It's not just AI. China's medicines are surprising the world, too(economist.com)
economist.com
It's not just AI. China's medicines are surprising the world, too
https://www.economist.com/business/2025/02/16/its-not-just-ai-chinas-medicines-are-surprising-the-world-too
64 comments
The next best thing after a president who has a long term vision for its country is a dictator who has a long term vision for his country. Sadly in the west we don't really have any of the former, and the wannabe dictators we get are even more self absorbed and only interested in the next election cycle
[deleted]
Sorry no. The best thing for a country is a decentralized, direct democracy.
> The best thing for a country is a decentralized, direct democracy.
Best by what criteria, and, examples and/or argument supporting this claim?
Best by what criteria, and, examples and/or argument supporting this claim?
Switzerland. Stable, prosperous.
Yep, it has nothing to do with being the world leader in money laundering and a tax have lmao. This part of their wiki article is gold:
> The country ranks as one of the least corrupt countries in the world, while its banking sector is rated as "one of the most corrupt in the world"
It's like saying Norway is prosperous because they eat a lot of fish, no, they're prosperous because they sit on a shit ton of oil. The Swiss case is much more complex than "direct democracy"
> The country ranks as one of the least corrupt countries in the world, while its banking sector is rated as "one of the most corrupt in the world"
It's like saying Norway is prosperous because they eat a lot of fish, no, they're prosperous because they sit on a shit ton of oil. The Swiss case is much more complex than "direct democracy"
Where are you citing this from?
As stated, the swiss wiki page. It's not like it's a well guarded secret either
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland#Economy_and_labour...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland#Economy_and_labour...
Interestingly Switzerland drastically changed its banking lawsin 2019, one year after the report from 2018 you are referencing.
What is the situation in 2025?
What is the situation in 2025?
[deleted]
There's no such thing as a country, if we remove the population from the country.
Dictators' long-term visions for their countries rarely include population's prosperity as a key goal. Benevolent (near-)absolute monarchs existed, but they were even more rare than democratically elected great leaders.
Say, Mr. Putin looked like a benevolent not-even-a-dictator for a decade or so, and his rule coincided with the rather obviously rising prosperity of most Russian citizens. But there is a catch. Always has been, but it became overt in 2022 when the kinda-benevolent leader turned a complete dictator and started a major war.
Xi is already much more of a dictator than Putin can ever dream of. To hope that his benevolence will extend indefinitely, and will match your idea of benevolence, if to be delusional, sorry.
Dictators' long-term visions for their countries rarely include population's prosperity as a key goal. Benevolent (near-)absolute monarchs existed, but they were even more rare than democratically elected great leaders.
Say, Mr. Putin looked like a benevolent not-even-a-dictator for a decade or so, and his rule coincided with the rather obviously rising prosperity of most Russian citizens. But there is a catch. Always has been, but it became overt in 2022 when the kinda-benevolent leader turned a complete dictator and started a major war.
Xi is already much more of a dictator than Putin can ever dream of. To hope that his benevolence will extend indefinitely, and will match your idea of benevolence, if to be delusional, sorry.
So, for you, Putin was a kinda-benevolent dictator until 2022? Did you miss a bunch of news?
He tried hard to make an impression. Look, the prosperity grows, "Russia is rising from its knees", or what was the slogan by then. A political assassination here and there? Well, these were the enemies of the prosperity and order. Large demonstrations against his rule? They came, they went, nobody even got shot. "Re-election" for the third, fourth, fifth, whatever next presidential term? Well, everyone just somehow acquiesced to the notion that the "controlled democracy" is a game, the price of the "white glove" dictatorship; who did not, left the country.
It looked sort of "benevolent", even though the rot under the surface was exposed time and again, with murders, multiple attacks on neighboring countries, and eventually a large-scale war in Europe.
Those who think that Chairman Xi is benevolent and is doing good for China with his long-term wise planning may be up for a very rude awakening. They prefer to somehow push away from their picture of China things like people disappearing, businesses crushed, political commissars at every large business, the whole Xinjiang thing, and the battle dances around Taiwan. When they realize that these are integral parts of the "benevolence", and have been all along, it may be a bit late.
