Hacker News Reader

Comment by dcposch | Hacker News Reader

Im comparing China to other countries that were similarly poor in 1980-- much of the world, including the second biggest country, India. China did much better than them.

I don't think any other society in history has lifted as many people out of poverty in as short a time.

View on HN

Why not compare China to countries that were similarly poor in the 1950s? China, Korea, Taiwan were comparable then, but Korea and Taiwan have leaped ahead now due to saner government. If anything how poor China is in PPP GDP per capita terms vs Taiwan/Korea should be taken as an indictment of how terrible the government's been.

Because getting something to happen in a large country is much much harder than in a smaller country. China is literally 20 times the size of Korea AND Taiwan.

To achieve growth in a small country, you can be nimble and find relatively small market opportunities and then exploit them relentlessly. That simply doesn't scale to 1bn+ people.

> To achieve growth in a small country, you can be nimble and find relatively small market opportunities and then exploit them relentlessly. That simply doesn't scale to 1bn+ people.

Economic reality is actually the opposite of what you state. A big country represents a big domestic market - you don't need export niches or even good products, but can just build to service the internal markets, with massive economics of scale - and then muscle your way into foreign markets when all your corporations are 800lbs gorillas.

If Taiwan is wealthier than the PRC, it is not because their economy and population is so tiny - there is another reason...

All countries with the highest GDP per capita are small:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/...

You need to get to Norway before you see a reasonably sized country.

If what you claimed was true, the US would be on top.

Almost 40 times, actually. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=area+of+china+%2F+(are...

Because then, you would have to account for geopolitics. China didn't receive the kind of helicopter money non-communist countries in the area received. China (but also, e.g. Vietnam) also got access to consumer markets much later.

By conscious choice by the Chinese government though. If a government criminalizes capitalism, they can hardly cry foul if countries that don't do that reap enormous rewards from allowing inward capital investment. Especially when China later reaps the same rewards when they do finally allow it.

We're discussing two very differents topics. I'm trying to explain why the chinese or the vietnamese situation is quite different from e.g. the south korean or the japanese situation, which makes it hard to compare them. You on the other hand, are discussing about the fairness, or moral justification of the events I talk about.

These two discussions are completely orthogonal.

If you look only at raw numbers, there are literally two candidates. But if you look at proportions, there's a different story to be told. Chile 1973-2000 comes to mind, or some colonial governments, which, like China, achieved success by replicating strategies already known to work. In fact one of the best examples pf this is Stalin's Russia, and an analysis of this general pattern is given by Paul Krugman in this 1994 article:

http://faculty.georgetown.edu/mh5/class/econ102/readings/myt...

Japan 1960-1985 is another good example.

With regard to the authoritarian structure of China, one disease that persistently affects these systems is adverse selection based on cultural evolution, i.e. the populace "learns" to get around the system and it works as long as the system is sufficiently oppressive that most people sympathize with the rule-breakers, see also the War on Drugs and de facto legalization of marijuana in some small towns. The thing about corruption in bureaucratic heir-choosing (Caesarian?) systems is that once corruption gets in there's almost no way to get it out whereas a democracy can rebel

Did American corporations not gift China with a massive amount of free, working out of the box technology to get them going?

Are you referring to surveillance/data processing technology specifically or technological advances in general? If it's general advances, I don't see how it's really relevant. To some extent, similar technologies are available to all countries at this point, so its down to governments and society wrt how productively these technologies are leveraged.

The classic example of this is how landline telephony is much less prevalent than cellular in much of Africa. Landline technology was effectively skipped. I don't think African governments and societies are benefitting at the expense of western cell phone businesses. It's not a zero-sum game in this respect.

No, just that they were more or less a third world country with extremely cheap and hard working labor, I'm under the impression that American (and European, etc) companies went over there and provided equipment and expertise to set up fully functioning manufacturing plants, China had to provide the labor.

It seems fairly unlikely to me that China turned into the manufacturer of the world in such a short period of time without being gifted the skills and technology to do so. And now, companies like Xiamoi can now challenge (or, at least run with) the tech leaders.

Pretty impressive transformation in < 20 years.

"History is like a grandmother; it loves the younger grand-children. To the latecomers it gives not the bones but the marrow, while Western Europe has hurt her fingers badly in her attempts to break the bones."

That seems ignorant of the cumulative advantage that Europe enjoys to this day. If anything it illustrates how technological development is shared on a global scale, allowing anyone to catch up to the latest standard of industrialization if they can find the necessary investment.

This sounds interesting but I don't think I'm catching the full meaning....

Not really... Like US government even banned Intel from selling certain chips to China, and Chinese rocket scientists are somehow not able to attend any conference hosted by NASA (not sure about this one).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com