Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Japan and Hong Kong

suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 6:03:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I would like to ask an opinion from any one of you who know something about economic policy about economic policy of Japan as compare to Hong Kong.

From my understanding, Japan economy relied heavily on government spending and stimulus to offset the recession which has been going on for a decade. Even in the pre-war period Japan had relied on massive spending on the government sector in form of military spending, and more so in the post-war as infrastructure re-build.

Hong Kong on the other hands, has been rely almost exclusively on small government policy. Low tax, flexible regulation, and limited government intervention, and in complete absent of central bank throughout the period.

Both countries have been quickly developed in a very short period of time. However, Japan as in its current state, has been addicted to the government stimulus, to the point where I can't really imagined what would it be if the Japanese government has let the market to develop naturally.

Is the case of Hong Kong and Japan is considered to be an example of small vs big government? Would it be better if the Japanese government decided to follow Hong Kong lassie fair economy? Or is this not at all the case, and the Japanese and Hong Kong government have not been very different in their approach toward economy?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2013 9:52:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 6:03:48 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I would like to ask an opinion from any one of you who know something about economic policy about economic policy of Japan as compare to Hong Kong.

From my understanding, Japan economy relied heavily on government spending and stimulus to offset the recession which has been going on for a decade. Even in the pre-war period Japan had relied on massive spending on the government sector in form of military spending, and more so in the post-war as infrastructure re-build.

Hong Kong on the other hands, has been rely almost exclusively on small government policy. Low tax, flexible regulation, and limited government intervention, and in complete absent of central bank throughout the period.

Both countries have been quickly developed in a very short period of time. However, Japan as in its current state, has been addicted to the government stimulus, to the point where I can't really imagined what would it be if the Japanese government has let the market to develop naturally.

Is the case of Hong Kong and Japan is considered to be an example of small vs big government? Would it be better if the Japanese government decided to follow Hong Kong lassie fair economy? Or is this not at all the case, and the Japanese and Hong Kong government have not been very different in their approach toward economy?

Hong Kong is IMHO an anomaly. I don't have any papers or statistics handy, but I do believe that its main purpose internationally for decades has been as a gateway for trade into China proper, especially when China and most of SE Asia was closed to trade.

So much money flows into Hong Kong for this reason that they can afford low tax rates and etc. I know the economic argument tends to be the opposite, that low taxes result in greater economic activity, but again, Hong Kong is IMHO special. Had Japan lowered their tax rates to compete with Hong Kong, it wouldn't have worked, because of racial and ethnic issues stemming from Hong Kong's primarily Chinese ethnicity, IMHO.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
slo1
Posts: 4,342
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2013 4:10:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 6:03:48 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I would like to ask an opinion from any one of you who know something about economic policy about economic policy of Japan as compare to Hong Kong.

From my understanding, Japan economy relied heavily on government spending and stimulus to offset the recession which has been going on for a decade. Even in the pre-war period Japan had relied on massive spending on the government sector in form of military spending, and more so in the post-war as infrastructure re-build.

Hong Kong on the other hands, has been rely almost exclusively on small government policy. Low tax, flexible regulation, and limited government intervention, and in complete absent of central bank throughout the period.

Both countries have been quickly developed in a very short period of time. However, Japan as in its current state, has been addicted to the government stimulus, to the point where I can't really imagined what would it be if the Japanese government has let the market to develop naturally.

Is the case of Hong Kong and Japan is considered to be an example of small vs big government? Would it be better if the Japanese government decided to follow Hong Kong lassie fair economy? Or is this not at all the case, and the Japanese and Hong Kong government have not been very different in their approach toward economy?

Two very different situations that are hard to comnpare.

Hong Kong as little over 7 million people. Japan is 128 million. Hong Kong became a global financial market because of the open business environment. It also is a trade hub because of no tarrifs.

It basically is a financial service hub for the region and world, which gives it very different dynamics. Japan on the other hand was manufacturing and export. As we all know manufacturing is highly competitive and goes to the country with the proper infrastructure and lowest cost.

As an administrative area of China, I would be more inclined to compare Hong Kong to a US city such as New York to look at impacts of government intrusion, but even with that NYC is about 4 times larger in estimated economic output. Here is a chart with some GDP estimates.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 5:31:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/19/2013 9:52:10 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/15/2013 6:03:48 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I would like to ask an opinion from any one of you who know something about economic policy about economic policy of Japan as compare to Hong Kong.

