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

21–30 of 118 posts

Re: China’s liberalization and structural reform drives growth

#21

Post by i_am_proteus »

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…

Yes, but that IP theft is more often done by local entrepreneurs (moving the factory out from under a foreign company) as it is the state.

Re: China’s liberalization and structural reform drives growth

#22

Post by nine_k »

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…

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 long subtropical shorelines, a decent amount of arable inland, and a very large population.

Re: China’s liberalization and structural reform drives growth

#23

Post by throw0101a »

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.

Well, first of all, they had two thousand years autocratic Imperial rule. This was overthrown in 1912, but then came the Japanese invasion, then WW2, then a civil war.

The civil war ended up being won by a somewhat anti-intellectual group of people (the Communists) who had all sort of economic backwards programs (not to mention social upheaval by sending intellectuals to "re-education" camps).

As for the reason why things remained static during the Imperial rule: this was actually the norm for most civilizations. If you look the world in 1600, just before the invention of the telescope, Western Europe, the Ottoman's, the Mughals ruling in India, and Imperial China, weren't too different. The non-Europeans were actually ahead of the Europeans by some metrics.

Once the Scientific Revolution was embraced by the Europeans, and generally rejected by everyone else, the Euros left everyone else in the dust. The real question is: why were the Europeans the only ones to embrace it.

The book Intellectual Curiosity and the Scientific Revolution by Toby Huff explores this question. Highly recommended.

Re: China’s liberalization and structural reform drives growth

#24

Post by WoodenChair »

lkrubner wrote: post #20
WoodenChair wrote: post #12

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%. I'm afraid the data doesn't back you up at all. The Chinese cultural revolution is considered the years 1966-1976. Here is the data for those years in real per capita GDP growth[0]: 7.7, -8.1, -6.6, 13.7, 16.1, 4.2, 1.3, 5.4, 0…

The Wikipedia article that you link to says it includes PPP estimates and also says this: “ The GDP also has been converted to U.S. dollar-based data by utilizing the moving average exchange rate. ” I disregard PPP estimates since so many subjective and cultural decisions have to go into PPP calculations, and during a civil war there is a wide space for the PPP decisions to include the political factors that we shoul…

> I disregard PPP estimates since so many subjective and cultural decisions have to go into PPP calculations, and during a civil war there is a wide space for the PPP decisions to include the political factors that we should ignore when discussing the real economy.

Please link to alternative data that supports your argument.

> Likewise, why would it be valid to convert to USA currency? Why not measure year to year growth directly, from the perspective of China?

In most economic studies values are converted to US dollars because it is a stable point of reference.

Again, if you have data to backup your wild assertions in this thread that go completely against conventional wisdom then I would be very interested in seeing it. Great claims require great evidence.

> The variations in the currency exchange would again introduce those political factors that a person would want to ignore if they were curious about the real strength of the Chinese economy.

Of course it's not a perfect measure. But you said in an earlier message that "During the worst year of the Cultural Revolution, China still managed to grow 8%." However, the data we do have shows the opposite: the worst year had negative (-8.1%) growth. I don't think any adjustments to currency would account for such a large swing.

Sometimes it's best to just admit you're wrong. It certainly would lead to less down votes.

Re: China’s liberalization and structural reform drives growth

#25

Post by dpark »

lkrubner wrote: post #20
WoodenChair wrote: post #12

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%. I'm afraid the data doesn't back you up at all. The Chinese cultural revolution is considered the years 1966-1976. Here is the data for those years in real per capita GDP growth[0]: 7.7, -8.1, -6.6, 13.7, 16.1, 4.2, 1.3, 5.4, 0…

The Wikipedia article that you link to says it includes PPP estimates and also says this: “ The GDP also has been converted to U.S. dollar-based data by utilizing the moving average exchange rate. ” I disregard PPP estimates since so many subjective and cultural decisions have to go into PPP calculations, and during a civil war there is a wide space for the PPP decisions to include the political factors that we shoul…

> Likewise, why would it be valid to convert to USA currency? Why not measure year to year growth directly, from the perspective of China?

So provide some data from that viewpoint. It seems that you’re just making data up. e.g. What is your “During the worst year of the Cultural Revolution, China still managed to grow 8%.” claim based on?

Re: China’s liberalization and structural reform drives growth

#26

Post by kristianov »

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…

Regarding Chinese economic liberalization, it's mostly happening in the country and villages.

I would recommend you to read Steven Cheung. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_N._S._Cheung#Selected_b...

Re: China’s liberalization and structural reform drives growth

#27

Post by mikeash »

kerng wrote: post #18
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. 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.

Re: China’s liberalization and structural reform drives growth

#28

Post by dpark »

WoodenChair wrote: post #12
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…

> 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%. I'm afraid the data doesn't back you up at all. The Chinese cultural revolution is considered the years 1966-1976. Here is the data for those years in real per capita GDP growth[0]: 7.7, -8.1, -6.6, 13.7, 16.1, 4.2, 1.3, 5.4, 0…

It’s actually worse than 3.4. You can’t average growth numbers like that because that under-represents down years. e.g. A decline of 50% followed by an increase of 100% does not equal growth of 50% per year.

Re: China’s liberalization and structural reform drives growth

#29

Post by WoodenChair »

dpark wrote: post #28
WoodenChair wrote: post #12

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%. I'm afraid the data doesn't back you up at all. The Chinese cultural revolution is considered the years 1966-1976. Here is the data for those years in real per capita GDP growth[0]: 7.7, -8.1, -6.6, 13.7, 16.1, 4.2, 1.3, 5.4, 0…

It’s actually worse than 3.4. You can’t average growth numbers like that because that under-represents down years. e.g. A decline of 50% followed by an increase of 100% does not equal growth of 50% per year.

True, you are absolutely correct, my bad. But it tells the story I guess.

Re: China’s liberalization and structural reform drives growth

#30

Post by wolco »

lkrubner wrote: post #9
tomlockwood wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an interesting perspective considering the US Economy hasn't broken 3% GDP growth per year since 2005.

I don’t think many people realize how long ago was the era when the USA was special. The USA economy grew faster than any other country for most of the period from 1848 to 1929. A huge gap opened up between the USA and the rest of the world. By 1929, the USA produced more steel than all of Europe combined. But the USA has not been the #1 fastest growing nation in any year since 1929.

And never will be until they fall down or open all borders. In 1848 Canada wouldn't be a country yet for 20 years.
Post reply on HN