- A nation without dregs and malcontents is orderly, peaceful and pleasant, but perhaps without the seed of things to come.
Eric Hoffer

Does that mean that a nation that "...is orderly, peaceful and pleasant..." is least prepared to deal with change and therefore most vulnerable when change occurs?

On 3/13/23 02:38, gggg gggg wrote:
> - A nation without dregs and malcontents is orderly, peaceful and pleasant,

but perhaps without the seed of things to come.
>
> Eric Hoffer
>
> Does that mean that a nation that "...is orderly, peaceful and pleasant..."

is least prepared to deal with change and therefore most vulnerable when
change occurs?

Yes. I definitely believe that is a big part of the reason
that China relatively fell behind while the West Grew Rich.

Much of Chinese life was controlled by the bureaucratic
Mandarins, who were appointed because they were smart,
to rule life. This was non hereditary. They lived a
quite fine life. So there was major bias in them to
resist change, that could disrupt their grand and
peaceful lives.

On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 9:28:16 AM UTC-7, a425couple wrote:
> On 3/13/23 02:38, gggg gggg wrote:
> > - A nation without dregs and malcontents is orderly, peaceful and pleasant,
>
> but perhaps without the seed of things to come.
> >
> > Eric Hoffer
> >
> > Does that mean that a nation that "...is orderly, peaceful and pleasant...."
>
> is least prepared to deal with change and therefore most vulnerable when
> change occurs?
> Yes. I definitely believe that is a big part of the reason
> that China relatively fell behind while the West Grew Rich.
>
> Much of Chinese life was controlled by the bureaucratic
> Mandarins, who were appointed because they were smart,
> to rule life. This was non hereditary. They lived a
> quite fine life. So there was major bias in them to
> resist change, that could disrupt their grand and
> peaceful lives.

Is this relevant to Hoffer's quote?:

- The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

George Bernard Shaw ("Man and Superman")

On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 09:28:13 -0700, a425couple
<a425couple@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Much of Chinese life was controlled by the bureaucratic
>Mandarins, who were appointed because they were smart,
>to rule life. This was non hereditary. They lived a
>quite fine life. So there was major bias in them to
>resist change, that could disrupt their grand and
>peaceful lives.

One could make the identical argument with respect to China most
anytime in the 50 years following 1949.....

The opening up of China in recent years is at least as much due to
pushback from the small merchants who profitted from the minimal
opening up that occured and were determined to keep it. They were
successful and were content to let Beijing take credit as long as they
were content not to roll back the changes.

That's pretty much the story of Chinese economic gains these last 20
years at least until COVID in early 2020 put the brakes on.

On 3/15/23 21:48, The Horny Goat wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 09:28:13 -0700, a425couple
> <a425couple@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Much of Chinese life was controlled by the bureaucratic
>> Mandarins, who were appointed because they were smart,
>> to rule life. This was non hereditary. They lived a
>> quite fine life. So there was major bias in them to
>> resist change, that could disrupt their grand and
>> peaceful lives.
>
> One could make the identical argument with respect to China most
> anytime in the 50 years following 1949.....
>

Well, the testing for entry to the mandarins was based on merit,
by testing for knowledge and intelligence. We suspect the
selections in the last 75 years are based on loyalty to the
Chinese 'communist' party and to Xi.

Their openness to individual and government profit, seems to
vary over the decades.

you might find this informative:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ma

> The opening up of China in recent years is at least as much due to
> pushback from the small merchants who profitted from the minimal
> opening up that occured and were determined to keep it. They were
> successful and were content to let Beijing take credit as long as they
> were content not to roll back the changes.
>
> That's pretty much the story of Chinese economic gains these last 20
> years at least until COVID in early 2020 put the brakes on.

My views and opinions are firmly,
That the quality of life for the average Chinese citizen GREATLY
improved after 1978. It may be pretty much a dictatorship,
but it is not stealing all 'product' for just the very politically
elite few. They are indeed an economic and military power.

Taiwan is an interesting nut. Two irreconcilable views and opinions.
Do the 23 million people have the right to self determination?
Do they really care enough for the US and other world leaders
to harm themselves?

from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan

Population
• 1 July 2022 estimate
Neutral increase 23,894,394[18] (56th)
• 2010 census
23,123,866[19]
• Density
650/km2 (1,683.5/sq mi) (10th)

GDP (PPP) 2022 estimate
• Total
Increase $1.621 trillion[20] (19th)
• Per capita
Increase $69,500[20] (14th)
GDP (nominal) 2022 estimate
• Total
Increase $828.659 billion[20] (21st)
• Per capita
Increase $35,513[20] (29th)