From my understanding, Japan economy relied heavily on government spending and stimulus to offset the recession which has been going on for a decade. Even in the pre-war period Japan had relied on massive spending on the government sector in form of military spending, and more so in the post-war as infrastructure re-build.

Hong Kong on the other hands, has been rely almost exclusively on small government policy. Low tax, flexible regulation, and limited government intervention, and in complete absent of central bank throughout the period.

Both countries have been quickly developed in a very short period of time. However, Japan as in its current state, has been addicted to the government stimulus, to the point where I can't really imagined what would it be if the Japanese government has let the market to develop naturally.

Is the case of Hong Kong and Japan is considered to be an example of small vs big government? Would it be better if the Japanese government decided to follow Hong Kong lassie fair economy? Or is this not at all the case, and the Japanese and Hong Kong government have not been very different in their approach toward economy?

Hong Kong is IMHO an anomaly. I don't have any papers or statistics handy, but I do believe that its main purpose internationally for decades has been as a gateway for trade into China proper, especially when China and most of SE Asia was closed to trade.

So much money flows into Hong Kong for this reason that they can afford low tax rates and etc. I know the economic argument tends to be the opposite, that low taxes result in greater economic activity, but again, Hong Kong is IMHO special. Had Japan lowered their tax rates to compete with Hong Kong, it wouldn't have worked, because of racial and ethnic issues stemming from Hong Kong's primarily Chinese ethnicity, IMHO.

but isn't Japan is also more or less a financial economy? If HK is a monetary hub for trade in China proper, Japan has also been doing the same role for the Asia and South East Asia peninsular (plus people hardly trade with China until the end of cold war while HK prosperity has been so for a decades).

I look of it this way, Japan had received a lot of capital investment from the US ever since the second world war (both monetary and non-monetary as in case of a military force). After the restoration of infrastructure and economy, most of that money had been invested abroad (and in SEAsia for most of the cases). The west invest in Japan, Japan then re-invest it on SEAsia. Isn't that the same thing that HK is doing to China right now?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 11:08:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 5:31:07 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 8/19/2013 9:52:10 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/15/2013 6:03:48 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I would like to ask an opinion from any one of you who know something about economic policy about economic policy of Japan as compare to Hong Kong.

From my understanding, Japan economy relied heavily on government spending and stimulus to offset the recession which has been going on for a decade. Even in the pre-war period Japan had relied on massive spending on the government sector in form of military spending, and more so in the post-war as infrastructure re-build.

Hong Kong on the other hands, has been rely almost exclusively on small government policy. Low tax, flexible regulation, and limited government intervention, and in complete absent of central bank throughout the period.

Both countries have been quickly developed in a very short period of time. However, Japan as in its current state, has been addicted to the government stimulus, to the point where I can't really imagined what would it be if the Japanese government has let the market to develop naturally.

Is the case of Hong Kong and Japan is considered to be an example of small vs big government? Would it be better if the Japanese government decided to follow Hong Kong lassie fair economy? Or is this not at all the case, and the Japanese and Hong Kong government have not been very different in their approach toward economy?

Hong Kong is IMHO an anomaly. I don't have any papers or statistics handy, but I do believe that its main purpose internationally for decades has been as a gateway for trade into China proper, especially when China and most of SE Asia was closed to trade.

So much money flows into Hong Kong for this reason that they can afford low tax rates and etc. I know the economic argument tends to be the opposite, that low taxes result in greater economic activity, but again, Hong Kong is IMHO special. Had Japan lowered their tax rates to compete with Hong Kong, it wouldn't have worked, because of racial and ethnic issues stemming from Hong Kong's primarily Chinese ethnicity, IMHO.

but isn't Japan is also more or less a financial economy? If HK is a monetary hub for trade in China proper, Japan has also been doing the same role for the Asia and South East Asia peninsular (plus people hardly trade with China until the end of cold war while HK prosperity has been so for a decades).

lol, you ask good questions and I don't necessarily have the answers.

My understanding of Japan post-WWII is that all the way until the 80s, it profited by being a low cost producer, not by trade with SE Asia.

Hong Kong has always been extremely profitable, and IMHO it's due to China proper being closed, so trade had to be done via proxy, and that proxy was Hong Kong.

