Reddit reviews Violence and Social Orders: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Recorded Human History

>Most people either don't realize or choose to ignore the fact that China's GDP as you described is driven by Gross Investment and Government Spending

Nobody ignores that -- that is the Tammany model.

>The United States (and other first world) Economy on the other hand is driven by Private Consumption (70%).

Yes, and unless the Chinese can transition to this, they have no chance of becoming a first-world nation.

Alas, transitioning to this requires the communist party to give up its monopoly over political and economic power, which so vastly benefits its members, and have China develop multitudes of politically independent organizations, free from party control -- businesses, unions, schools, civic organizations, local governments, media, etc ... to drive economic competition, and which themselves can unite to form political parties to compete politically with the communists.

There is no way that a nation with a one-party government running every level of government and politics, the legal system, the state banking system, major state industries, the finance system, etc, for its own benefit, can develop a decentralized, efficient consumer driven economy as first-world status requires.

Try to find one that did.

Now the question becomes: why would the communists want to give up all their power and the root of their billions of dollars of wealth? "It would be good for the country", though true, is not an acceptable answer -- what they are concerned about is what is good for them.

>Inevitably The People's Bank of China will find lower yield and rate on savings at which its citizens are persuaded to spend rather than save...

You mean the bank will have to pay higher rates to savers, market rates. But then the huge subsidy the party is giving itself at the cost of the people ends, and all those "investments" depending on it collapse -- and not only does the party lose its gravy train of "honest graft", but it also suddenly it has a whole lot of 'splaining to do to many millions of angry people who are now unemployed and/or had their savings in those busted investments.

Why would it choose to got that route?

"Inevitably" is strong word. Time and time and time again, monopoly power one-party governments that have been in this situation before have chosen to keep their monopoly power to best benefit themselves, and screw the people.

For a lot of examples see Violence and Social Order by Nobelist Douglas North and co-authors; and Why Nations Fail by Acemoglu and Robinson.

In fact, pretty obviously, despite the fact that many, many nations have had "fast growth" for a generation, its continuing on to lead to "first world status" is a significant rarity. Just look at the long list of nations and see how few first-worlders there are.

There's nothing inevitable about it, it is very much the exception. And as of yet, there is no sign at all of the Chinese monopoly power political rulers choosing to give up their power as needed to develop such a decentralized first-world society.

Violence and Social Orders by North, Wallis, Weingast. It's more of an econ history book but it lays out ideas about how societies are structured using economic concepts. I took a course taught by John Wallis and it was by far one of the most interesting I had.

And When Things Fell Apart and Market and States in Tropical Africa both by Robert Bates and are good short reads. They focus on how the politics and economics both failed when trying to industrialize several African States.

>Значит, вы предпочитаете сами разбираться в платежках коломойского и ахметова?

да, рапортуйте факт, а не домыслы и интерпретации

>документы на офшоры

слиты сотрудником Mossack Fonseca (по оф. версии), журналисты сами нарыть Ролдугина не смогли. Зато журналисты, типа Гнапа смогли вычудить «шЫдевОр» про оформление офшоров во время Иловайского котла. Спасибо, мне такое не надо…

>И без судов и без опинион-лидеров ни в жизнь не будет понятно, где же правда.

более чем понятно, как-то и без этого жили

>книги 2015 года

Она 2012 г. издания, но это мелочь. Книга почти что вторит книге 2009 года, но это тоже не главное. Идеи, изложенные в книге, имеют корни ещё в Просвещении — это типичные, очень упрощённые для переваривания не сильно подкованным читателем прогрессивистские концепты. Вполне согласен с рецензией Фукуямы.

>вечной живости злодея ленина

удивитесь, но индекс цитирования Ленина в западной политической и социологической литературе и не думает падать до нуля. Это не отменяет того, что он злодей, но в данном случае — он практик захвата СМИ и использования централизованных СМИ для промывания мозгов.

Sorry. The water makes the river. No bed without water. No politics without rent money to distribute. May I advise you a book?