U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Asia
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-27-2017, 10:52 AM
 
1,379 posts, read 1,815,839 times
Reputation: 980

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
Many westerners don't seem to know HK was looked down up by Shanghai during much of its history. HK's prominence coincide with China's closing to the world policy from the 1950 up until the 90s. Before that, although also under British rule, HK was nothing but a mid sized city.

I can't say HK's rise has absolutely nothing to do with the UK laws etc., but that's a very small part of it. It is the giant China market right beside that allowed HK to serve as a window to overseas that made it possible. Britain has a plethera of overseas territories, and there is only one that became HK.

If HK didn't sit next to China, or if China didn't close its doors in the 50s, HK would still be a nobody, no matter how much freedom and great laws London gives. That's just a indisputable fact.
Hong Kong before the 50s was a mid sized city and wasn't even particularly important to the British. Losing Hong Kong in WWII was considered acceptable to the UK but losing Singapore was considered catastrophic. Shanghai International Settlement was far more important to British commercial concerns than Hong Kong. I'm not saying the British were purely horrific administrators of Hong Kong, what I am saying is that there is a lot of context behind the growth of Hong Kong in the late 20th century that a lot of people don't take into account. If you are going to say the British were terrific administrators, you need to look at the full history of Hong Kong from 1842 to 1999 not just 1949 to 1999 and the full history is mixed and doesn't really show the British to be particularly brilliant (abandoning HK with a token garrison in 1941 takes the cake).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-02-2017, 10:20 AM
 
3,339 posts, read 2,081,790 times
Reputation: 2367
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
Britain has a plethera of overseas territories, and there is only one that became HK.

If HK didn't sit next to China, or if China didn't close its doors in the 50s, HK would still be a nobody, no matter how much freedom and great laws London gives. That's just a indisputable fact.
you forgot Singapore. they took advantage of their strategic location too. same mercantile laws
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2017, 12:07 PM
 
10,847 posts, read 11,273,499 times
Reputation: 7586
Quote:
Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas View Post
you forgot Singapore. they took advantage of their strategic location too. same mercantile laws
Singapore would be a lot less successful without its strategic location. However, it is a natural advantage that is hard to take away. China plans to built a canal in Thailand to replace Malacca though.

The real threat to S'pore – construction of Thai's Kra Canal financed by China | The Independent

HK does not have a natural advantage. Its most competitive advantage can be easily taken away, and it will be taken away. Mark my word, in 50 years or sooner, Hong Kong will become just of the big Chinese cities (or even a district on a Chinese city) and nothing about it will particularly stand out internationally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2017, 01:30 PM
 
4,665 posts, read 2,644,150 times
Reputation: 3342
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
Singapore would be a lot less successful without its strategic location. However, it is a natural advantage that is hard to take away. China plans to built a canal in Thailand to replace Malacca though.

The real threat to S'pore construction of Thai's Kra Canal financed by China | The Independent

HK does not have a natural advantage. Its most competitive advantage can be easily taken away, and it will be taken away. Mark my word, in 50 years or sooner, Hong Kong will become just of the big Chinese cities (or even a district on a Chinese city) and nothing about it will particularly stand out internationally.
Strategic locations were a key part of colonies. That's why places like Singapore, HK, Macau, Shanghai, Taiwan, Malta, Bahamas, Hawaii, Reunion, etc etc were held on to for so long or fought for. Burma and Ceylon are other examples. The empires were losing power and influence and couldn't maintain all of their outposts and colonies. A lot of those places are well developed now relative to their localities due to trade and migration. The Indian port cities were all quite nice under British rule and India was not cut off like China did. Colonies were places of trade and it shouldn't be surprising that many are so wealthy now. The world is changing, but many of those places are still key trade routes and ports between the east and west.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2017, 01:47 PM
 
Location: Honolulu
1,366 posts, read 549,643 times
Reputation: 1102
"The only reason why HK is even prosperous was that it was the main center of trade between China and the West when China was closed."

Under UN embargo since PRC's intervention in the Korean War in 1950, there was practically no trade between PRC and the western world. Hong Kong lost its entrepot role overnight. In fact, China produced nothing the West wanted to buy before 1978.