If you look at the trade numbers today, it's ridiculous...Hong Kong is essentially China's main export hub to the rest of the world...the dollar value of HK imports from China is worth more than ALL of South Korean imports AND exports combined with China:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

My guess is that when China was still a closed nation, Hong Kong was primarily the main import hub for outside goods heading into China.

I look of it this way, Japan had received a lot of capital investment from the US ever since the second world war (both monetary and non-monetary as in case of a military force). After the restoration of infrastructure and economy, most of that money had been invested abroad (and in SEAsia for most of the cases). The west invest in Japan, Japan then re-invest it on SEAsia. Isn't that the same thing that HK is doing to China right now?

I think your point is a good explanation of the "yen carry trade" although again I nothing close to an expert about that subject.

My understanding of Hong Kong is similar to yours regarding FDI inflows.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 3:40:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 11:08:57 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/23/2013 5:31:07 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 8/19/2013 9:52:10 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/15/2013 6:03:48 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I would like to ask an opinion from any one of you who know something about economic policy about economic policy of Japan as compare to Hong Kong.

From my understanding, Japan economy relied heavily on government spending and stimulus to offset the recession which has been going on for a decade. Even in the pre-war period Japan had relied on massive spending on the government sector in form of military spending, and more so in the post-war as infrastructure re-build.

Hong Kong on the other hands, has been rely almost exclusively on small government policy. Low tax, flexible regulation, and limited government intervention, and in complete absent of central bank throughout the period.

Both countries have been quickly developed in a very short period of time. However, Japan as in its current state, has been addicted to the government stimulus, to the point where I can't really imagined what would it be if the Japanese government has let the market to develop naturally.

Is the case of Hong Kong and Japan is considered to be an example of small vs big government? Would it be better if the Japanese government decided to follow Hong Kong lassie fair economy? Or is this not at all the case, and the Japanese and Hong Kong government have not been very different in their approach toward economy?

Hong Kong is IMHO an anomaly. I don't have any papers or statistics handy, but I do believe that its main purpose internationally for decades has been as a gateway for trade into China proper, especially when China and most of SE Asia was closed to trade.

So much money flows into Hong Kong for this reason that they can afford low tax rates and etc. I know the economic argument tends to be the opposite, that low taxes result in greater economic activity, but again, Hong Kong is IMHO special. Had Japan lowered their tax rates to compete with Hong Kong, it wouldn't have worked, because of racial and ethnic issues stemming from Hong Kong's primarily Chinese ethnicity, IMHO.

but isn't Japan is also more or less a financial economy? If HK is a monetary hub for trade in China proper, Japan has also been doing the same role for the Asia and South East Asia peninsular (plus people hardly trade with China until the end of cold war while HK prosperity has been so for a decades).

lol, you ask good questions and I don't necessarily have the answers.

My understanding of Japan post-WWII is that all the way until the 80s, it profited by being a low cost producer, not by trade with SE Asia.

Hong Kong has always been extremely profitable, and IMHO it's due to China proper being closed, so trade had to be done via proxy, and that proxy was Hong Kong.

If you look at the trade numbers today, it's ridiculous...Hong Kong is essentially China's main export hub to the rest of the world...the dollar value of HK imports from China is worth more than ALL of South Korean imports AND exports combined with China:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

My guess is that when China was still a closed nation, Hong Kong was primarily the main import hub for outside goods heading into China.

I look of it this way, Japan had received a lot of capital investment from the US ever since the second world war (both monetary and non-monetary as in case of a military force). After the restoration of infrastructure and economy, most of that money had been invested abroad (and in SEAsia for most of the cases). The west invest in Japan, Japan then re-invest it on SEAsia. Isn't that the same thing that HK is doing to China right now?

I think your point is a good explanation of the "yen carry trade" although again I nothing close to an expert about that subject.

My understanding of Hong Kong is similar to yours regarding FDI inflows.

lol I see

By the way do you mean that the free world has been trade with China ever since the cold war (before the split with USSR)? My understanding is that they only did it with the Russian and if that is the case, it is very unlikely that HK will have anything to do with the proxy trade before the open up.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 9:49:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 3:40:42 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 8/23/2013 11:08:57 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

lol I see

By the way do you mean that the free world has been trade with China ever since the cold war (before the split with USSR)? My understanding is that they only did it with the Russian and if that is the case, it is very unlikely that HK will have anything to do with the proxy trade before the open up.

lol, again, I'm not certain at all of this line of thinking, it was a very preliminary conclusion I reached based upon the impression I got in university.

