洛杉磯時報: 通往成功的比賽中,中國是如何擊敗印度的
(2015-04-16 18:49:36)
下一個
這是97年的文章。
雖然18年了,但它講透了印度經濟永遠無法起飛的根本原因。印度47年獨立時比中國略強,兩個國家處於基本相同的起點,90年開始學中國進行經濟改革,25年後今天的結果證明了這篇文章的前瞻性。
-----------
(RoneTempest是《洛杉磯時報》駐北京記者。在派駐中國之前,他是該報駐印度記者,在印度呆了三年。今年8月,RoneTempest在《洛杉磯時報》上發表長文,How China Beat India in Race for Success,對比中國和印度的發展道路,並從西方的觀點就中、印兩國經過五十年“競爭”後出現的不同結果進行了仔細分析。文中有許多值得注意的觀點,特別是一些印度學者對中國發展情況的看法更引人注目。)
五十年前的這個星期,印度次大陸掙脫了英國的殖民枷鎖,組成了印度和巴基斯坦兩個國家。印度選擇了民主的道路。
印度領導人尼赫魯在1947年8月14日獨立日前夕說:“多年以前我們的命運就注定了,現在是我們實現我們的承諾的時候了。我們今天的慶祝隻是迎向等待我們的偉大勝利和成就的起步而已,機會之門為我們打開了。”在此同時,毛澤東的人走到了長征的最後一程,同蔣介石國民黨人的內戰勝利在望。新的中華人民共和國比印度還窮,經過多年的戰爭和占領以後,正為生存而掙紮,他們選擇了馬克思列寧主義的道路。1949年9月30日,人民共和國成立前夕,毛澤東說:“中國曆史的新時期開始了。四億五千萬人民的中國從此站起來了,我們國家的前途是無限光明的。”在那使人沉醉的日子裏,亞洲兩個受傷的大國的領導人都承諾要把他們的國家從深淵中解救出來。尼赫魯說,印度獨立的目標是結束“貧窮與無知和疾病與機會不等。”除了1962年短暫的中、印邊境衝突外,兩個一無所有的國家的製度之間的競爭並沒有完全浮現出來。但是,當印度領導人今天在準備慶祝印度頭一個五十年的時候,卻不得不承認除了在人權和公民自由的領域外,幾乎在每一個層麵,中國都在改善其人民--包括最窮的公民--的生計方麵比印度做得更多。
今年稍早時印度當時的總理高達對一群商人說:“我感到無地自容”。“我們講解放講了那麽多。但是像中國這樣的共產國家卻能夠做得那麽多,而我們卻不能。這表示有些事情不對勁。”同樣的,印度的外交部長和前駐中國大使海達爾也在最近接受采訪時評論說:“毫無疑問,從直接的對比當中,中國做得比印度更好。所有的主要指標都比印度更好。”這兩名資深的領導人願意那沒坦誠地批評自己的國家,這就很能夠說明中國與印度之間的差別,當然在政治開放和表達自由方麵也是如此。
印度人可以公開說他們所想的,幾乎什麽都可以。而中國的言論自由很少,特別是在政治事務方麵。人民大會開會很枯燥,沒有什麽公共辯論或爭議。雖然中國領導人也會不遲疑地提到中國很窮,但都是拐彎抹角地提到,不把責任扯進去。可是在印度領導人的快語背後卻是對世界人口最多的兩個國家之間日益擴大的發展差距的巨大關注。
學者、外交官和經濟學家都想用不同的理論解釋中國在教育、保健和一般生活水準方麵對印度巨大而又日益增加的優勢。最常見的理論是印度太過於多元化,有15種語言、五種主要宗教和數不清的等級,缺少實現有效的全國教育和滅貧計劃的統一性和共同感。為了趕上中國和東南亞國家,印度最近開展了類似於中國的市場改革,最重要的是降低限製性關稅和獎勵外國投資。
但是,最令印度不安的是他們越來越發現中國的快速進展並不隻是經濟步驟而已。許多專家現在相信到目前為止中國得以如此迅速向前推進的原因是部分得力於較早時更粗暴的改革,特別是1949年至1976年毛澤東專政統治時期在槍尖下強迫實施的土地改革措施。人們隻主要記得毛澤東時代1960-1961年大躍進失敗之後的饑荒和1966-1976年文化大革命的恐怖政治統治和迫害。但是,特別是在共產統治初期的1950年代,中國卻得利於土地的重新分配、普及義務教育、簡體字和保健與福利政策以及有助於恢複中國的精神和自尊的其他改革。雖然從今天來看問題要複雜得多,但是對宗教、迷信、秘密會社、幫會和宗派的鎮壓也幫助中國打破了貧困的惡性循環。
哈佛大學經濟學家阿馬提亞.沈(AmartyaSen)是在印度西孟加爾生長的人,他辯稱“中國對印度的相對優勢是其改革前(1979年以前)奠基工作的產物,而不是其改革後重訂方向的結果。”過去半個世紀的大部分時間中,印度同中國的生活水準是相差不多的。就基礎設施--鐵路運輸和道路--和公務員製度來說,印度實際上比中國開始得更早。獨立以後兩國的進展都躊躇不前。即使是遲至1960年,兩國在減少文盲、營養不良和嬰兒死亡率方麵記錄都不是很好。中國正麵臨著世界最後一次大饑荒。印度1960年的人均壽命隻有44歲,中國是47歲。獨立後的頭幾年,兩國都依賴外國的援助和專技知識。中國依賴的是蘇聯,印度依賴的是大英國協和西方捐助國。但是中國在1962年就突然切斷了同蘇聯的關係,而印度仍然是西方外援的主要受援國。到1970年代末期,即使是在鄧小平的經濟改革實施之前,中國也已經幾乎在衡量經濟和社會發展的每一個尺度上開始超越印度。
