the criteria of a good government. Thus, liberal democracy is the best kind of government.
Note, liberal democracy is not to be confused with illiberal democracy, where the rights of individuals are not protected by the majority.

All Liberal Democracies have in thier constitutions or bodies of law laws that protect an individual's rights and have a system that checks the majority's power and thus prevents a mobocracy. This is true based on the very definition of a liberal democracy. If it doesn't provide this, then it isn't a liberal democracy.
source:http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=...on&ct=title

Liberty is defined as freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control (source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberty). Liberal Democracies have it built into the structure of their system to guarantee that to its citizens. If it fails to do this, then by definition, it is not a Liberal Democracy.

Liberal Democracies allow for more distribution of goods, resources, and wealth than any other government. Statistically, liberal democracies have the highest GDP per capita than any other kind of country in the world. Thus, proving that they are best at distributing wealth.
You can check out nations' rankings of GDP per capita at:https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbo...r/2004rank.html
Almost all of them are liberal democracies of some sort in the top 50. I think a few of them self-governed territories, and there's like two emirates.

Liberal Democracies is best at allowing the people by checking against politicial corruption. According to Joseph Scumpeter (writer of History of Economic Analysis), democracy is the mechanism for competition between leaders, much like a market structure.
Liberal Democracies have it set-up to where politicians have to compete for votes, if the voters are dissatisfied with the politician, he loses his voters. Also, Liberal Democracies have it in their laws to where politicians can't break any constitutional laws themselves, unless there's a law that allows them to do it. For example, there's a law that allows Senators to not pay for speeding tickets in the US.

Liberal Democracy allows for change without the risk or political instability, better than any other system of government.
source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democ...tical_stability

American goes to church every Sunday or only at Baptism, Christmas and Funeral?

How is PRC not meeting these goals.

They just pass recent laws for private properties and the court systems are improving everyday in China.

PRC is not locking up Muslim Chinese for no reasons like the USA....is that liberty enough.

PRC has a plan to ensure the poorest get some of the economic gains from the richest...does the USA even have a central economic policy like that?

PRC has sacked high level officials in the PRC just on the suspicion of corruption in the past 2 months...what has the USA done with incompetent officials recently...report has it that the Dem and the Rep have a truce on reporting each other to the Oversight Committee in Congress and Senate...who is going to prision for this type of corruption.

PRC was the ROC and prior to that the Qing Dynasty...how has the USA government changed since 1911.

Looks like PRC on the right path to surpassing the USA based on your conditions.