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.
Hong Kong's largest advantage was its perceived stability and autonomy compared to mainland Chinese cities. As Hong Kong becomes increasingly controlled under the same overall rulers as the rest of the mainland Chinese cities, its advantages will dim. As Hong Kong's rule of law and general autonomy outside of a potentially heavy-handed state system erodes, it will continue to lose the advantage it had. In that sense, Hong Kong will have an increasingly difficult time being the world city it had been.
Stability and autonomy? Really? Andorra has stability and autonomy. Copenhagen has stability and autonomy. The Azores has stability and autonomy. They didn't become Hong Kong, did they?
If it were not deliberately established as a free port next to a massive but closed economy, Hong Kong would be nothing but a sleepy town.
Stability and autonomy? Really? Andorra has stability and autonomy. Copenhagen has stability and autonomy. The Azores has stability and autonomy. They didn't become Hong Kong, did they?
If it were not deliberately established as a free port next to a massive but closed economy, Hong Kong would be nothing but a sleepy town.
I think you need to read what was actually written. I'll highlight a part for you: compared to mainland Chinese cities
Andorra has stability and autonomy. Copenhagen certainly has stability, but I'm not sure what its autonomous of because its very much an integrated part and parcel of Denmark without any particularly strong organizational independence within Denmark. Azores does have stability and some measure of autonomy. Of these three, which of these did you feel were Chinese cities? Can you explain why you feel these are Chinese cities?
It's undeniable that Hong Kong's economic prosperity and its basic raison d'etre stems from its ability to tap into the Chinese market. It's also not something that I argued against in any way.
I think you need to read what was actually written. I'll highlight a part for you: compared to mainland Chinese cities
Andorra has stability and autonomy. Copenhagen certainly has stability, but I'm not sure what its autonomous of because its very much an integrated part and parcel of Denmark without any particularly strong organizational independence within Denmark. Azores does have stability and some measure of autonomy. Of these three, which of these did you feel were Chinese cities? Can you explain why you feel these are Chinese cities?
It's undeniable that Hong Kong's economic prosperity and its basic raison d'etre stems from its ability to tap into the Chinese market. It's also not something that I argued against in any way.
sure, then tell me why is HK (perceived) more stable than other Chinese cities, at least since the 1980s?
I also fail to see autonomy is necessarily a good thing. Tibet is highly autonomous. Guangxi is autonomous. Didn't make them any better than the coastal cities completely under the central government. On the other hand, NYC is not autonomous. Nothing proves being autonomy makes a city more competitive.
HK is rich and powerful because of the special status China decided to offer it. Not much else. The so called better stability or legal system western countries tout every day are hardly crucial.
sure, then tell me why is HK (perceived) more stable than other Chinese cities, at least since the 1980s?
Because it was a British city then?
Quote:
I also fail to see autonomy is necessarily a good thing. Tibet is highly autonomous. Guangxi is autonomous. Didn't make them any better than the coastal cities completely under the central government. On the other hand, NYC is not autonomous. Nothing proves being autonomy makes a city more competitive.
Because the autonomy Hong Kong has is that rule of law is assured? They have a completely different legal system in which your property and rights are fully protected, a completely different financial system which is a billion times more transparent than in China, and even a completely different monetary system in which the HKD is not manipulated at all and is a true market currency. What kind of autonomy does Tibet and Guangxi have? I'm not entirely sure but I'm gonna say nothing like what Hong Kong has?
Btw I find it hilarious that you are comparing New York and Hong Kong in such regard.
Quote:
HK is rich and powerful because of the special status China decided to offer it. Not much else. The so called better stability or legal system western countries tout every day are hardly crucial.
Special status offered by China? Hong Kong became the shining star of the East when it was British, then declined after China took over.
I don't even know why I'm bothered to reply, the only thing you are willing to listen is 'OMG I HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATE HONG KONG' and 'OMG I LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE CHIINA'. I guess I'm just too bored.
Britain had thousands of overseas cities under its control. How many HK did it create?
To suggest that the UK made HK a rich and powerful city is just western wishful thinking (good system, law, blah blah). They had the entire India for hundreds of years, where is the HK of India?
