I originally wrote this back in 20190719, then posted it as a thread on Twitter. It’s gone now, but Monkchips’ post got me thinking about it again.
China smart, America stupid seems to be the story of the century so far
— Sid Rini (@monkchips.com) March 22, 2026 at 4:23 PM
The original text follows.
I keep hearing that, historically, democratic governments have made more progress than authoritarian ones, but that the balance is shifting.
The usual example is China lifting billions out of poverty, while many former shining-beacon democracies decay. The implication seems to be that we’ve hit a ceiling and we need central authority to achieve Big Things.
I believe that’s looking at the wrong trait as the reason.
It’s easier to make big strides if you don’t care who you step on, obviously. We have seen that applies not only to governments but to businesses, but what I think we’re seeing is a divorcing of two characteristics that used to go hand in hand.
Acemoglu and Robinson make a convincing case on “Why Nations Fail” that the root cause of country failure is extractive governments. An extractive government discourages its citizens and others to invest on the country itself. They then double-down on kleptocracy. Cue cycle.
What I think is happening is that, traditionally, democratically-elected governments had more of an incentive to be financially inclusive, whereas authoritarianism went full extractive. These two attributes seem to be drifting.
What we are seeing are more elected officials going extractive and shielding themselves from the consequences, while governments that are otherwise authoritarian think more about the nation’s longevity.
(Not calling them “inclusive” given that, often, they aren’t)
If this is the case, and you are considering where to place your bets, then don’t look for democratic vs. authoritarian - look for a functioning long-term view vs. an approach of kleptocratic extraction.