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.
"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."
The rapid economic development in 1970s and 1980s of the Four Tigers -- South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore -- were more related to the unhindered access of the U.S. market and the transfer of production base from Japan to these countries/City with lower costs.
China's rise in 1990s was due to another transfer of production base from these Four Tigers to China due to lower production cost.
Deng's design of "Four Special Economic Zones" were all primitive cities or fishing village located near Hong Kong and Taiwan to attract the latter to relocate their production base over into the zones.
"One thing is simple: HK is rise has very little with British rule. So stop the wet dream."
HK's rise has very little to do with British rule. But it has also very little to do with PRC either.
Under British rule, everybody was on their own -- entrepreneurs and labor alike. That was what Milton Friedman described as the most laissez-faire economy in the world with least government intervention.
How Hong Kong rose is due to the intelligence and hardworking of its own people. Of course, without the entrepreneurs that exiled to the City from Shanghai and Guangzhou in 1949 -- the only people who knew how capitalism worked in China at that time -- Hong Kong would still be an economic backwater.
Burma used to be a part of British India. So if Pakistan and Sri Lanka could not be created out of British India as some posters suggested, then what about Burma?
But undeniably Mountbattan had made a mess during the partition. Other than the crisis in Jammu and Kashmir, the creation of East and West Pakistan -- which were separated thousand miles apart by a hostile state -- was only linked by Islam and Pakistan Airline.
Yes, it would have been much better for Pakistan, Bangladesh and India all to be part of one country. That would have worked out much better. Any fool can see that. Afterall, look how well India and Pakistan get on currently and for the last two decades. Things would have been great.
Now - shouldn't half of you posters on here be collecting your cheque from the Party for posting nonsense and then watching "Flowers of the Motherland" for the fifth time this week?
The partition occurred when Britain relinquished India, if anything Britain kept India together under Empire despite religious differences.
The reason India split was ulitmately to do with religion and more specifically the Muslims who formed Pakistan, and the Hindus who formed the vast majority of the population of India.
Although the Hindus themselves had the dreadful caste system which caused untold misery.
The Hindus themselves are a concoction and mixture of people. That's what Hinduism is. It's a culture that is able to bring all kinds of different people together and make things work and it did. China is another that is made up of completely different cultures, ethnicities and languages and still can act as one people. It's possible to have different people under one umbrella.
Almost all cultures back then had some sort of "caste system," from Europe, to Japan to Latin America. Not really that "miserable." Also, in particular, the Hindus were happy to abide by their caste system. Otherwise nobody would've been doing it. That being said, that kind of cultural influence over people is hard for us to understand today, since everyone is always trying to be on top and trying to get rich. Maybe there are some good aspects of the caste system that people can learn from, for instance, the idea that you can be happy in whatever state that you are in.
The Hindus themselves are a concoction and mixture of people. That's what Hinduism is. It's a culture that is able to bring all kinds of different people together and make things work and it did. China is another that is made up of completely different cultures, ethnicities and languages and still can act as one people. It's possible to have different people under one umbrella.
Almost all cultures back then had some sort of "caste system," from Europe, to Japan to Latin America. Not really that "miserable." Also, in particular, the Hindus were happy to abide by their caste system. Otherwise nobody would've been doing it. That being said, that kind of cultural influence over people is hard for us to understand today, since everyone is always trying to be on top and trying to get rich. Maybe there are some good aspects of the caste system that people can learn from, for instance, the idea that you can be happy in whatever state that you are in.
Yes.
It is stupid to say the UK broke up India because the Muslims wanted it. No, they did so using some Mulim's wishes when it suited their own purpose. Scotland wants to leave too, and I don't see London being too happy about that.
Countries can work with multiple cultures and ethnicities. There are many successful examples. All the nationalist "nation states" are getting smaller and small, sometimes a couple of million people, it is just getting stupid because they simply don't have the economy of scales.
The United Kingdom has always been a selflish calculating, manipulating bully with no principles in terms of international relations. It loves to create a messy, divided region when it leaves, India, Middle East, you name it. And it is by design and not an unfortunate outcome. If some day the Middle East achieves eternal peace and becomes a united Arab nation, London would be immensely disappointed. It will be considered the biggest diplomatic failure in its history.
Historically Burma was never a part of India even under Mughals or Ancient kingdoms of India. It was only after Anglo-Burmese wars in say 1880s that Burma was annexed as a part of British India. Although India was granted independence in 1947, Burma became separate from British India in 1937 only. Burmese people resented presence of Indians in their country - many were kicked out and properties confiscated when Burma became independent. There was no language or religion affinity. Burma is a predominantly Buddhist country-India is hardly any Buddhist.
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.
Canton - Guangzhou was a great Trading center and Port for Tea, Porcelain and Opium trade. It was also better then Hong Kong in 1700s and early 1800s.
"Many westerners don't seem to know HK was looked down up by Shanghai during much of its history."
"Canton - Guangzhou was a great Trading center and Port for Tea, Porcelain and Opium trade. It was also better then Hong Kong in 1700s and early 1800s."
Most westerners don't even know that both Shanghai and Hong Kong were developed by the British. Before the Opium War, Shanghai and Hong Kong were both small fishing villages. It was only after the Treaty of Nanjing in 1842 that the Qing Empire ceded the tiny island of Hong Kong to Britain and opened five ports for trade. One of them is Shanghai.
Before 1842, both places were unknown and undeveloped. In fact, then British Prime Minister Palmerston even called Hong Kong "A land of barren rocks".
Once Hong Kong emerged, the role of Guangzhou and Macau became diminished. It is all related to geography. Hong Kong is one of the few natural deep water ports in the world. Heavy tonnage cargo ships cannot navigate up the shallow waters up to Guangzhou and Macau is located on the wrong side of the Pearl River Delta. There are too many sediments in the harbor.
British is very skilled in developing port cities. Shanghai, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malacca, Port Said, Aden,.....were all developed by the British to become famous or once famous port cities.
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.
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.
