Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China’s liberalization and structural reform drives growth

project-syndicate.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 118 posts

Re: China’s liberalization and structural reform drives growth

#31

Post by rwallace »

roenxi wrote: post #10

China has a population of more than a billion people, the 3rd largest landmass controlled by a single sovereign entity. The only question is how they managed to fall so low that they weren't a competitive superpower. It is entirely possible that we don't know what the reason for China's rise is over the short term. I wouldn't trust any article written in English to understand the ins and outs of China's special econo…

> The only question is how they managed to fall so low that they weren't a competitive superpower.

Because for pretty much their entire history, anytime they tried to achieve anything, they were either conquered by an aggressive imperial power, stuck with a terrible repressive government, or both in rapid succession.

Re: China’s liberalization and structural reform drives growth

#32

Post by yocheckit »

Tigah_pawszzz wrote: post #4

As someone from China I kinda feel like we are a developed country when I learned I am making more than my peers in UK #GameIndustryPeasant

My experience with China is that certain parts are 100% first world, but other parts are 100% 3rd world, with many places inbetween.

Whereas the difference between the poorest & richest Brit while significant is nothing compared to the difference between the poorest & richest Chinese.

Re: China’s liberalization and structural reform drives growth

#34

Post by adinobro »

ztratar wrote: post #19

"Yet this process of economic liberalization and structural reform is also uniquely Chinese, insofar as it has emphasized local-level competition and experimentation, which in turn have supported bottom-up institutional innovation. The result is a kind of de facto fiscal federalism – and a powerful driver of economic transformation." I'm not entirely sure what this means. The article that is referenced by the author…

The article does not do a really good job at explaining what the government it doing but basically it is:

1. Creating competition between states/cities (Beijing vs Shanghai) which has similar advantages to the free market EVEN if both groups are part of the government. This tries to reduce waste and puts natural pressure on companies (including ones that are state owned).

2. Encouraging close proximity (like silicon valley) by using grants, lower taxes, etc. This encourages lots of companies in the same industry to be close together and often in the same building. This encourages transfer of ideas and staff between companies. (economic development zones)

3. Limiting the number of economic development zones so that they are not all over the place.

To just ignore anything that Chinese companies have done and say it is all stolen or copied is rather biased.

Alipay and WeChat are probably the easiest example to look at. They both started very different (WeChat was just a copy of What's App, which is a copy of MSN messenger, which is a copy of AOL messengers, which is a copy of IRC which is a copy of netsend, which is a copy of telegrams, which is a copy of smake signals, etc... - everything is based on what came before it)

Slowly based on competition with each other they have stolen each other features and now do basically the same things. Forget about America (Facebook keeps copying features from WeChat).

Hope this helps to explain what the article does not explain.

Re: China’s liberalization and structural reform drives growth

#35

Post by RavlaAlvar »

Also, we shouldn't forget that since the economic reform of 1978, China has adopted the policy of intentionally escalating wealth inequality.

Please do not forget billions of worker/farmer in China still live in a third world condition, so that the upper 10% can live their bourgeois life.

Re: China’s liberalization and structural reform drives growth

#36

Post by kerng »

mikeash wrote: post #27
kerng wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only question is how they managed to fall so low that they weren't a competitive superpower. Political issues. They might be the mighty sole superpower by now. Imagine the knowledge, passion and intelligence of all the people living there, and what they could have already achieved without being suppressed or held back.

They were getting kicked around by other powers in the 19th century. Communism isn’t the explanation.

Look at the last 50 years.

Re: China’s liberalization and structural reform drives growth

#37

Post by iforgotpassword »

lkrubner wrote: post #11
lkrubner wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, for God’s sake, no, the Cultural Revolution was not devestating to the economy. Where did you read that? During the worst year of the Cultural Revolution, China still managed to grow 8%. Large scale civil rights violations are not automatically bad for the economy. The German economy grew dramatically during the Holocaust and the best decades for the USA overlap with the mass murder of the Indians and the savage…

Why is this comment (above) getting down voted? This is a factually true comment.

Simply stating it is true and again not citing any source doesn't make it "factually true". At least the numbers on Wikipedia seem to contradict this claim. Where did you get yours from?

Re: China’s liberalization and structural reform drives growth

#38

Post by mikeash »

kerng wrote: post #36
mikeash wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were getting kicked around by other powers in the 19th century. Communism isn’t the explanation.

Look at the last 50 years.

The last 50 years has been a sharp rise. The fall was long before.

Re: China’s liberalization and structural reform drives growth

#39

Post by richardw »

nine_k wrote: post #22
mastazi wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> population of more than a billion people, the 3rd largest landmass > how they managed to fall so low There are countries with even larger landmass, and countries with roughly the same population, whose economies are doing worse than China, so I'm not convinced that landmass and population are fundamental requirements for economic prosperity. I should add that I'm not an economist in any shape or form and I'm happy…

There is exactly one country with a comparable populatuon, India. It's not doing exactly bad, too. The next largest country is USA, with roughly thee times smaller a population. Most countries with larger landmass have most of its landmass barely usable due to climate: Russia, Canada, Australia, Algeria. Most others from top 10 largest countries are doing OK: USA, India, Brazil. China has a unique combination of very…

India has more arable land than China, no?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_India

"India's arable land... is the second largest in the world, after the United States. Its gross irrigated crop area... is the largest in the world."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_China

"Although China's agricultural output is the largest in the world, only 12.6% of its total land area can be cultivated. China's arable land, which represents 10% of the total arable land in the world, supports over 20% of the world's population."

Re: China’s liberalization and structural reform drives growth

#40

Post by addicted »

mastazi wrote: post #14
roenxi wrote: post #10

China has a population of more than a billion people, the 3rd largest landmass controlled by a single sovereign entity. The only question is how they managed to fall so low that they weren't a competitive superpower. It is entirely possible that we don't know what the reason for China's rise is over the short term. I wouldn't trust any article written in English to understand the ins and outs of China's special econo…

> population of more than a billion people, the 3rd largest landmass > how they managed to fall so low There are countries with even larger landmass, and countries with roughly the same population, whose economies are doing worse than China, so I'm not convinced that landmass and population are fundamental requirements for economic prosperity. I should add that I'm not an economist in any shape or form and I'm happy…

The population argument makes little sense. Chinese like Indians speak a multitude of languages and have very different cultures.

I don’t think there are 2 places in mainland US that have as distinct cultures as pretty much every region of China has from each other (primarily because everyone speaks English in the US, while people speak different languages in different regions of China).

Post reply on HN