Gini (2017) Negative increase 34.1[21]
medium

HDI (2021) Increase 0.926[m][25]
very high · 19th

Domestic opinion
See also: Taiwan independence movement and Chinese unification
Broadly speaking, domestic public opinion has preferred maintaining the
status quo, though pro-independence sentiment has steadily risen since
1994. In June 2021, an annual poll run by the National Chengchi
University found that 28.2 percent of respondents supported the status
quo and postponing a decision, 27.5 percent supported maintaining the
status quo indefinitely, 25.8 percent supported the status quo with a
move toward independence, 5.9 percent supported the status quo with a
move toward unification, 5.7 percent gave no response, 5.6 percent
supported independence as soon as possible, and 1.5 percent supported
unification as soon as possible.[355] A referendum question in 2018
asked if Taiwan's athletes should compete under "Taiwan" in the 2020
Summer Olympics but did not pass; the New York Times attributed the
failure to a campaign cautioning that a name change might lead to Taiwan
being banned "under Chinese pressure".[356]

The KMT, the largest Pan-Blue party, supports the status quo for the
indefinite future with a stated ultimate goal of unification. However,
it does not support unification in the short term with the PRC as such a
prospect would be unacceptable to most of its members and the
public.[357] Ma Ying-jeou, chairman of the KMT and former president of
the ROC, has set out democracy, economic development to a level near
that of Taiwan, and equitable wealth distribution as the conditions that
the PRC must fulfill for unification to occur.[358] Ma stated that the
cross-Strait relations are neither between two Chinas nor two states. It
is a special relationship. Further, he stated that the sovereignty
issues between the two cannot be resolved at present.[359]

The Democratic Progressive Party, the largest Pan-Green party,
officially seeks independence, but in practice also supports the status
quo because neither independence nor unification seems likely in the
short or even medium term.[360] In 2017, Taiwanese premier William Lai
of the Democratic Progressive Party said that he was a "political worker
who advocates Taiwan independence", but that as Taiwan was already an
independent country called the Republic of
China,[287][291][294][361][362] it had no need to declare independence.[363]

On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 10:03:37 -0700, a425couple
<a425couple@hotmail.com> wrote:

>My views and opinions are firmly,
>That the quality of life for the average Chinese citizen GREATLY
>improved after 1978. It may be pretty much a dictatorship,
>but it is not stealing all 'product' for just the very politically
>elite few. They are indeed an economic and military power.

That's what I'm saying - I'm suggesting that MOST of the reforms after
that were directly related to the explosive growth that China
displayed and that the impetus for the growth was NOT "top down" but
rather from below with most of the new millionaires and billionaires
willing to let the party grab the credit even though Hu in particular
wanted to clamp down.

>Taiwan is an interesting nut. Two irreconcilable views and opinions.
>Do the 23 million people have the right to self determination?
>Do they really care enough for the US and other world leaders
>to harm themselves?

Historically there was no single unitary state called China until
modern times - the Mongols did as much to unify China as anybody else
and for MOST of the last 2000 years Taiwan was NOT owned by China.
Definitely by tribal peoples closely related to China but equally not
ruled by Beijing for most of it.

Not sure of a good metaphor but think France and Alsace 1871-1918.
(Something I >do< know something about as one of my great grandmothers
was an Alsatian born after 1871)

I personally think the Chinese claim to Taiwan is bogus but in
practice might makes right even if it doesn't morally.

On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 2:38:36 AM UTC-7, gggg gggg wrote:
> - A nation without dregs and malcontents is orderly, peaceful and pleasant, but perhaps without the seed of things to come.
>
> Eric Hoffer
>
> Does that mean that a nation that "...is orderly, peaceful and pleasant...." is least prepared to deal with change and therefore most vulnerable when change occurs?

According to this:

- In order to answer the question of why China failed to become a world superpower, it is important to first answer the question of why Eurasia (which includes both China and Europe) was most likely to foster powerful civilizations. Jared Diamond, author of Guns, Germs, and Steel, argues persuasively that the geography of the Eurasian continent was the underlying cause of their success on the world stage...

http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/kyle/zhenghe3.html

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 1:16:43 AM UTC-7, gggg gggg wrote:
> On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 2:38:36 AM UTC-7, gggg gggg wrote:
> > - A nation without dregs and malcontents is orderly, peaceful and pleasant, but perhaps without the seed of things to come.
> >
> > Eric Hoffer
> >
> > Does that mean that a nation that "...is orderly, peaceful and pleasant...." is least prepared to deal with change and therefore most vulnerable when change occurs?
> According to this:
>
> - In order to answer the question of why China failed to become a world superpower, it is important to first answer the question of why Eurasia (which includes both China and Europe) was most likely to foster powerful civilizations. Jared Diamond, author of Guns, Germs, and Steel, argues persuasively that the geography of the Eurasian continent was the underlying cause of their success on the world stage...
>
> http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/kyle/zhenghe3.html

Not everyone agrees with Diamond:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns%2C_Germs%2C_and_Steel#Criticism

On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 2:38:36 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> - A nation without dregs and malcontents is orderly, peaceful and pleasant, but perhaps without the seed of things to come.
>
> Eric Hoffer
>
> Does that mean that a nation that "...is orderly, peaceful and pleasant...." is least prepared to deal with change and therefore most vulnerable when change occurs?

- I bless a society that tolerates and supports an eternal childhood for some, a childhood whose playfulness can, in turn, be a blessing to society.

Allan Bloom