China - o noua putere mondiala

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Originally Posted by Erethorn

If you equate "freedom of speech" with the ability to say anything, anytime, anywhere, without consequences.... I'm starting to doubt either your intelligence or your honesty.

Well - some situation like the trial of Larry Flint seems to indicate that this is more likely to be a correct definition ...

[low_level_superhero]

The society lives only as long as the individuals still want it. The freedom of movement started to create some beautiful mechanisms, such as competition between different societies. So far, it become extremly visible at a city level, but I am sure that it will have a larger scale in short time.

I would say it is the other way around: the individuals should support a society as long as it servers their purposes. It is not the individual's job to look after the well-being of the society, but the society's only purpose is to look after the individual's well-being.

On another hand, if you define freedom as the lack of consequences, yes, nobody is free in no aspect whatsoever. But if you can accept that every choice has a consequence, even to study physics for example has a cost of opportunity, then you understand that freedom is mainly the availability of choices. So, I do consider everybody to be free, and I put the lack of action on the high inhibitions a penalty provides. Some are risk takers, some are not, hence the resistance is not practiced by all, even though they do have the same purpose.

[KDP]

The US have developed, on the backbone of this so called freedom of speech, the biggest, most powerful propaganda machine of all time. Listening to a discussion between two 35 year old mothers you will hear something in the lines of "We've done a good job. A little more time to finish our business with Iraq and we'll take of Iran too. We'll show them who's boss."

So from this point of view what's the difference between China and US? Manipulation. In the US, people actually believe that these are their own original, objective thoughts, a national "truth", and not media-induced propaganda. When I say people I mean of course the majority of the working class. In China, you are aware of the freedoms taken away by your government. In the US, instead of taking away your freedoms, they take advantage of them and manipulate the individual towards their own interest. This is of course done in the purset capitalist way. And this is where i have a problem with freedom of speech.

That anyone is able to say anything in a prosperous capitalism means actually that nobody is able to say anything except those with the financial means to impose their opinion through sheer repetition and mass production. Every opinion and idea is integrated in capitalism and, unlike communism or other systems which disallow freedom of speech, it is stripped of its revolutionary voice, trivialized, transformed into a worthless five o clock news or talk show. The anti-government discourse which explores alternative ideologies and criticizes the current one has always had a special status which made it tremendously visible to the people through its very own persecution. Not in capitalism. Here you are allowed to say whatever you want, but so are the other millions out there, and pertinent, accurate criticism succumbs under not only the mass produced government propaganda but under the other millions of worthless or less accurate voices which eliminate one another through the enormous background noise thus created.

So who wins in this war? The guy with the most money, who can hire the best specialists and manipulate the public in the most effective way.

Just watch what Bush is doing. He doesn't even need arguments anymore. He keeps on with the same bullshit over and over again. Why? Because it's so hard to keep on with all the criticism (most of it superficial and commercial) that the more irrelevant criticism you create, the less your true issues will be visible and discussed.

In China, you criticize the government. You go to Jail. People become aware of your thoughts and ideas. You become a symbol and given enough time and people resonating with your ideas things might change.

In the US, you criticize the government. You write books, news-paper articles, run a blog, explain thoroughly your arguments. Bush gets voted again , nothing changes. You get a big paycheck and live happily, forgetting yourself what the big fuss was all about.

Of course as an individual, you'd rather live in the US; nobody wants to go to jail or be the subject of the state's retribution. But looking at the big picture we'll realize that the ever expanding consumerist capitalism gets more and more resilient to any inside or outside criticism, stuffing more and more wide tvs and 4x4 down your throat to keep you content while invading countries and succumbing to it's own economical disasters. On the other hand, moderate communsim should improve itself because by keeping life standard to a moderate (both through freedoms and economically, as these are inseparably linked) it retains the people-government conflict and tensions which constitute the foundation of social evolution and government improvement.

[ablium]

^

Quite true and eloquently said.

[low_level_superhero]

KDP, how about thinking that americans only want big screen TVs and 4X4s? How about this government is a result of their own beliefs and aspirations rather than the other way around?

You are the average activist that believes his arguments are bullet-proof and his way of living the only one acceptable. Whenever the propaganda (and by propaganda I mean the books, the newspapers, the blogs against Bush) doesn't work, you blame it on the fact that the other side has more money. Even if that would be the case, those more money do not come from nowhere, they still come from the consumer which sees no added value in mission statements or CSR. Anyways, this kind of discussion always ends in an "egg or hen" argument.