據聯合國開發計劃署最新的各國人力發展指標顯示,根據識字率、平均壽命和平均收入計算,中國的得分是60,接近所有發展中國家的最高分,但是印度隻有44分。亞洲國家中唯一低於印度的是老撾(寮國)和孟加拉國。美國前駐印度大使莫尼漢把印度的民主稱為“功能性無政府狀態”。雖然等級製度和普遍對婦女的歧視大大限製了印度的自由,但是活躍的民主事例卻很突出。該國人權事務委員會的官員去年報告說,在印度最窮的奧利薩邦的卡拉漢蒂至少有12人餓死。但是卡拉漢蒂有人餓死的同時,當地的政治官員卻說當地選舉的投票人數卻是破記錄的。德裏大學的學者也是奧利薩本地人的莫漢提說:“有人餓死,但同時也有人真正在競選。餓肚子的人也去投票。”對莫漢提來說,這是印度的矛盾之處。貧窮與不平等同上升中的權利參與感同時存在。
中國是世界上最大的共產專製國家。但是中國卻是充滿了進步和成就的國家。隨著新的千年的到來,中國即將跨入征服古老的貧窮和愚昧的門檻。住在江蘇富庶地區一個大磚房中的76歲退休養蠶工人丁海清說:“印度和中國是地球上人口最多的兩個國家。進入現代以來,開頭是差不多相等的。印度是個殖民國家,中國是個半殖民國家;印度選擇了資本主義道路,中國選擇了共產主義道路。”丁海清得意得看著他的院子和玫瑰花說:“我可以告訴你,中國的路選對了,從一個貧窮落後的國家變成比較先進的國家。”
不管怎樣,中國盡管個人自由受到限製,但卻更能夠接受改變和引進的概念。印度即使它的民主讓人印象深刻,卻幾乎落後於中國20年才開始放棄基於失敗的蘇聯模式的經濟體製。在新德裏與麥肯錫顧問公司合作的一名顧問基托.波爾說:“中國是‘封閉的係統、開放的心靈’,印度則往往被稱為‘開放的係統、封閉的心靈’”。哈佛經濟學家阿馬提亞.沈是越來越多研究中國-印度的學者之一,他說:“中國是唯一人口與印度相當的國家,而兩國剛開始現代化的時候,窮困的程度都差不多。“ 1940年的時候,兩國的情況是如此的類似,一直到1970年代兩國的經濟和社會發展程度都極為相近。因此很自然的人們要問,從那以後,兩國的進展情況到底怎樣了。”至少到目前為止,中國是更好地實現了尼赫魯所說的消滅“貧窮與無知和疾病與機會不等”的挑戰。例如,從1960以來,中國使公民的平均壽命增加了20歲以上,中國男人的平均壽命為69歲,中國婦女為71歲。印度的平均壽命雖有增加,但平均隻有62歲。在識字率方麵,差別更大。盡管中國有十年文革的動亂,很多學校都關了,但實現了人口81%的成人識字率,而印度為52%。同時中國的青少年已接近從前認為不可能實現的普及識字率。中國隻有3%的青少年男孩和8%的青少年女孩是不識字的。印度則有四分之一的青少年男孩和幾乎一半的青少年女孩是不識字的。幾乎在所有的經濟類別上中國都一麵倒地超越印度。從1990-1994年,中國的年均國內總產值增長率為12.9%,印度為3.8%。1994年的印度人均收入為320美元,隻占中國的530美元的60%。印度也喪失了它從英國統治以來在鐵公路方麵占有的優勢。中國剛剛完成了兩條鐵路,一條為北京-香港線,一條為上海-新疆線,現在的鐵路裏程數與印度相當。中國的城市,即使是在最窮的省份,也都在到處蓋房子。印度的高級外交官海達爾回憶說,當他還是駐北京大使的時候,中國宣布要在十個月內修好一條環城公路和十來個立交橋。他說:“之後我看到就像他們所說的。想想當我回到德裏時,連我離開時所蓋的那個立交橋都還沒蓋好,那份難過就不用說了。”
許多專家說,中國成功的關鍵是掌權以後不久進行的土地改革。耶魯大學曆史學教授JonathanD.Spence發現,就在1949年共產勝利後的那幾年,中國南部和中部農業區有40%的土地從地主手中沒收,然後重新分配出去,大約有60%的農民得到了好處。目前在中國的鄉村地區正出現土地改革的成果受到侵蝕的現象。中國農民仍然不許直接擁有土地,但是許多人已經占有大片他們經營和管理的土地,跟實際擁有沒什麽差別。安徽63歲的陳興漢,6歲的時候替地主打工,後來他參加了革命,變成基層幹部。現在他經營著省裏最大的私人農場之一,大約200畝,是鳳陽地區最有錢的人之一。他還有一所製磚廠和碾米廠。他雇用了133個人,包括13個農田手。他說他應歸功於鄧小平的“致富光榮”。他說:“我是個地主,但我是為農民服務的地主。我不是資本家,我要帶農民致富。”但是,除了少數例外情況(主要是富庶的旁遮普和領導的西孟加爾邦),印度從來就沒有過土地改革。德裏大學的莫漢提說:“同中國相比,印度的發展戰略不能確保耕者有其田,大部分地區仍然盛行在外地主、合耕和暗藏地主製度。”印度最富庶的兩個邦--上普拉得什和比哈什--仍然受困於在外地主和佃耕這一幾近封建主義的製度。新西蘭前駐北京大使、最近才卸下駐印度大使職務的尼克.布裏奇說:“我認為中國占有優勢的主要原因之一是中國經曆了暴力革命。人把地主殺了。印度仍然還有地主,扯國家的後腿。”
中國的農村集體所有製拖到了1979年,等到鄧小平實施農村承包製之後農民才能夠耕自己的地,把收成賣到市場上去。但是基本的改革,革命時期進行的土地重新分配仍然基本沒變。中國農民一旦從集體製脫離開來後,很快地就有錢起來。製度上一些中央化的公社式結構仍然保留了下來,幫助農民組織和協調各種工作。
印度一位著名的農經學家、印度“綠色革命”的建構人斯瓦民納森說:“中國在一些領域取得了進展,而我們沒有。由於可以在單一的政黨下進行社會動員,所以他們可以更好地控製水源和實施蟲害管理。”他說:“中國人對農業就業和非農業就業之間的就業創造有一套綜合的辦法,這是我們國家所沒有的。結果是印度到處充斥著都市貧民窟,無地的貧民飄移到孟買、加爾各答和馬德拉斯,過著最窮困的日子。”中國人口的增加和農業現代化也造成了多餘的勞動力。大約有8,000萬到1億流動人口變成了主要城市的內部移民、打工仔、建築工人和路邊n攤販。但是有好幾份研究報告指出,另有1億人口被周圍的“鄉鎮企業”吸收了,這是印度所沒有的。
