Why? It keeps order, it keeps the proles from getting uppity, and it's not much in the business of wealth redistribution (unlike it's liberal democracy counterparts on the other side of the world).
Likewise, business as a whole in the US (and elsewhere) has no issue supporting the more authoritarian and repressive of the two political parties. They prefer it, in fact, because of what it does for them in limiting worker and consumer rights. When you're in the upper class of society, most of the repressive rules don't personally apply to you.
> Likewise, business as a whole in the US (and elsewhere) has no issue supporting the more authoritarian and repressive of the two political parties.
This is potentially the start of a boring partisan flame war. Let's not do that.
The Republican and Democratic parties both have some platforms that strike outsiders as authoritarian and repressive. But debating them on HN doesn't work well IME.
I deliberately didn't name names (because in this context, it doesn't matter which is more authoritarian than the other, the statement works regardless of which side of that question you take.) My point is that business interests have no issues with authoritarianism, so long as it doesn't get in their way.
If you're waiting for the S&P500 to optimize for freedom and democracy, and justice, and reasonably-priced love, you're going to be in for a very, very long wait. It actively optimizes for the comfort of its executives and shareholder value first and second, and for the rest of society not at all.
And yet Chinese citizens of all walks of life have been immigrating to my humble neck of the woods for the past decade (and they're welcome to, everyone I've met is super nice and grateful to be here) while I've heard of 0 people moving from my locale to China, I wonder why that is.