It looked sort of "benevolent", even though the rot under the surface was exposed time and again, with murders, multiple attacks on neighboring countries, and eventually a large-scale war in Europe.
Those who think that Chairman Xi is benevolent and is doing good for China with his long-term wise planning may be up for a very rude awakening. They prefer to somehow push away from their picture of China things like people disappearing, businesses crushed, political commissars at every large business, the whole Xinjiang thing, and the battle dances around Taiwan. When they realize that these are integral parts of the "benevolence", and have been all along, it may be a bit late.
A dictator who serves the people's interests is more democratic than an elected official who harms them.
Democratic != good for the people, just who the people wanted.
Dictators don’t give people the choice.
You’re just using the word “democratic” wrong.
Dictators don’t give people the choice.
You’re just using the word “democratic” wrong.
You are correct.
“The most effective way of making people accept the validity of the values they are to serve is to persuade them that they are really the same as those which they... have always held, but which were not properly understood or recognized before... the most efficient technique to this end is to use the old words but change their meaning. Few traits of totalitarian regimes are at the same time so confusing to the superficial observer and yet so characteristic of the whole intellectual climate as the complete perversion of language" ~F.A. Hayek
“The most effective way of making people accept the validity of the values they are to serve is to persuade them that they are really the same as those which they... have always held, but which were not properly understood or recognized before... the most efficient technique to this end is to use the old words but change their meaning. Few traits of totalitarian regimes are at the same time so confusing to the superficial observer and yet so characteristic of the whole intellectual climate as the complete perversion of language" ~F.A. Hayek
The irony of quoting Hayek, the collaborator of Pinochet, one of the worst dictators of the last century, to warn about the dangers of totalitarian regimes.
Even more ironic is that "use the old words but change their meaning" is something our "democratic" ruling class keeps doing very often.
Even more ironic is that "use the old words but change their meaning" is something our "democratic" ruling class keeps doing very often.
Pinochet killed a few thousand people, which is awful but is not, by any objective reckoning, a reign that puts him in the company of the worst dictators of the last century[0][1]
Those who do this in the ruling class always use it to dupe the people into opposing their own interests--hardly ironic.
[0]https://reason.com/volokh/2022/11/09/data-on-mass-murder-by-... [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile
Those who do this in the ruling class always use it to dupe the people into opposing their own interests--hardly ironic.
[0]https://reason.com/volokh/2022/11/09/data-on-mass-murder-by-... [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile
I disagree, democracy is literally the power of the people. A dictator who serves the people's interests is effectively concretizing that power, as opposed to a corrupt/inept elected official who will deny it.
> A dictator who serves the people's interests is effectively concretizing that power
Wtf? No.
A dictator maintains all the power. The people have no power.
Just because the interests of the people are supported by the actions of a dictator does not mean the people have any power. Because they don’t…
Now you’re using the term “power” incorrectly.
The difference is that in a democracy the people can vote out corrupt individuals, at least theoretically.
That can’t happen in a dictatorship because, again, the people have no power.
Wtf? No.
A dictator maintains all the power. The people have no power.
Just because the interests of the people are supported by the actions of a dictator does not mean the people have any power. Because they don’t…
Now you’re using the term “power” incorrectly.
The difference is that in a democracy the people can vote out corrupt individuals, at least theoretically.
That can’t happen in a dictatorship because, again, the people have no power.
> The difference is that in a democracy the people can vote out corrupt individuals, at least theoretically.
A system where elected representatives always serve the interests of a select few is essentially an oligarchy in disguise. When the available choices are just two variations of the same corruption, it becomes difficult to view it as a genuine form of power.
> That can’t happen in a dictatorship because, again, the people have no power.
We always have the power, and it's called revolution. Historically, it's how corrupt dictatorships have met their end.
A system where elected representatives always serve the interests of a select few is essentially an oligarchy in disguise. When the available choices are just two variations of the same corruption, it becomes difficult to view it as a genuine form of power.