莫漢提說:“從經濟上說,中國比印度做得好得多的主要理由是兩國經曆了不同的革命後得出不同的政治製度。我認為中國人從一開始就被迫去麵對挑戰。從1949年起,他們必須提供一些基本的經濟需要來證明他們的革命是行得通的,這當中部分的原因是他們不斷受到西方的攻擊。”“在印度,我們也有崇高的價值。但是爭取自由的結果是很大的妥協……廣大人民的基本需要被拖後了。”
麥肯錫顧問公司的多米尼克.特克1995年主編了一部大的研究報告,比較“二十一世紀的兩大巨人(中國和印度)”。他說,印度的民主製度在某些方麵拖住政府無法刺激經濟增長,舉例來說,民主政府必須更多地注意通貨膨脹問題和對“強大的既有遊說勢力”作出反應。特克說:“民主製度給你所能做的設限,壓抑住經濟。但它給你穩定。印度也許不會像中國一樣一年增長12%。但會保有穩定。” 其他的觀察家卻不那麽肯定。他們說,嚴格的經濟分析沒有看到的是等級、宗教和經濟階級之間日益擴大的分野。中國得以快速轉向市場經濟的一部分原因是中國注意到了最基本的社會需要。因此毛澤東的雖然嚐試達到最完美的共產境界,采行了普及教育和公共保健,並提高婦女的地位,但它也奠定了市場經濟的基礎。
哈佛經濟學家阿馬提亞.沈說:“中國市場經濟的力量是建築在較早時發生的社會變革上的。印度是不可能不觸及教育、保健和土地改革的社會變革就也一下子進入大流的,是這些變革使致中國有今天的成就。”
_________
嗬嗬,印度就是缺了毛那樣的強勢領袖對社會進行徹底的變革,毛26年對中國的改造才是中國能有後來成功的基礎。
毛建立的共產黨權威政府體製,土改,全民教育全民醫療,男女平等官民平等,簡化字,破四舊,對宗教、迷信、秘密會社、幫會和宗派的鎮壓,缺了哪樣中國都不會有今天。
Share Facebook Twitter Report
JCThunderbolt Senile 16 Sep 2014 11:48
5
6
"Strong central government, attention to infrastructure, education, control of population increase, constraining religion(s), these are elements of success"
Aren't some of these 'successes' strikingly similar to the removal of peoples freedoms and human rights?
Share Facebook Twitter Report
djdjango Senile 16 Sep 2014 11:56
9
10
"Strong central government, attention to infrastructure, education, control of population increase, constraining religion(s), these are elements of success."
Hmmm, presumably you're one of those who thinks Mussolini doesn't get enough credit for his Train time-tabling.
If you think income inequality and racism is bad in the US I suggest you wouldn't like Tibet much.
Share Facebook Twitter Report
hazh Senile 16 Sep 2014 16:52
2
3
Strong central government, attention to infrastructure, education, control of population increase, constraining religion(s), these are elements of success
While some of these may be good (and some not so), none of these are responsible for China's success. China is successful because it abandon socialism starting 1978 with its Open Door Policy (it is now communist in name only). You only need to look at the numbers in Chinese economy before and after 1978. India stuck with socialism until it liberalized its economic policy in 1990s.
Share Facebook Twitter Report Loading…
Snashonator Senile 17 Sep 2014 0:21
6
7
With my qualification of being half-Chinese, I'm pretty sure China ain't nearly as diverse as India racially and religiously. You're correct about the geography though, it is cray.
