The unfortunate truth is the world has been very much connected politically and economically ever since WWII, and more so every single day. What happens in those shitholes will eventually come back to U.S. in some way or another. So Obama's appeasement and apology approach really won't work very well, because sooner or later you have to deal with the shit that you were trying to avoid for so hard.
What this article described is very true. The communists party ordered the creation of an organization called "Stability Office" in every level of the government and state-run corporations, responsible for suppressing all kinds of protests and muting or jailing dissidents. The "Stability Office" has the power to mobilize all kinds of resources including police, state security, military to achieve its goals. Its annual budget is never released but is believed to be even bigger than the annual military expense.
China and its economy are virtually in the hands of around 500 top families, they are mostly senior communist officials or their descendants. They controlled most of the resources and state-run enterprises which are all in monopoly position in their own industry. 80% of the wealth generated nationally are distributed among themselves, rather than giving back to improve education, healthcare, social welfare.
It's not a growth model that is likely to maintain for long.
Actually, according GINI coefficient (going by the World Bank numbers), China has about the same overall wealth inequality as the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equ... and is actually on par with such relatively well functioning countries as Turkey and Singapore.
Of course this doesn't translate that well to on the ground conditions, and their top 10% and top 20% share are still very high, but probably not high enough to significantly impact growth. (Now if that cascades into political problems, that's a different matter...)
Almost all long-term economic planning is in the hands of relatively few government officials, but wealth appears to be reasonably well distributed for a country _at their stage of development_. It's certainly not all in the hands of a few thousand people, since the top 20% would be a few hundred million.
Democracy is not about choosing one "Great Leader" and everyone else just follow. If that was the case, we don't need the congress, the high court and free press. Democracy is about "putting power into cage" and splitting cake in a way that everybody has a say.
In a democratic system, "Great leader" or not, it really doesn't matter that much in the long run, we will always get there. What important is the system makes sure that "Great leader" won't have the power to destroy our civilization.
On the other hand, "smart" leader may not always yield better outcome than an "average" leader. Complex policy from "expert" may bring more disaster than "no policy".
Right. Democracy is subclassed into Republic and DirectDemocracy; Republic is further subclassed, one such subclass among many being CrownedRepublic, such as the UK.
It seems to be almost a law of human nature that it is easier for people to agree on a negative program – on the hatred of an enemy, on the envy of those better off – than on any positive task. - Friedrich Hayek [The Road to Serfdom]