This article seems to corroborate that mentality, that Hong Kong was always a vital trade hub for China:

http://eh.net...

After being ceded by China to the British under the Treaty of Nanking in 1842, the colony of Hong Kong quickly became a regional center for financial and commercial services based particularly around the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank and merchant companies such as Jardine Matheson. In 1841 there were only 7500 Chinese inhabitants of Hong Kong and a handful of foreigners, but by 1859 the Chinese community was over 85,000 supplemented by about 1600 foreigners. The economy was closely linked to commercial activity, dominated by shipping, banking and merchant companies. Gradually there was increasing diversification to services and retail outlets to meet the needs of the local population, and also shipbuilding and maintenance linked to the presence of the British naval and merchant shipping.

After the establishment of the People"s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949, the mainland began a process of isolation from the international economy, partly for ideological reasons and partly because of Cold War embargos on trade imposed first by the United States in 1949 and then by the United Nations in 1951. Nevertheless, Hong Kong was vital to the international economic links that the PRC continued in order to pursue industrialization and support grain imports. Even during the period of self-sufficiency in the 1960s, Hong Kong"s imports of food and water from the PRC were a vital source of foreign exchange revenue that ensured Hong Kong"s usefulness to the mainland. In turn, cheap food helped to restrain rises in the cost of living in Hong Kong thus helping to keep wages low during the period of labor-intensive industrialization.

The Open Door Policy of the PRC announced by Deng Xiao-ping at the end of 1978 marked a new era for Hong Kong"s economy. With the newly vigorous engagement of China in international trade and investment, Hong Kong"s integration with the mainland accelerated as it regained its traditional role as that country"s main provider of commercial and financial services. From 1978 to 1997, visible trade between Hong Kong and the PRC grew at an average rate of 28% per annum. At the same time, Hong Kong firms began to move their labor-intensive activities to the mainland to take advantage of cheaper labor. The integration of Hong Kong with the Pearl River delta in Guangdong is the most striking aspect of these trade and investment links. At the end of 1997, the cumulative value of Hong Kong's direct investment in Guangdong was estimated at US$48 billion, accounting for almost 80% of the total foreign direct investment there.


---

To answer your question, I believe that HK traded with China to whatever extent China would allow it to, and HK in turn as a British colony traded extensively with Britain and the rest of the "free world".
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 1:16:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 9:49:06 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/24/2013 3:40:42 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 8/23/2013 11:08:57 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

lol I see

By the way do you mean that the free world has been trade with China ever since the cold war (before the split with USSR)? My understanding is that they only did it with the Russian and if that is the case, it is very unlikely that HK will have anything to do with the proxy trade before the open up.

lol, again, I'm not certain at all of this line of thinking, it was a very preliminary conclusion I reached based upon the impression I got in university.

This article seems to corroborate that mentality, that Hong Kong was always a vital trade hub for China:

http://eh.net...

After being ceded by China to the British under the Treaty of Nanking in 1842, the colony of Hong Kong quickly became a regional center for financial and commercial services based particularly around the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank and merchant companies such as Jardine Matheson. In 1841 there were only 7500 Chinese inhabitants of Hong Kong and a handful of foreigners, but by 1859 the Chinese community was over 85,000 supplemented by about 1600 foreigners. The economy was closely linked to commercial activity, dominated by shipping, banking and merchant companies. Gradually there was increasing diversification to services and retail outlets to meet the needs of the local population, and also shipbuilding and maintenance linked to the presence of the British naval and merchant shipping.

After the establishment of the People"s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949, the mainland began a process of isolation from the international economy, partly for ideological reasons and partly because of Cold War embargos on trade imposed first by the United States in 1949 and then by the United Nations in 1951. Nevertheless, Hong Kong was vital to the international economic links that the PRC continued in order to pursue industrialization and support grain imports. Even during the period of self-sufficiency in the 1960s, Hong Kong"s imports of food and water from the PRC were a vital source of foreign exchange revenue that ensured Hong Kong"s usefulness to the mainland. In turn, cheap food helped to restrain rises in the cost of living in Hong Kong thus helping to keep wages low during the period of labor-intensive industrialization.