Share Facebook Twitter Report
steady2 hazh 17 Sep 2014 0:41
12
13
...China is successful because it abandon socialism starting 1978 with its Open Door Policy (it is now communist in name only)...
China's success is however not shared among the population, like all good capitalist countries it seems. Although living standards have improved for at least 90% of the people since the 70's (that is a guess) there remains an appalling gap between the rich and the rest. Some claim that economic growth in China shows the superiority of capitalism but I suggest that the socialist conditions that China lived under until the reforms created the conditions for the economic boom.
The Chinese Government from 1949 through to the late 70's developed infrastructure including transport, electricity, water and gas. Education and health services created a comparatively healthy and skilled labour force and this combined with comparatively low wages and tame-cat trade unions was the great attraction to the foreign investors who have provided the capital for China's growth.
Share Facebook Twitter Report
hazh steady2 17 Sep 2014 6:55
2
3
I suggest that the socialist conditions that China lived under until the reforms created the conditions for the economic boom.
No. China suffered badly in its socialist years, not least during The Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution periods. Poorly thought-out economic policies during the Great Leap Forward is said to have caused the death of tens of million people.
What China did since 1978 is basically doing what overseas Chinese did (Hong Kong in its colonial period, Taiwan, Singapore, and they are essentially mercantile and capitalist in nature). China got overseas Chinese to help by setting up special economic zones (located close to Hong Kong and Taiwan) in 1978.
Share Facebook Twitter Report
steady2 hazh 17 Sep 2014 8:16
8
9
China suffered badly in its socialist years...
In comparison with its previous 150 years there was peace and relative prosperity. As I stated previously during the years 1949-78 the infrastructure of modern China was built, with a nation that was utterly broke in 1949 and had suffered three civil wars and the Japanese invasion (1931-45).