On the other hand, a rotten apple doesn't make them all uneatable. Take a look at the EU and their, what I like to believe, more educated individuals which progressed on the Maslow pyramid and do not succumb to what you call "mass produced government propaganda". A more than livable environment.

Why is freedom "inseparably linked" to the economical well-being? Is it for the Tibetans?

[ablium]

Originally Posted by low_level_superhero

On the other hand, a rotten apple doesn't make them all uneatable. Take a look at the EU and their, what I like to believe, more educated individuals which progressed on the Maslow pyramid and do not succumb to what you call "mass produced government propaganda". A more than livable environment.

I quote a post by a Russian from a different forum in followings, which give you a hint about media manipulation in the EU.

I came once across one forun on BBC where people were debating who will become real economic superpower or at least get there first China or India. Vast majority of mostly British participants were absolutely sure that it will be India, because... that's right - because it is a democratic country! That is enough reason and evidence, never mind that fact that China is arguable already such power, and that development there is in most areas incomparably higher than that in India. None of it matters for majority of these members of free society. They just don't like the reality and by they "democratic rule" deny it.

Another excellent example is Chinas activities in Africa. All that noise. I don't remember anything like that about activities of western companies in Africa over last 50 years. At least nt that systematic. Or would you really say that say BP was installing democracy in Africa??

More examples - democratic victory of Hamaz, in Palestine election. Western joint reaction clearly demonstrated the rest of the world what West understand as a democracy. Not the free expression of popular will, but the expression that has very clear vector.

******************************************************************************

Originally Posted by low_level_superhero

Why is freedom "inseparably linked" to the economical well-being? Is it for the Tibetans?

Tibet issue has another dimension. It involves ethnic issues, which you know how tough it is. I think that I don't need to mention the issues of ethnic Magyar in Romania.

[low_level_superhero]

Ablium, I am sorry, but I fail to see the link between that qoute and the indisputable media manipulation of the British government...

[ablium]

^
If the BBC report always keeps this unobjective tone, of course, the audience will be misinformed and believe that democracy is the sole determinant factor.

YouTube - BBC News Clip July 4th 2006

YouTube - BBC News Clip July 4th 2006

[KDP]

Why is freedom "inseparably linked" to the economical well-being?

It is linked because money without the freedom to abuse that money in any way you want is still restrictive and creates dissatisfaction. At the same time, freedoms without the economical means to use them are also useless.

You are the average activist that believes his arguments are bullet-proof and his way of living the only one acceptable.

And that is what?.. I haven't stated any ideology of my own, all I did was showing the advantages and disadvantages of both sides. While capitalism is better for the individual now, it is actually worse for the individual in the long run (a few hundred years) as once a certain economical level is reached the masses have no more reasons or means to truly explore alternatives and are stuck (like you are) with the illusion of a perfect system which is by their definition the best out there. And while succumbing the system will protect itself (through this illusion) from public opinion until it's too late or at least very late (check the forecasted oil crisis or medical crisis).

Whenever the propaganda (and by propaganda I mean the books, the newspapers, the blogs against Bush) doesn't work, you blame it on the fact that the other side has more money.

Actually if you payed attention you'd see that I blame it on the fact the the anti-bush voices are scattered, unfocused, are assimilated into the system and trivialized, stripped of their true opposing role. And are crushed by a money induced propaganda which although addresses the less bright individuals, it does so in a focused and simple way which wins over many other bright individuals, suffocated and disoriented by the 'freedom of speech' around them.

Take a look at the EU and their, what I like to believe, more educated individuals which progressed on the Manslow pyramid and do not succumb to what you call "mass produced government propaganda". A more then livable environment.

European democracies are quite far from the US. The US was always a capitalist democracy and is a country built bottom-up on capitalist principles so it's only natural to use it as an example when discussing a system. Its problems are the inherent problems of the system: it won all it's wars, it got a great start building it's economy on slavery, it got and still gets great human resources from skilled and educated immigrants etc. Its problems are not contextual but fundamental.

European countries however went through two world wars, imperialism, communism, fascism and many other types of governments. European capitalism is nowhere near pure, and yet as you argue it is from many points of view superior to the US. For instance, the northern European countries, arguably the most prosperous democracies, are actually a socialism-capitalism mixture. They are feminine societies, in that they place more value on the the quality and security of life, low risks and low gains (socialism) compared to masculine societies (capitalism) which value competitiveness, high risks and high gains and a climate of opportunity but also personal insecurity (losing your job means losing your car, house, medical insurance).

