Live data from Hacker News

China’s liberalization and structural reform drives growth

project-syndicate.org

51–60 of 118 posts

Re: China’s liberalization and structural reform drives growth

#51
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…

Communism.

Any society with majority chinese population (singapore, taiwan, hong kong) that has a free market is a modern developed country. China stuck behind for 50 years, and is now catching up.

Re: China’s liberalization and structural reform drives growth

#52
post #14
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…

To be a developed country you simply need 2 things. Average IQ >= 100, and a free market.

Every country that has these (north america, non-communist europe, japan, south korea, singapore, taiwan, hongkong, israel) is a developed country.

Every country that has not, is not.

Having oil helps a little, also.

Re: China’s liberalization and structural reform drives growth

#53
post #42
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…

“I wouldn’t trust any article written in English...” What if the article was written by someone from China? “Zhang Jun is Dean of the School of Economics at Fudan University and Director of the China Center for Economic Studies, a Shanghai-based think-tank.”

> What if the article was written by someone from China?

Read the Chinese version then

Re: China’s liberalization and structural reform drives growth

#54
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.

To be fair, throughout most of history, as long as China was under unified rule, it was almost consistently had the largest GDP in the world for any political entity, usually amounting to 25% share of the global GDP.

Compared to their historical performance, China hasn't even reached its peak.

I'd say political turmoil and conquests didn't harm the Chinese economy that much, but political stagnation during the crucial 19th century did. It was first disinterest of the ruling class in international trade (admittedly this started much earlier), which effectively handed over a lucrative business to European powers, who could in turn outgrow China.

The same political stagnation, as long as losing their position of advantage, has made China completely miss out on industrialization which was a great multiplier for GDP growth. This explains how a smaller neighbor like Japan (which embraced industrialization and Western-style colonization) could quickly surpass China and threaten it.

Re: China’s liberalization and structural reform drives growth

#55
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…

Communism. Any society with majority chinese population (singapore, taiwan, hong kong) that has a free market is a modern developed country. China stuck behind for 50 years, and is now catching up.

Communism was a roadblock, but China's relative decline (which really just means stagnation) started back during the Qing dynasty in the 19th century.

Re: China’s liberalization and structural reform drives growth

#56
post #22
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…

Algeria? It is not as big as Argentina or Kazakhstan.

Re: China’s liberalization and structural reform drives growth

#57
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…

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).

Different dialects of Chinese you mean, and mandarin works well enough in most places as China also has a lot of transplants. You could love and work in Chengdu without without speaking sichuanese, for example.

In India, the unifying language is English, though it isn’t as widespread in India as mandarin is in China.

Re: China’s liberalization and structural reform drives growth

#58
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…

> how they managed to fall so low

I'm amazed that in so many English discussions about China's fall since the 17th century, there are absolutely zero mentions of the Manchus. On the other hand, read any Chinese discussion on it and you'll always see the Manchu domination popping up as a reason if not one of the main causes.

The Manchus took advantage of internal strife within the Ming dynasty during the 17th century and conquered China after the last Ming emperor killed himself when rebels surrounded the palace and a Ming general let them through the Great Wall.

The problem with the Manchus is that they were semi agrarian/semi nomadic and had very little desire for technological progress. Unlike the Han Chinese who always had to frequently rely on technology to overcome the nomads on horseback from the North, the Manchus only believed in horseback and arrows. In fact the late Ming had more natively produced cannons than the Qing dynasty had during the opium wars hundreds years after. Even the western expansion wars conducted by the Qing dynasty early on had gunpowder teams that were only staffed by the Han Chinese because the Manchus initially looked down on guns and cannons.

Lastly the administration was sclerotic because a minority group of 1% was supreme over the other 99%. The Manchus/Mongols/Tibetans owned most of the land in China during the Qing dynasty even though they were a tiny minority. The Manchu/Mongol/Tibetan officials were also of higher status than the Han Chinese. During imperial court, the Qing dynasty had two sessions. After the first one, the Han Chinese had to leave because they were not trusted. In fact up until the late Qing dynasty when the Qing dynasty was ravaged by foreign powers, senior court officials even mentioned to give China to its friends (Europeans/Japanese) rather than give it back to their slaves (the Han Chinese).

This is not to say the Manchus were the only reason for China's downfall (in fact the Ming had started to stagnate a little), but they were absolutely a very large part of it. What many non-Chinese think about Chinese today are actually from the Manchus. The Qipao, the pigtail (Manchu Queue), etc.

Re: China’s liberalization and structural reform drives growth

#59

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.

Maybe you meant millions instead of billions?
Post reply on HN