You are just naïvely believing western systems lead to prosperity, when there are obviously far more counter examples. Almost all western countries became rich and powerful during the periods they were NOT free and democratic. Just look at history. Those are more of the result of wealth rather the reason of it. So many people have it totally backwards. If the UK were under its current political system and ideology in the 1900s, it would not even be able to complete its industrial revolution.
Let me say that again, HK was a success primarily because it is next to a largely closed-off China (95% of the reason), not because it was governed so well by the Brits.
sure, then tell me why is HK (perceived) more stable than other Chinese cities, at least since the 1980s?
I also fail to see autonomy is necessarily a good thing. Tibet is highly autonomous. Guangxi is autonomous. Didn't make them any better than the coastal cities completely under the central government. On the other hand, NYC is not autonomous. Nothing proves being autonomy makes a city more competitive.
HK is rich and powerful because of the special status China decided to offer it. Not much else. The so called better stability or legal system western countries tout every day are hardly crucial.
The autonomy is in relation to China which the markets had deemed as untested waters. It is not autonomy in and of itself. You're missing context here. The idea of rule of law under an understood and decently transparent process is important for market investment.
HK had a lot of different things going for it. There was a huge amount of capital, including human capital, that occurred during the mid-20th century that fled from mainland China to Hong Kong and Taiwan. Hong Kong in that time period was a large recipient of this because of the perception that Hong Kong was not under the auspices of the coming CCP rule of China and was therefore a relatively safe haven as British rule was relied upon as some measure of safety while still being within a culturally Chinese space. That influx of capital (along with Hong Kong's already developed position as a port and entrepot) proceeded to grow under UK jurisdiction while China sorted itself out and developed itself further as a stable liaison to the greater Chinese market which grew in importance as China's markets grew and stabilized.
sure, then tell me why is HK (perceived) more stable than other Chinese cities, at least since the 1980s?
I also fail to see autonomy is necessarily a good thing. Tibet is highly autonomous. Guangxi is autonomous. Didn't make them any better than the coastal cities completely under the central government. On the other hand, NYC is not autonomous. Nothing proves being autonomy makes a city more competitive.
HK is rich and powerful because of the special status China decided to offer it. Not much else. The so called better stability or legal system western countries tout every day are hardly crucial.
Since the 1980s? HK was perceived more stable because it was British while Tiananmen massacre happened in 1989!
Britain had thousands of overseas cities under its control. How many HK did it create?
To suggest that the UK made HK a rich and powerful city is just western wishful thinking (good system, law, blah blah). They had the entire India for hundreds of years, where is the HK of India?
You are just naïvely believing western systems lead to prosperity, when there are obviously far more counter examples. Almost all western countries became rich and powerful during the periods they were NOT free and democratic. Just look at history. Those are more of the result of wealth rather the reason of it. So many people have it totally backwards. If the UK were under its current political system and ideology in the 1900s, it would not even be able to complete its industrial revolution.
Let me say that again, HK was a success primarily because it is next to a largely closed-off China (95% of the reason), not because it was governed so well by the Brits.
Of course HK is unique, but the closest city to Hong Kong is Singapore, which also has British influence. Other free ports and tax havens that have British influence are Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Bahamas, etc. Things could've turned out very differently if HK was not British.
Since the 1980s? HK was perceived more stable because it was British while Tiananmen massacre happened in 1989!
Did China become unstable since 1989? It is like saying the US was unstable since 2001.
On the contrary China forged ahead like never before since the 90s.
Did China become unstable since 1989? It is like saying the US was unstable since 2001.
On the contrary China forged ahead like never before since the 90s.
All I am saying is that Hong Kong is more stable than anywhere in mainland China in the 1980s, and the Tiananmen Massacre is proof of that. If you still believe China was the greatest and the most whatever, feel free to believe that yourself! I can't convince you otherwise. The fact is that the rest of the world thought China was unstable when the Tiananmen protests and massacre happened! Actually, I've been to both China and Hong Kong in the 1980s and 1990s, and while China might be growing economically very fast during some years, it is very obvious that Hong Kong still is more economically advanced in every aspect before the new millennium.
No need to muddle the issue with what happened in the US in 2001.
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.