European capitalism is always hybrid and European countries tend to be much more moderate, their recent history being very important in understanding the system which governs them. In the same way that today's Romania is nowhere near true democratic capitalism, neither are Switzerland nor France nor Germany, each having it's own more or less successful system which differs greatly from the others.

Right now China is also a hybrid of communist social principles and capitalist economy. Because it's a very traditional and conservative country some changes which we Europeans regard as fundamental to a high life standard might be implemented a bit slowly. However it is the country with the highest economical growth out there and it combines it with a social system which allows for this economical growth to be used very effectively and for long term purposes. As long as it will be able to surpass it's population and oil crisis it will get very far ahead from the rest of the world.

[ablium]

^
I give anther applause for the intellectual depth of the post.

[low_level_superhero]

I haven't stated any ideology of my own, all I did was showing the advantages and disadvantages of both sides. While capitalism is better for the individual now, it is actually worse for the individual in the long run (a few hundred years) as once a certain economical level is reached the masses have no more reasons or means to truly explore alternatives and are stuck (like you are) with the illusion of a perfect system which is by their definition the best out there. And while succumbing the system will protect itself (through this illusion) from public opinion until it's too late or at least very late (check the forecasted oil crisis or medical crisis).

So, the american system will fail when it will not listen or follow the public opinion So, by your standards, the chinese system already failed?

Apart from this one, you did state another fallacy: you assume that for the long run, people's choices and understanding of the society will remain unchanged. Well, I can't argue the other way, since I find it obvious.

You got me all wrong. I am not falling into the trap of believing in one truth. I believe in an optimal way to find the relative truth. In other words, give people the opportunity to choose for themselves. Yes, "choice" rules out some of the systems.

I can't help but noticing the irony of an activist to state that I reject alternatives

Actually if you payed attention you'd see that I blame it on the fact the the anti-bush voices are scattered, unfocused, are assimilated into the system and trivialized, stripped of their true opposing role. Which are crushed by a money induced propaganda which although addresses the less bright individuals, it does it in a focused and simple way which wins over many other bright individuals, suffocated and disoriented by the 'freedom of speech' around them.

Again with the money...

Your words keep on proving that your perception of the world is a pretty mainstream one: I am the smartest one, anyone to disagree is too stupid to see the genius, and since everyone disagrees, I am the smartest one. Well, sorry to break your wings, but political views and a lot of choices have absolutely nothing to do with intelligence, but with needs. Another obvious but overlooked aspect. The people choosing something else are not stupid, are just different.

If I may be so bold, I would call people inapt of sustaining a simple task, such as a political campaign, intellectually challenged and therefore not having the ability to govern a country.

How do you explain the changes in power? From the republicans to the democrats I mean. And, oh, yes, if the democrats win, the system changes?

The obvious trivia you stated about European societies works as an argument against your apocalyptic predictions about the US.

I am looking forward to the "brainwashed" argument. That is if you haven't already used it and I missed it...

[ablium]

Originally Posted by KDP

It won all it's wars, it got a great start building it's economy on slavery, it got and still gets great human resources from skilled and educated immigrants etc. Its problems are not contextual but fundamental.

With exception of Vietnam War.

Originally Posted by KDP

European countries however went through two world wars, imperialism, communism, fascism and many other types of governments. European capitalism is nowhere near pure, and yet as you argue it is from many points of view superior to the US. For instance, the northern European countries, arguably the most prosperous democracies, are actually a socialism-capitalism mixture. They are feminine societies, in that they place more value on the the quality and security of life, low risks and low gains (socialism) compared to masculine societies (capitalism) which value competitiveness, high risks and high gains and a climate of opportunity but also personal insecurity (losing your job means losing your car, house, medical insurance).

I could not agree more. In a US technology company, you get a lot of bonus and stocks when the company's financial performance is in good shape. But when the bottom line in the quarterly financial statement turns ugly, you better be prepared to receive pink slip (notice of layoff). Some companies even have unwritten mandatory quota for layoff 5% workers with bottom performance each year. While the German company that I provide technical consultanting does not give employees high pay but it rarely layoffs employees. There is a huge corporate culture difference between US and European companies.

