This is absolutely true. Sometimes we even make a virtue of imposing unpopular policies (that is, unpopular in the short run) for the longer term 'good'.

“In principle, free-market technocracies seem dangerously unstable in ways liberal democracies do not.”

The reverse is also true.

Likewise, it's interesting to observe what political issues and topics are taboo- and which ones people freely voice their opinion on. If you have a room full of Chinese and start talking about a domestic or economic issue, you'll have a room full of different opinions. Same way if you talk about a major politician (other than Mao, who has been turned into more of a mythological character than a real person, but that's another topic altogether). On the other hand, if you bring up an international issue or an issue related to the stability and integrity of the country (Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang Independence, Tiananmen Square, Falun Gong)- everyone, regardless of their opinion of the communist party, the government, etc.- tends to fall in line and speak with a single voice.

This demonstrates that China is in many ways in an opposite place from America. They're becoming highly innovative and daring in their managerial and economic approaches, but extremely conservative in their political views where national image and stability are concerned. This seems like a natural outgrowth of both their post-colonial legacy and their extremely competitive, hierarchical society.

As for manuelg's statement, I agree and disagree. It is true that as a foreigner in China, you're always a foreigner- “laowai”. You're never going to fit in in Beijing, Xi'an, or any number of Chinese cities or villages. On the other hand, Shanghai is being turned into (perhaps “back into”) China's international city- it's being specifically re-made as a haven for foreign capital, both financial and, increasingly, human. It's possible for a westerner to come here on a standard tourist visa, find work, and convert to a work visa/residence permit fairly easy (China has a very low bar for work visas- proof of employment and proof of education, along with a medical exam and a small fee, is the only requirement). While “brain drain” to China seems unlikely, “brain drain” to specific international enclaves- city-states like Hong Kong (pop 7 million, twice the size of Singapore), or massive “international cities” like Shanghai (pop 23 million, almost eight times the size of Singapore) seems like a very real possibility.

If China wants to make this happen, though, it will take more reforms. Shanghai will need a more liberal media, more autonomy, an increased civic role for foreigners, as well as a much better pay scale (the PCGDP in Shanghai is still only about $7500 by exchange value- $16000 by PPP; it's not competitive with the US, Canada, Hong Kong or Singapore yet) before it can really become a global player for talent and start bringing over foreigners (other than the general managers, journalists, teachers and doctors that are currently here). If this happens, though, Shanghai could become as good a place as any for an enterprising person from anywhere in the world to come build a life (and a few already are).

China is functionally (but non-maliciously) xenophobic. Foreigners would be incessantly aware that they are The Other. (Like how Japan treats resident aliens, but less maliciously, with less cruelness.) This is a huge psychic toll, over time.

Also – in a Latin American junta, if you fall on the wrong side of a political dispute, your dismembered trunk could be found on the side of a rural road. In China, you would maintain your corporal integrity, but your life would still become very unpleasant. I will keep my brain-pan and contents in a western liberal democracy, thank you very much, and not drain it on Chinese soil. My grasping for wealth has some limits.

Well, people who are now free choosing policies that will end up making them less free or unfree doesn't argue against Friedman's point of the two states being related, does it?

He doesn't (in your retelling; I haven't seen the original in its context) claim that the inextricable link between the two freedoms causes them to invariably support the other, in my reading, so much as claim that without the one you won't have the other (in the long run), or conversely, if going from a state where one has neither, gaining one freedom will lead to gaining the other or to the gained one being quashed.

In other, simpler, words, I read his claim as one that the combination of political freedom and economic unfreedom or political unfreedom and economic freedom is unstable and will revert to either neither freedom or both as an equilibrium state.