Ultimately, he suggests that the chinese one party system has been the most adaptable over the last 30 years and therefore the most successful. This is the socialogical political science perspective, which couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, while many good things have happened in China, it started with trade treaties and Nixon. But this is all about the powers of pro free markets. Also happened with Pinochet in Chile, Taiwan, Viet Nam, South Korea. The reason China has grown so quickl over the last several decades, is they did not have to create technologies they needed to thrive. They copied them. Your level of technology is what defines your standard of living. But much like Japan, they will get to a place where they technologically catch up, and they will then have to create their own technologies to move forward. In Japan's case, they became experts in copying, but they didn't learn how to create new technologies and so have declined. What do you need to do to learn how to create new technologies-get out of the way! strong property rights! Japan's patent system has evolved to be a crony system. So they still struggle. In China, I predict they will end up in the same boat. They continue to steal technologies and they're expert at it. There'll be nothing left to copy soon-because we keep screwing up our own patent system and diminishing our economic freedoms. The power is in economic freedom.

“Meritocracy” is an old anti-concept and one of the most contemptible package deals. By means of nothing more than its last five letters, that word obliterates the difference between mind and force: it equates the men of ability with political rulers, and the power of their creative achievements with political power. There is no difference, the word suggests, between freedom and tyranny: an “aristocracy” is tyranny by a politically established elite, a “democracy” is tyranny by the majority—and when a government protects individual rights, the result is tyranny by talent or “merit” (and since “to merit” means “to deserve,” a free society is ruled by the tyranny of justice)."AR Philosophy Who Needs It?

Whose role is it to determine what is "merit" in the first place? This should be left to the individual. Anything else implies an aristocracy of power mongers and politically well-connected picking winners and losers.

This "atomized" individual thinks success is getting governments out of our way, off of our backs, and their noses out of our business regardless of their simplistic definitions of the progress of societies.

I hope he turns out to be wrong. He's saying China shows you can have economic success without political liberty. Liberty is a virtue in itself; it doesn't rest on being able to produce economic growth. I believe ultimately liberty within a democratic repubublic will produce more growth than a carefully managed responsive dictatorship.

Just FYI, here is an alternate link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0YjL9rZ...

I have long believed that the most competent, qualified, intelligent, moral, dynamic people in the United States would never consider wading through the muck necessary to reach a high political position. Our greatness was established by a cadre of men that took it upon themselves to create our union. Their creation was so unique in the world and set the minds of other men free to accomplish things never believed possible. As the founders passed, the vultures moved in and began eating the carcass while it was still alive and we are experiencing the death rattles.

Sunday, our family gathered to celebrate my mother's 105th birthday. I wanted the kids and grandkids to appreciate how long she has been around and looked up the chronology of presidents she has experienced. Teddy Roosevelt was in office when she was born! I thought but did not say, damn, she was there for the beginning of the collapse.