> That can’t happen in a dictatorship because, again, the people have no power.
We always have the power, and it's called revolution. Historically, it's how corrupt dictatorships have met their end.
> We always have the power, and it's called revolution.
Revolution is the act of changing governments, it is not itself a feature of a particular system of government.
Revolution is the act of changing governments, it is not itself a feature of a particular system of government.
> A system where elected representatives always serve the interests of a select few is essentially an oligarchy in disguise. When the available choices are just two variations of the same corruption, it becomes difficult to view it as a genuine form of power.
This is pretty much describing the US, which is both not a democracy (it’s a republic. And a bad example of one) and not what I’m talking about.
I’m talking about democracy and dictatorships as forms of governance in the abstract.
> We always have the power, and it's called revolution. Historically, it's how corrupt dictatorships have met their end.
Yes and no. A lot of revolutions against dictators have other nations as sponsors.
Also, having the physical power to revolt is not the same as having political power.
Often post revolution, those with previous political power (who were not the dictator) maintain some, all, or even gain power after a revolution.
You’ll never see Joe Schmoe office worker gaining political power through revolution unless they amass support (a.k.a. Political power) beforehand.
This is pretty much describing the US, which is both not a democracy (it’s a republic. And a bad example of one) and not what I’m talking about.
I’m talking about democracy and dictatorships as forms of governance in the abstract.
> We always have the power, and it's called revolution. Historically, it's how corrupt dictatorships have met their end.
Yes and no. A lot of revolutions against dictators have other nations as sponsors.
Also, having the physical power to revolt is not the same as having political power.
Often post revolution, those with previous political power (who were not the dictator) maintain some, all, or even gain power after a revolution.
You’ll never see Joe Schmoe office worker gaining political power through revolution unless they amass support (a.k.a. Political power) beforehand.
> This is pretty much describing the US, which is both not a democracy (it’s a republic. And a bad example of one) and not what I’m talking about.
I'm glad we agree on this, but I'll add that all so-called democracies suffer from the same problem.
> I’m talking about democracy and dictatorships as forms of governance in the abstract.
Yes, talking in the abstract is all we can do, because honestly, I can't find any true examples of democracy at the moment.
I'm glad we agree on this, but I'll add that all so-called democracies suffer from the same problem.
> I’m talking about democracy and dictatorships as forms of governance in the abstract.
Yes, talking in the abstract is all we can do, because honestly, I can't find any true examples of democracy at the moment.
As is so often the case in these sorts of "countries that function quite well", the Scandinavians aren't doing too badly:
https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking
USA is #36, a "deficient democracy". Not a surprise and sadly I can see it only dropping further in the near future.
The scale, interestingly, goes:
- Working Democracy
- Deficient Democracy
- Hybrid Regime
- Moderate Autocracy
- Hard Autocracy
Further details on methodology -> https://www.democracymatrix.com/conception/democracy-matrix
https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking
USA is #36, a "deficient democracy". Not a surprise and sadly I can see it only dropping further in the near future.
The scale, interestingly, goes:
- Working Democracy
- Deficient Democracy
- Hybrid Regime
- Moderate Autocracy
- Hard Autocracy
Further details on methodology -> https://www.democracymatrix.com/conception/democracy-matrix
https://x.com/yanisvaroufakis/status/1891776006236618793
Germany is fifth. Tells me all I need to know about this ranking.
Germany is fifth. Tells me all I need to know about this ranking.
Pure democracy is not very good. It's just governance by mob rule (which is bad for the same reason populism is bad)
Which is why republics have been succesful. Ideally me, as an idividual, should be able to trust a local leader enough to have them represent me in government. That way I am free to live my life and trust the local leader to handle politics in my best interests.
It rarely ends up that clean, but it happens sometimes.
Which is why republics have been succesful. Ideally me, as an idividual, should be able to trust a local leader enough to have them represent me in government. That way I am free to live my life and trust the local leader to handle politics in my best interests.
It rarely ends up that clean, but it happens sometimes.
> I disagree
Imagine disagreeing with the dictionary.
Imagine disagreeing with the dictionary.