The building of thousands of hospitals and medical clinics, the training of Doctors and Nurses and the eradication of disease had resulted in the average life increasing by more than twenty years by 1970. The building of thousands of schools, colleges and universities had lifted the literacy rate from a paltry 14% in 1949 to more than 75% by the mid-1970's.
Economic development and transport occurred also with the addition of thousands of kilometres of railroads, roads and highways. All this occurred in spite of the terrible catastrophes of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.
Share Facebook Twitter Report
hazh steady2 17 Sep 2014 8:39
3
4
None of this is specific to mainland China. People in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore in fact all had higher standard of living, better education, infrastructure and health care than mainland China in the 1970s. Taiwan then was authoritarian but largely capitalist, Hong Kong was a British colony, and Singapore was already independent but was also a former British colony and in many ways their governance was a continuation from colonial times. They have different governments, but all were significantly better off than mainland China in the 1970s (and they are still better now).
The idea that socialist China did something extra special that contributed to their current success is complete nonsense. It didn't do anything more than overseas Chinese communities, in fact, it did quite a lot worse.
Share Facebook Twitter Report
steady2 hazh 17 Sep 2014 16:47
9
10
None of this is specific to mainland China...
What are we discussing?
People in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore in fact all had higher standard of living, better education, infrastructure and health care than mainland China in the 1970s...
During the 1930/40s the former Chinese Government under the KMT received billions in military and monetary aid from the United States, most of the dollars were pocketed by Nationalist bureaucrats and Army Generals. In 1949 losing the Civil War the remnants of their army and about 800,000 civilians fled the mainland to Taiwan taking with them 250 billion USD in gold bullion - the entire Chinese national treasury reserve, in addition they took all their own money and anything of gold or other value that could be ripped out of Beijing and Nanjing. If you visited the Forbidden City in the 1980/90s you would find inside the buildings there was little left, the Chinese Government have since tried to replace the stolen artifacts with copies, the originals are in Taiwan.
From 1949 the Republic of China (Taiwan) continued to sit on the UN Security Council representing all of China and was a close ally of the US, who in turn continued to provide massive aid in military and monetary kind. It is no wonder Taiwan with 20 million people could reach a high standard of living by the 1970's.
On the mainland the communists inherited a country which was broke and broken. Three civil wars and the Japanese invasion which cost the lives of more than 30 million people. Infrastructure which made India, at the time, seem a first world country. A starving, illiterate population of 550 million peasants, with a massive area of land for the most part bereft of railroads, highways, electricity, gas or other infrastructure, and having suffered wars and invasions its meagre infrastructure was already in tatters. From 1950 the US imposed economic sanctions on China refusing to trade and demanding that its allies and 'friends' also shun China.
From 1950 to 1960 the former USSR provided trade and loans to China until such assistance was cut-off in 1961, during the 60's China paid the Soviets back their loans in spite of the appalling poverty China was faced with.
Conversely Singapore with a population of less than 2 million on independence and consisting of one city at a major strategic junction in Asia with a great port was faced with nothing of the type of difficulties that faced mainland China. Hong Kong was not a country but a British colony with all the assistance and investment that a major World power could provide to develop its infrastructure and economy during the period 1950-80s. With a tiny land area and a population of @4 million in 1970 there could be no comparison with the difficulties facing mainland China.
The idea that socialist China did something extra special that contributed to their current success is complete nonsense.
It is more than an idea it is a fact as I stated earlier producing statistical evidence of the improvement of health and literacy. Their is a mountain of data relating to the development of rail and roads which I have already alluded to. The Chinese industrial revolution which began in 1978 and is continuing is based on the Chinese miracle began in 1949.
Share Facebook Twitter Report
hazh steady2 17 Sep 2014 20:15
4
5
Good god, I think you are reaching there. Billions of military aid from the US? In the 1930? 1940? Do you know what billions means in the 1930s? You do know that US was involved in the Second World Wars and actually don't have that much to splash around? I looked into it and see that actually in 1939 US gave $25 million in aid to China, in 1940 $20 million (tiny compared to the $250 million aid they gave to Soviet Union). Given what I have find out, I'm really doubtful about the figures you bandied about.
Hong Kong and Singapore has extremely little natural resources (little in Taiwan as well), while China has plenty of natural resources. Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore achieved a lot largely through their own resourcefulness, I don't even know why you think the British colonial master was a benevolent sugar daddy who splashed out money on Hong Kong and Singapore. Your dismissal of their success through their own hard work is almost offensive. As if achieving success is so easy, look around the world and you see fucked-up countries with better resources elsewhere.