The Open Door Policy of the PRC announced by Deng Xiao-ping at the end of 1978 marked a new era for Hong Kong"s economy. With the newly vigorous engagement of China in international trade and investment, Hong Kong"s integration with the mainland accelerated as it regained its traditional role as that country"s main provider of commercial and financial services. From 1978 to 1997, visible trade between Hong Kong and the PRC grew at an average rate of 28% per annum. At the same time, Hong Kong firms began to move their labor-intensive activities to the mainland to take advantage of cheaper labor. The integration of Hong Kong with the Pearl River delta in Guangdong is the most striking aspect of these trade and investment links. At the end of 1997, the cumulative value of Hong Kong's direct investment in Guangdong was estimated at US$48 billion, accounting for almost 80% of the total foreign direct investment there.


---

To answer your question, I believe that HK traded with China to whatever extent China would allow it to, and HK in turn as a British colony traded extensively with Britain and the rest of the "free world".

wow that is an amazing sauce I will sure to give it a look, thank you very mush.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 9:55:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You're welcome =)

A good question deserves a good answer I suppose, yes?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 6:53:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 9:55:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
You're welcome =)

A good question deserves a good answer I suppose, yes?
Post-War Industrialization
After the establishment of the People"s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949, the mainland began a process of isolation from the international economy, partly for ideological reasons and partly because of Cold War embargos on trade imposed first by the United States in 1949 and then by the United Nations in 1951. Nevertheless, Hong Kong was vital to the international economic links that the PRC continued in order to pursue industrialization and support grain imports. Even during the period of self-sufficiency in the 1960s, Hong Kong"s imports of food and water from the PRC were a vital source of foreign exchange revenue that ensured Hong Kong"s usefulness to the mainland. In turn, cheap food helped to restrain rises in the cost of living in Hong Kong thus helping to keep wages low during the period of labor-intensive industrialization.
The industrialization of Hong Kong is usually dated from the embargoes of the 1950s. Certainly, Hong Kong"s prosperity could no longer depend on the China trade in this decade. However, as seen above, industry emerged in the nineteenth century and it began to expand in the interwar period. Nevertheless, industrialization accelerated after 1945 with the inflow of refugees, entrepreneurs and capital fleeing the civil war on the mainland. The most prominent example is immigrants from Shanghai who created the cotton spinning industry in the colony. Hong Kong"s industry was founded in the textile sector in the 1950s before gradually diversifying in the 1960s to clothing, electronics, plastics and other labor-intensive production mainly for export.
The economic development of Hong Kong is unusual in a variety of respects. First, industrialization was accompanied by increasing numbers of small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) rather than consolidation. In 1955, 91 percent of manufacturing establishments employed fewer than one hundred workers, a proportion that increased to 96.5 percent by 1975. Factories employing fewer than one hundred workers accounted for 42 percent of Hong Kong"s domestic exports to the U.K. in 1968, amounting to HK$1.2 billion. At the end of 2002, SMEs still amounted to 98 percent of enterprises, providing 60 percent of total private employment.
Second, until the late 1960s, the government did not engage in active industrial planning. This was partly because the government was preoccupied with social spending on housing large flows of immigrants, and partly because of an ideological sympathy for free market forces. This means that Hong Kong fits outside the usual models of Asian economic development based on state-led industrialization (Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan) or domination of foreign firms (Singapore) or large firms with close relations to the state (Japan, South Korea). Low taxes, lax employment laws, absence of government debt, and free trade are all pillars of the Hong Kong experience of economic development.
In fact, of course, the reality was very different from the myth of complete laissez-faire. The government"s programs of public housing, land reclamation, and infrastructure investment were ambitious. New industrial towns were built to house immigrants, provide employment and aid industry. The government subsidized industry indirectly through this public housing, which restrained rises in the cost of living that would have threatened Hong Kong"s labor-cost advantage in manufacturing. The government also pursued an ambitious public education program, creating over 300,000 new primary school places between 1954 and 1961. By 1966, 99.8% of school-age children were attending primary school, although free universal primary school was not provided until 1971. Secondary school provision was expanded in the 1970s, and from 1978 the government offered compulsory free education for all children up to the age of 15. The hand of government was much lighter on international trade and finance. Exchange controls were limited to a few imposed by the U.K., and there were no controls on international flows of capital. Government expenditure even fell from 7.5% of GDP in the 1960s to 6.5% in the 1970s. In the same decades, British government spending as a percent of GDP rose from 17% to 20%.
From the mid-1950s Hong Kong"s rapid success as a textile and garment exporter generated trade friction that resulted in voluntary export restraints in a series of treaties with the U.K. beginning in 1959. Despite these agreements, Hong Kong"s exporters continued to exploit their flexibility and adaptability to increase production and find new markets. Indeed, exports increased from 54% of GDP in the 1960s to 64% in the 1970s. Figure 1 shows the annual changes in the growth of real GDP per capita. In the period from 1962 until the onset of the oil crisis in 1973, the average growth rate was 6.5% per year. From 1976 to 1996 GDP grew at an average of 5.6% per year. There were negative shocks in 1967-68 as a result of local disturbances from the onset of the Cultural Revolution in the PRC, and again in 1973 to 1975 from the global oil crisis. In the early 1980s there was another negative shock related to politics, as the terms of Hong Kong"s return to PRC control in 1997 were formalized.