Do you believe dictionaries are descriptive or prescriptive?
I believe in ignoring stupid questions.
The belief in the myth that "the Chinese" are poor, stupid, backward, inferior etc. is what causes such suprise.
I was under the impression that the surprise is that their authoritarian political system doesn't stifle the conditions required for this level of innovation.
China proves that you don't need 100 times return on capital to get potential innovators to take risk. 100% may be enough. People say China couldn't innovate due to its weak IPR protection, but it is turning out that you don't need to be an absolutist. Sure outright theft is bad, but imitation can be good for competition. You want to give the innovators a head start so they can profit from their efforts, but you don't want to make the protection so tight that they can sit on their initial efforts and profit for years to come without further innovation.
> Sure outright theft is bad, but imitation can be good for competition.
Worked out pretty well for a small upstart nation in the late 18th century called the United States of America
Worked out pretty well for a small upstart nation in the late 18th century called the United States of America
It's authoritarian in some ways - don't criticize the government etc - but I think they are fairly laissez faire in terms of most businesses doing their thing.
Not really, it's about the general understanding that while China produces a lot of stuff for other countries, its own products are very often obvious knock-offs or subpar versions.
Nothing to do with any myth, it's just how it is for a huge variety of reasons.
And if you ever went to a university, you'd instantly lose that notion, since you'd be probably be interacting with both rich (or at least very well off) and intelligent Chinese people.
Nothing to do with any myth, it's just how it is for a huge variety of reasons.
And if you ever went to a university, you'd instantly lose that notion, since you'd be probably be interacting with both rich (or at least very well off) and intelligent Chinese people.
> China's own products are very often obvious knock-offs or subpar versions
This view is increasingly outdated. Chinese EVs are well ahead of the rest. Solar power systems too.
I am anticipating more "surprises" like DeepSeek where something ground-breaking comes from China as well as from Silicon Valley, Japan or elsewhere. Or like EVs where the Chinese firms are leaders in an advanced engineering industry.
This view is increasingly outdated. Chinese EVs are well ahead of the rest. Solar power systems too.
I am anticipating more "surprises" like DeepSeek where something ground-breaking comes from China as well as from Silicon Valley, Japan or elsewhere. Or like EVs where the Chinese firms are leaders in an advanced engineering industry.
You've got to see the whole production, not just a few selected cases. As they say, the exceptions confirms the rule.
While there are good examples, many people might not be currently familiar with them.
Btw, I'm just explaining why the impression of Chinese products is there and why it doesn't have to be rooted in preconceptions Chinese people as a whole.
While there are good examples, many people might not be currently familiar with them.
Btw, I'm just explaining why the impression of Chinese products is there and why it doesn't have to be rooted in preconceptions Chinese people as a whole.
Why would anyone believe that? In particular this forum. Everyone here has worked with a Chinese colleague smarter than them.
China has 1.4 billion of them.
China has 1.4 billion of them.
They seem to be hitting all their long term goals pretty well. Makes me wonder whether it is time to learn Mandarin
Technology is quickly approaching the point where you don't need to speak Mandarin if you want to speak Mandarin.
I'm sure you'll know when the time comes. And if you were not interested to learn it beforehand it won't serve you for a long while.
I remembered reading an article in Wired about 20 years ago, about counterfeit cloth. A premier fabric maker in France said that Chinese cloth wasn't just a counterfeit of theirs, but was actually a superior product.
BYD would easily blow away Tesla as the leading EV maker if they were allowed in the US.
TikTok has proven that not only can China create a world-leading social platform, that users care so little about where it's from that when it was blocked, they flocked to another Chinese social-media option rather than retreat to the "safe" options.
China is even winning in American capitalism, there 70-80% of the goods sold by Walmart and Amazon are from China.
Companies like BambuLab, DJI, and Roborock are proven world-leaders in their categories.
Sticking our head in the sand and pretending that American and Western products are inherently superior is absolutely foolish.
BYD would easily blow away Tesla as the leading EV maker if they were allowed in the US.