[KDP]

So, the american system will fail when it will not listen or follow the public opinion

The American system does need to fail, in fact the American system will work perfectly, however it's results will be catastrophic. When? When the public opinion which governs it is determined by: propaganda, fear, racism. When the public opinion considers the fictional war on terror an issue more dire than medical insurance or economical decline or the oil crisis and makes it's political choices accordingly. Which it does.

political views and a lot of choices have absolutely nothing to do with intelligence, but with needs.

One of the main premises of the system is that through transparency and free access to information the public will be educated and responsible enough to make the correct choices. However, free access to information does not mean equal distribution of information, and transparency does not mean truth. A political party, given the economical means, can control a relevant part of the media and create false issues, based not on facts, but on emotional principles which are much stronger and vibrant. The political factor is still present in the voter's choice, sure, but popular programs are usually inefficient for this very same reason - they address strong public issues which are hardly important in the long run and avoid real pressing issues, which are actually very hard to solve, need tax-payer sacrifice and are thus very hard to exploit in a campaign. These issues remain dormant, avoided at all costs until their effects can be no longer ignored, which is usually too late. What was the main "issue" which won Bush the second term? The war on terror. Had it not been for 9/11, he would've never been president again. But paranoia and fear are perfect climates for ambitious, narrow minded, cocky leaders to emerge and people to follow them. These leaders are usually very destructive for a nation and as the US showed they thrive in democracies as much as in any other system.

In contrast, a visionary and responsible communist government skips all this opportunistic process and can address the issues directly, even if they imply short-term sacrifices for long-term gains. Of course, the question arising is: does such a government exists? Why in China and not in America?

First of all, the American system only rewards short-term efficiency, so long-term plans are very unpopular. Any individual deficit has a high impact because, as you put it, the voter cares about HIS needs, and his alone.

There are also great differences in the culture and history of each people. America is a country ethnically and culturally divided, guided only by financial interests, and it's culture is based on profit. It's the country that invented consumerism and made it a goal in life. I don't see the US as a nation capable to restrain itself for a higher purpose or for the common good. China on the other hand has a culture based on tradition, respect, sacrifice, responsability and most importantly growth. It's a nation based on following leaders and high ideals which rise above the wealth of the common individual.

The people choosing something else are not stupid, are just different.

You must realize there are two Americas. There is the smart, cultured, educated, New-York type America. And a low-educated, fundamentally consumerist, cocky, gun-hungry, much easier to manipulate and mobilize America, which so far won the elections. The population growth disproportions make the second one rise in numbers and the first one slowly extinct. And yes, they are stupid. They are stupid because statistically they have a lower IQ and lower education. They are stupid because they are easier to manipulate and capable of voting against their own interests or economical truths. Because they validated a government that did nothing for their country except invade Iraq, a government that constantly makes a fool of himself by blatantly showing its incompetence towards the real issues of the US. It's not an insult, it's simply a fact, just as they are fatter and on average less tanned.

[If I may be so bold, I would call people inapt of sustaining a simple task, such as a political campaign, intellectually challenged and therefore not having the ability to govern a country.

Unless you have political background I guess you consider yourself intellectually challenged. There is a great difference between making a political campaign and winning an election. And a great difference between making a political program and sticking by it later versus winning the elections and starting a war to justify your incompetence.

And, oh, yes, if the democrats win, the system changes?

No, as I said there are two Americas, the democrat and republican one. They take turns in ruling and they alternate the issues they care about. However, the Bush administration is so incompetent that it served very well my point: the lack of true alternative and the futility of having the freedom to criticize a society which will never change because true change is substituted with a false illusion of change through the alternation of two political parties.

With exception of Vietnam War.

Yes, they lost the war, but the purpose of the invasion of Vietnam was also to show off their military power and gain influence in the area. Which they did. Also, they did not lose the war in the sense of surrendering to an opposing force. They simply stopped bombing every inhabited or uninhabited inch of that country. That can be hardly called losing a war. It was more of an internal crisis between the people and their administration which showed that even when the people are on the right track, they still have a hard time taking the reins of their country.
---------
LE: In any case, my purpose was not to criticize America, so sorry for the long and a bit offtopic post.

[Erethorn]

I apologize for the lack of time to make a long post in reply to your opinions.

However, in view of the general discussion, I think it can be sumarized like this:

Although in China there are food problems (read "human rights problems"), that's ok, because even in the U.S.A., where they have a lot of food, (read again "human rights"), they eat junk food and are obese.