I think there are more support from this article of yours that HK do not rely on the PRC before the split with USSR. This marked evidence indicated that they serve more of a source of cheap industrial product for the western world and only trade with China mainland for food supply and nothing more.

I think it reinforced my assumption that HK and Japan economy is similar, at least in the initial stage. They are occupied countries with competitive labour market and close tied with the western world, they both used this advantages to attract inflow of capital from the international market which has been invested in their own infrastructure development and else where once their countries are well developed. Only different is that JP business evolved in to gigantic corporation with heavy reliance on government spending while HK remain on trade still.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 10:17:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/26/2013 6:53:52 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 8/24/2013 9:55:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

I think there are more support from this article of yours that HK do not rely on the PRC before the split with USSR. This marked evidence indicated that they serve more of a source of cheap industrial product for the western world and only trade with China mainland for food supply and nothing more.

I think it reinforced my assumption that HK and Japan economy is similar, at least in the initial stage. They are occupied countries with competitive labour market and close tied with the western world, they both used this advantages to attract inflow of capital from the international market which has been invested in their own infrastructure development and else where once their countries are well developed. Only different is that JP business evolved in to gigantic corporation with heavy reliance on government spending while HK remain on trade still.

Yeah, I think your analysis is a bit more accurate than mine.

I don't know why Hong Kong went the manufacturing route in the early 60s, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me since the population base is so small...although it looks like it dropped that the moment China opened up.

HK can rely on trade though because the trade volumes are gigantic compared to the size of the city. Nothing really comes close on a proportional basis.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2013 3:16:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/26/2013 10:17:49 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/26/2013 6:53:52 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 8/24/2013 9:55:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

I think there are more support from this article of yours that HK do not rely on the PRC before the split with USSR. This marked evidence indicated that they serve more of a source of cheap industrial product for the western world and only trade with China mainland for food supply and nothing more.

I think it reinforced my assumption that HK and Japan economy is similar, at least in the initial stage. They are occupied countries with competitive labour market and close tied with the western world, they both used this advantages to attract inflow of capital from the international market which has been invested in their own infrastructure development and else where once their countries are well developed. Only different is that JP business evolved in to gigantic corporation with heavy reliance on government spending while HK remain on trade still.

Yeah, I think your analysis is a bit more accurate than mine.

I don't know why Hong Kong went the manufacturing route in the early 60s, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me since the population base is so small...although it looks like it dropped that the moment China opened up.

Agree, it looks quite strange like Singapore just suddenly decided to compete with Malaysia for low cost market, which is probably practical given that they have a cheap food supply from mainland that could keep their cost low during the 60'.

But noted that HK economic prosperity has been on the rise before its integration with China (and probably the reason why it attract PRC attention) so this production business of them must have some value.

Actually, I remember that my dad used ti say that if he want a good radio with decent price, he must go to HK. May be HK, in the initial stage might fulfill JP role as a skill manufacturing hub for India (British Empire) and SEA.

HK can rely on trade though because the trade volumes are gigantic compared to the size of the city. Nothing really comes close on a proportional basis.

Actually, in figure 2, we can see that HK trade and manufacturing was risen on the exact level from 1960-1988, probably an indication that traded good were locally manufactured but I agreed with you that modern HK (post 1988) is clearly a financial and trading hub (probably with good from China).