Nope, China is run by the Chinese Communist Party, which itself is run by Xi. That's it. Just look at Jack Ma for a clear example that China is not run by engineers or tech people.
I listened to this podcast earlier this week, and yesterday listened to another in the series exploring the difference between corruption in the US and China.
It's always good to learn how other cultures govern themselves. China learned a lot from the US and other countries, adapted, and then benefitted immensely. In the US, we can learn a lot too.
Lawyers and accountants. Just look at the way that once great engineering companies like Boeing and Intel have been run into the ground by bean counters ('financialization').
Makes sense though. Capitalism demands ever growing profits, and there is more money to be made in wealth accumulation and investments than in building things.
It's the difference between people who understand that the physical world is real, and a bunch of innumerate conmen. Both of them might rob you, but the latter will often end up killing you both in the attempt.
> Engineers, he explains, are driven to build while lawyers are driven to argue, and obstruct.
This is kind of the criticism that’s provided in Abundance. American Progressives intentionally made it extremely difficult to build anything by giving everyone a veto to block anything they don’t like.
There’s a lot of people on the Left (Center Left, at least) who want to revisit this approach and make it easier to build things again.
I also want to note that they point out that the current administration has a policy of scarcity. Even if we get rid of a lot of regulation, tariffs, deportations, and high government deficits make it hard to buy materials, hire labor, and finance projects.
It's the same thing you see in companies. Once you have something built that is making you comfortable, you get complacent and protective. And there's nothing sexy about maintenance.
(For instance, China wants to build best-in-world industry and infra, which they didn't have before, but they are not running their government in a growth- or building- engineering-driven sense. Not a lot of move-fast-and-break-things iteration there! Lots of people comfortable and protective of that system.)
China is run by the state, which employs the engineers.
The West is run by finance capital, which employs the lawyers (and buys the politicians).
There was a post here a while back about engineering grads in the UK who couldn't get engineering jobs. So they ended up working for quant firms and banks instead.
Under neoliberalism the economy ends up oriented away from productive activity and toward rent-seeking and wealth transfers. Hence the growing gambling "industry", the pump and dump crypto scams (run by heads of state, no less), the legally protected private cartels like banking and medicine. We get people like Vivek Ramaswamy who became a billionaire while producing nothing of value.
Pinning these massive systemic issues on lawyers is frankly stupid. They are just one piece of the puzzle.
I don't think this is really true about either country. America builds plenty. When people talk about it not being able to build they really mean mass transit and to some extent certain types of housing in some areas. Everything else gets built just fine.
This is less because of any special attitude toward governance, and more because the only university degrees you could get during the Cultural Revolution were in engineering.
A lot of people here focus on the political side of this topic, so I want to share an engineering perspective instead.
At the core, solving any problem really follows the same pattern: first you figure out what the problem is, then you set up a way to measure it, come up with a possible solution, and test it against your measurement. If it works, keep going. If it doesn’t, try something else. The key is just running this loop quickly enough. This process applies no matter what kind of problem you’re tackling—engineering, politics, or social issues.
The U.S. has this loop at the company level. China has this loop at the local government level.
In China, the central government decides what the goals are and how they are measured, and then the local governments carry out the implementation. Local officials who perform well against those measures get promoted; those who don’t are demoted.
If the U.S. really wants to build this kind of feedback loop at the government level, voters need to judge election candidates based on their track record, not just campaign rhetoric. And for that to happen, the country needs a well-educated population with strong critical thinking skills.
I should also add that China has been operating this way for thousands of years. It’s not without problems, though—like the old saying goes: when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.
For example, GDP used to be the main measure of success. That pushed local governments to chase higher GDP numbers at all costs—regardless of whether the projects were actually practical or useful. This led to overbuilding, unnecessary construction, and even ghost towns.
43 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 72.5 ms ] threadI learned today Chuck Grassley plans to run again and would be 95 years old in congress. This is insane.
If you've worked retail you know many above 75 are not all there, plain and simple.
https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2025...
It's always good to learn how other cultures govern themselves. China learned a lot from the US and other countries, adapted, and then benefitted immensely. In the US, we can learn a lot too.
On the other hand, DOGE didn't go a great job running America.
This is kind of the criticism that’s provided in Abundance. American Progressives intentionally made it extremely difficult to build anything by giving everyone a veto to block anything they don’t like.
There’s a lot of people on the Left (Center Left, at least) who want to revisit this approach and make it easier to build things again.
I also want to note that they point out that the current administration has a policy of scarcity. Even if we get rid of a lot of regulation, tariffs, deportations, and high government deficits make it hard to buy materials, hire labor, and finance projects.
But it's quite possible that the rule of law, capitalism, freedom, democracy, western institutions, etc. is what allows engineers to build stuff.
Technology advances when it is financed.
(For instance, China wants to build best-in-world industry and infra, which they didn't have before, but they are not running their government in a growth- or building- engineering-driven sense. Not a lot of move-fast-and-break-things iteration there! Lots of people comfortable and protective of that system.)
The West is run by finance capital, which employs the lawyers (and buys the politicians).
There was a post here a while back about engineering grads in the UK who couldn't get engineering jobs. So they ended up working for quant firms and banks instead.
Under neoliberalism the economy ends up oriented away from productive activity and toward rent-seeking and wealth transfers. Hence the growing gambling "industry", the pump and dump crypto scams (run by heads of state, no less), the legally protected private cartels like banking and medicine. We get people like Vivek Ramaswamy who became a billionaire while producing nothing of value.
Pinning these massive systemic issues on lawyers is frankly stupid. They are just one piece of the puzzle.
But I would probably say America is run by mbas, not lawyers.
The U.S. has this loop at the company level. China has this loop at the local government level.
In China, the central government decides what the goals are and how they are measured, and then the local governments carry out the implementation. Local officials who perform well against those measures get promoted; those who don’t are demoted.
If the U.S. really wants to build this kind of feedback loop at the government level, voters need to judge election candidates based on their track record, not just campaign rhetoric. And for that to happen, the country needs a well-educated population with strong critical thinking skills.
I should also add that China has been operating this way for thousands of years. It’s not without problems, though—like the old saying goes: when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.
For example, GDP used to be the main measure of success. That pushed local governments to chase higher GDP numbers at all costs—regardless of whether the projects were actually practical or useful. This led to overbuilding, unnecessary construction, and even ghost towns.