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Originally Posted by ablium

With exception of Vietnam War.

Well - it curious to hear a chinese talking only about "American's war in Vietnam".
What about the Chinese intervention in North of Vietnam ? It was in 1978-1979 - no ?

There is a huge corporate culture difference between US and European companies.

That's true - and partially that's because of power of labour union in Europe.
What is the situation with labour unions in China now ?

First of all, the American system only rewards short-term efficiency, so long-term plans are very unpopular.

This is somehow a risky assumption. Don't forget that the government of US still indirectly support a lot of company - especially in field of high-technology.
For me this seems like a very robust "long-term" planing ...

Regards all

[Double Jay]

KDP forgets one thing: 70% of the americans want to leave Iraq now. So the Bush propaganda didn't work all that well. People in America don't care about about Iraq or Iran. They want to live well. When the cost of war becames to big no propaganda can change their minds.

[KDP]

Well, comparing a 4 year mandate with a 20 year mandate I think we can safely assume the first one is much more likely to engage in short-term plans which they have full control over and which can provide them with arguments in future elections. But let's give a clear example of what I mean by long-term.

The downfall of all communist societies so far has been their weak economies. Since 1980 China started to heavily reform its economy which at the time was a centrally planned economy and managed to transform it into a mixed economy. In 20 years of reforms the poverty rates went down from 50% to less than 10% today. Currently about 70% of China's domestic product is from the private sector, the state controlling mostly the heavy industries and energy resources. If you want details on how this was done step by step google is your friend. The point is that all of this was achieved by the communist government, with different visionary politicians stepping up and reforming different parts of the economy. Many foreign economists were brought in and consulted and every effort was engaged towards this common goal. This was a 20 year struggle which continues to this day with amazing results. What was the backbone of this reform? Taking control of most parts of the economy and redirecting it towards developing the industry, the so called Big Push Strategy. Which couldn't have been done in a democracy. The poorer got poorer, the richer got even poorer, but it was the only way to reform a dying economy and transform it into a flourishing one. I believe any democracy given China's problems at the time would have succumbed to its own indecision and lack of authority. Even more, China showed that it can surpass its own ideology and borrow from other systems, a step never done before by a communist regime.

Now you advocate the poverty rates in China, but this is actually a side effect of a capitalist based economy, which increases the discrepancies between the rich and the poor. Basically, the government has to fight the ill effects of a capitalist economy, the inequalities which it generates and their exploitation by the rich. In a democracy, this is done by the massess forcing their government to pass laws which redirect money to the poor. Every capitalist society is forced to adopt socialist laws to reduce the gaps between the poor and the rich.

And again we are faced with the different philosophy of each system. Democracies give very little power to their governments, keeping them under tight control by an irresponsabile population which cares only about its immediate needs. They give it short-term power and reduce their influence by advocating a totally free system. It's a very inefficient decision-making process you'll say, but at least it's a safe one. Wrong. It's not safe because the public must first know of the issues and their gravity before forcing their government to address them. If it doesn't know, or is blinded by propaganda and false issues, they will remain unadressed. Basically, democracies work as long as the public is informed and competent. And now we reach the conclusion of my first post, which interlinks economical growth with propaganda and manipulation. A government constantly held in tight control by its people will always feel suffocated, threatened and will try to manipulate and cheat its people, to gain as much power and free decision making ground as possible, pushing its interests away from the nation's interests. Its main agenda will be to keep power and increase the control they have over their people. Combine this with a free capitalist economy in which corporations can gain control over most of the media and you have a great recipe for a half-breed dictatorship which instead of using force turns to illusion, disguise and manipulation to impose itself.

A communist regime on the other hand is not brought up as a beaten up child. Corruption and political persecutions are integrated into the system, which of course is a terrible reality which must be addressed somehow. But looking at the big picture, the government can afford to be visionary and, given full power to take whatever it wants from its people, will eventually turn to greater things. It will always have the fear of revolution in mind (which democracies don't have; losing the elections will probably mean winning the next ones) and it will allow for great leaders to emerge and make big evolutionary leaps for their nation.

Democracies start from the premise that humans are selfish, greedy individuals which must be given as little power as possible. Communists start from the premise that humans are good, altruist beings which care more about the general good than their own. Neither is true, of course, but given a high-enough life standard and a flourishing economy, I believe the second one is a much more accurate assessment.