Hong Kong was not known to be an entrepot between 1950s-1970s. It was known for manufacturing. Most of the world's toys and low-end watches were produced there. Anyone old enough could recall the cabbage patch kids which were immensely popular in 1980s, were all made in Hong Kong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2017, 01:56 PM
 
Location: Honolulu
1,366 posts, read 549,643 times
Reputation: 1102
Famous port cities come and go. Can anybody remember those famous port cities like Port Said, Aden and Malacca which were all very famous merely 100 years ago?

But port city has to be built on solid ground.

Unlike most port cities, Shanghai is not built on solid ground. Most part of the city, especially Pudong, is built on the alluvial sediments of the Yangtze. In the past, it was okay since there were not that many high rise buildings.

But now with all the high rise buildings mushrooming, Shanghai is facing a daunting problem -- sinking.

Shanghai's sinking is faster than Hong Kong's dooming.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2017, 02:23 PM
 
10,847 posts, read 11,273,499 times
Reputation: 7586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian_Lee View Post
Famous port cities come and go. Can anybody remember those famous port cities like Port Said, Aden and Malacca which were all very famous merely 100 years ago?

But port city has to be built on solid ground.

Unlike most port cities, Shanghai is not built on solid ground. Most part of the city, especially Pudong, is built on the alluvial sediments of the Yangtze. In the past, it was okay since there were not that many high rise buildings.

But now with all the high rise buildings mushrooming, Shanghai is facing a daunting problem -- sinking.

Shanghai's sinking is faster than Hong Kong's dooming.
Yes, Shanghai is sinking, but so are New York, Amsterdam, Venice and New Orleans.

It certain part of Shanghai sinks in 100 years, it is a risk that is worth taking. It is not like it will happen over time.

The difference? It takes a lot less time for China to build another Shanghai.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2017, 02:24 PM
 
Location: Honolulu
1,366 posts, read 549,643 times
Reputation: 1102
Britain has a plethera of overseas territories, and there is only one that became HK.

If HK didn't sit next to China, or if China didn't close its doors in the 50s, HK would still be a nobody, no matter how much freedom and great laws London gives. That's just a indisputable fact.
_________________________________________

Hong Kong used to have a higher economic growth rate than Singapore before 1997. Singapore overtook Hong Kong in term of economic growth rate and GDP/capita after 1997.

A small City-State like Singapore, about 1/4 the size of Hong Kong, can thrive on their own -- even under a very hostile environment -- surrounded by two large predominantly Muslim countries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2017, 02:35 PM
 
10,847 posts, read 11,273,499 times
Reputation: 7586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian_Lee View Post
"The only reason why HK is even prosperous was that it was the main center of trade between China and the West when China was closed."

Under UN embargo since PRC's intervention in the Korean War in 1950, there was practically no trade between PRC and the western world. Hong Kong lost its entrepot role overnight. In fact, China produced nothing the West wanted to buy before 1978.

Hong Kong was not known to be an entrepot between 1950s-1970s. It was known for manufacturing. Most of the world's toys and low-end watches were produced there. Anyone old enough could recall the cabbage patch kids which were immensely popular in 1980s, were all made in Hong Kong.
And in 1970, HK had a per capita GDP that was 18% of that of the US and lower than Venezuela, Spain, Argentina and Greece. Today, it is far ahead of those countries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2017, 02:40 PM
 
10,847 posts, read 11,273,499 times
Reputation: 7586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian_Lee View Post
_________________________________________

Hong Kong used to have a higher economic growth rate than Singapore before 1997. Singapore overtook Hong Kong in term of economic growth rate and GDP/capita after 1997.

A small City-State like Singapore, about 1/4 the size of Hong Kong, can thrive on their own -- even under a very hostile environment -- surrounded by two large predominantly Muslim countries.
First, size doesn't matter. Much of HK is unlivable. If it is size that matter, Russia would be far more richer than the US.

Singapore prospered under great and efficient authoritarism. Plus it has the natural advantage very few countries in the world can match.

HK got rich because of being next to China. Singapore got rich because most of the world trade, including majority of oil, goes through its port to get to east asia.

One thing is simple: HK is rise has very little with British rule. So stop the wet dream.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Asia
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top