TikTok has proven that not only can China create a world-leading social platform, that users care so little about where it's from that when it was blocked, they flocked to another Chinese social-media option rather than retreat to the "safe" options.
China is even winning in American capitalism, there 70-80% of the goods sold by Walmart and Amazon are from China.
Companies like BambuLab, DJI, and Roborock are proven world-leaders in their categories.
Sticking our head in the sand and pretending that American and Western products are inherently superior is absolutely foolish.
I have been thinking for a while that lot of people need to understand that China is making the cheapest possible crap because lot of us keep buying it. Why not make cheap stuff when customers want and pay for it.
Being able and willing to make cheap stuff, does not prevent on from making expensive and good quality stuff as well. And you can in many parts make that quality stuff cheaper as you have supply chain from raw materials.
Being able and willing to make cheap stuff, does not prevent on from making expensive and good quality stuff as well. And you can in many parts make that quality stuff cheaper as you have supply chain from raw materials.
China's vertically-integrated manufacturing ecosystem strategically creates value at all tiers - while cost-efficient production democratizes access to smartphones, solar equipment and IoT devices for billions globally, the same supply chains empower premium innovations like Huawei's satellite phones or CATL's solid-state batteries. This dual-capacity bridges the digital divide: African farmers now access agritech tools at 1/5 the 2010 prices, and South Asian households install solar systems cheaper than kerosene alternatives. Ultimately, industrial clusters aren't just making things affordable, but redefining what's possible for human development at every income level.
Go back to the early 1970s and "Made in Japan" was an indicator of a low quality product. This sort of thing has happened before a few times. China is just bigger than the others that did it.
China is better at free market capitalism. While in US markets quickly gravitate towards monopoly or duopoly, China has multiple companies in each sector.
> China is better at free market capitalism
Aren’t they not a free market?
That’s partly why
> China has multiple companies in each sector.
Free markets lead to monopolies when unchecked… like in the us.
Aren’t they not a free market?
That’s partly why
> China has multiple companies in each sector.
Free markets lead to monopolies when unchecked… like in the us.
I think it's a good thing. Not only are new medicines in general a good thing, the US system is so slow, partly due to bureaucracy, that if you do find a cure for anything it seems to take fifteen years to get to patients.
The funny thing though is that china can extort obviously corrupt external markets. Just synthesize wegovy, sell it a gestation price, shake down a cartel or industry for the price difference. If your oligarchy can not compete and the corruption prevents it form keeping up, it has to take over to prevent extinction by the external competition.
/Chat, are we cooked?
Why? Who the heck cares where the drugs came from if it works better?
Multiply that one product by all the others and you're out of work, unless you move to China. That's why you should care.
See also, Japan in the 80s, West Germany in the 1960s, _Italy_ in the 60s (that one was particularly short-lived), the US in the 40s-50s and to some extent again in the late 90s, etc etc. "[Country] will outcompete the whole world to the extent that the rest of the world will literally collapse" is a long-running idea, but doesn't _really_ make that much sense.
Though, also, I kind of thought that people thinking this about China had peaked in the '10s at some point (as with the other examples, China's GDP growth rate has now moderated). Move onto the next country that's going to take over the world, already!
Though, also, I kind of thought that people thinking this about China had peaked in the '10s at some point (as with the other examples, China's GDP growth rate has now moderated). Move onto the next country that's going to take over the world, already!
Valid question. Its quite possible there's a future where only "favoured pharmaceutical company" can distribute these drugs in the US to protect against woke left liberals who might contaminate these meds with drugs that might turn your son gay. :)
I wonder how much of this is a result of past outsourcing, IP theft, and all that. But it doesn’t matter now - China is competitive and is a much more dangerous adversary for free societies than the Soviet Union ever was. I wonder when western countries will have a better plan for this new reality.
China is not much of an adversary. They have basically one overseas territory claim, and it's Taiwan. Other than that they're still less of a threat than Russia.
Don't forget their claims in the East Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line
How many overseas territory claims do you think Russia has?
There’s also the claims to Tibet and Xinjiang…
Those are internationally recognized as belonging to China and are under Chinese control.