Erethorn: It's more like, the starving Chinese is quickly overtaking the fat American, because instead of investing his profits in junk-food, it redirects them towards industry and economy.
----
LE: Double Jay: A bit late, don't you think? As I said, it takes alot of time for the people to mobilize and actually force their government to bid their interest, and Vietnam just like Iraq now is the living proof of what an inefficient decision-making process capitalist democracies have. If 70% of the people want them to retreat from Iraq, why don't they do it? Ah, yes, because of the new upcoming threat, the illegal immigrant blood-sucking fairies invasion. These are much urgent and need immediate government attention, so retreating from Iraq can wait.

[ablium]

Originally Posted by Mîtiu Ioan

Well - it curious to hear a chinese talking only about "American's war in Vietnam".
What about the Chinese intervention in North of Vietnam ? It was in 1978-1979 - no ?

It was a brief border war. Wiki gives better description than I do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War

Prior to the war (I was a teeager then), I saw a lot of refugees of ethnic Chinese expulsed from Vietnam in my city.

Originally Posted by Mîtiu Ioan

That's true - and partially that's because of power of labour union in Europe.
What is the situation with labour unions in China now ?

In US, the labor union in traditional industry, such as auto industry, is quite strong. But in the technology companies, there are virtually no labor unions.

In China, there are only some nominal labor unions. These nominal labor unions do no play the same roles as the labor unions in EU or US, whose main function is to negotiate with the management for the benefit of union members.

Originally Posted by Mîtiu Ioan

This is somehow a risky assumption. Don't forget that the government of US still indirectly support a lot of company - especially in field of high-technology.
For me this seems like a very robust "long-term" planing ...

I am not sure if it is true. Most large US high-tech companies are very profitable and have strong positions globally and thus they do not need government subsidies. However, US government does subsidize defense-related companies, such as Boeing. There was (probably still is) dispute between European Aribus and Boeing regarding the government subsidy.

[Double Jay]

Originally Posted by KDP

LE: Double Jay: A bit late, don't you think? As I said, it takes alot of time for the people to mobilize and actually force their government to bid their interest, and Vietnam just like Iraq now is the living proof of what an inefficient decision-making process capitalist democracies have. If 70% of the people want them to retreat from Iraq, why don't they do it? Ah, yes, because of the new upcoming threat, the illegal immigrants and blood-sucking fairies invasion. These are much urgent and need immediate government attention, so retreating from Iraq can wait.

Not at all. The war is now 5 years old, or something like that. For a war that's not that long. The acctual war was even smaller. Now it's just an ocupation of a country. Wait until next year. Maybe the american people will make you change your mind.

You are right about the illusion of freedom. The only real free people lived a long time ago, when the concept of state didn't exist. So, are you more free in a state controled system? I think not. Or put it this way: the people in China depend more on their state then the people in america. If things go wrong for the americans they can change the system, the people in china can't. Or they can (1989) but with what cost?

[Erethorn]

The point is that all of this was achieved by the communist government, with different visionary politicians stepping up and reforming different parts of the economy.

But looking at the big picture, the government can afford to be visionary and, given full power to take whatever it wants from its people, will eventually turn to greater things. It will always have the fear of revolution in mind (which democracies don't have; losing the elections will probably mean winning the next ones) and it will allow for great leaders to emerge and make big evolutionary leaps for their nation.

I took the liberty of highlighting the communist propaganda in your post.

Now you advocate the poverty rates in China, but this is actually a side effect of a capitalist based economy, which increases the discrepancies between the rich and the poor.

Oh, so the poverty of the Chinese is the side effect of capitalism ?! It's soooo cute.... BUT IT'S WRONG!!!!

Erethorn: It's more like, the starving Chinese is quickly overtaking the fat American, because instead of investing his profits in junk-food, it redirects them towards industry and economy.

It's more like: The few fat Chinese are overtaking the fat Americans, at the expense of the many starving Chinese who are not even allowed their basic human rights.

A government constantly held in tight control by its people will always feel suffocated, threatened and will try to manipulate and cheat its people, to gain as much power and free decision making ground as possible, pushing its interests away from the nation's interests. Its main agenda will be to keep power and increase the control they have over their people. Combine this with a free capitalist economy in which corporations can gain control over most of the media and you have a great recipe for a half-breed dictatorship which instead of using force turns to illusion, disguise and manipulation to impose itself.

Here you really blew your top, trying to prove that people's control over their government leads to dictatorship.