Given that much of the credit to China's present day success was down a large part to overseas Chinese helping China facilitating the difficult transition from an insular backward socialist economy to an economic powerhouse in the early years of economic liberalization, I'd say your attempt to diminish the achievement of Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore is distateful.
China truly messed up their own economy themselves through the Great Leap Forward. The attempt to paint them as having achieved a great deal when their people suffered badly is truly absurd. If you want to argue that the difference in size make these countries no comparable, you only have to look at the differences between North and South Korea to see how big a difference a country's economic policy and ideology make to the prosperity of these countries.
Share Facebook Twitter Report
steady2 hazh 17 Sep 2014 21:47
5
6
Do you know what billions means in the 1930s?...
I was translating the money from that period into its modern equivalent allowing for inflation. For example the $25 million in 1939 would be worth more than $400 million today, hence it is certainly true that the Chiang regime received billions in the years 1938 to 1949 and continued to receive throughout the cold war period.
I'd say your attempt to diminish the achievement of Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore is distateful...
Rubbish. I did not diminish their achievement. I simply stated the facts since you were determined to compare their development with Mainland China during the same period to support your argument.
Given that much of the credit to China's present day success was down a large part to overseas Chinese...
It is not 'given' your appeal to probability will not replace argument based on facts.
The attempt to paint them as having achieved a great deal when their people suffered badly is truly absurd.
This is another attempt to appeal to probability. 'Since the GLF was a disaster and many people died ergo there could not have been the development that is claimed.' However as I stated that in spite of the disasters of the GLF and the Cultural Revolution China made enormous progress. As an example in spite of the deaths of as many as 30 million during the great famine 1959-61 China's population skyrocketed from 500 million in 1949 to 800 million in 1970.
I have already provided data in relation to the phenomenal achievements in life expectancy and literacy, furthermore China's economy tripled in size from 1949 to 1976, in spite of the country's lack of infrastructure and the trade embargo imposed by the US.
Share Facebook Twitter Report
hazh steady2 18 Sep 2014 7:56
0
1
I was translating the money from that period into its modern equivalent allowing for inflation
Well, I suspect that there is a lot of unsaid adjustments in what you wrote. For example I remember reading that the amount of gold reserve taken to Taiwan was considerably lower than the 250 billion USD you quoted even after adjusting for inflation, so without a clear idea how you come up with the number, I'd take what you said with a pinch of salt.
furthermore China's economy tripled in size from 1949 to 1976,
I don't know why you would consider this impressive, especially when you realize that 1949 is the end of a couple of decades of costly wars (the Sino-Japanese wars and the civil war between the Communist and KMT) and China would be at the bottom in terms of economic development at that time, doesn't take much to recover to a better economic figure. Other countries have far more impressive performance. If you use roughly the same time scale and compare this to China after economic liberalization in 1978, Chinese economy had probably increased by 20-30 times, the difference compared to 1949-1976 is staggering.
Share Facebook Twitter Report
steady2 hazh 18 Sep 2014 16:52
3
4
...I'd take what you said with a pinch of salt.
That is convenient for your argument. The difference between us is that I provide evidence to support my contention however you make simple unsubstantiated statements which seem to support a bias.
If you use roughly the same time scale and compare this to China after economic liberalization in 1978, Chinese economy had probably increased by 20-30 times..
Cherry picking, did you not read my previous posts? It is as if everything exists in a state on its own with no environmental factors to consider, and no matter what other evidence is provided Chicken Little persists with "The sky is falling, the sky is falling"!
As I have stated previously in 1949 China was broke and broken, no gold reserves, unable to borrow, trade embargo imposed by the US and aside from an underdeveloped third world nation it had suffered three civil wars and the Japanese invasion over the preceding 40 years. In spite of this the Chinese Government was able to rebuild its tiny infrastructure and then develop a mass transportation system of roads, highways and railways, in spite of its poverty and the absurd and destructive Mao-inspired programs of the GLF and the CR. China was able to build hospitals and schools improving health, extending life expectancy and creating the single most impressive improvement in literacy in human history. By 1978 the conditions were suitable and attractive for foreign investors which led to the extraordinary economic growth over the last 30 years. Without one there could not be the other.
Share Facebook Twitter Report
hazh steady2 18 Sep 2014 18:50
0
1
That is convenient for your argument. The difference between us is that I provide evidence to support my contention
What evidence? I'm simply asking you to provide evidence of your claim of $250 billion worth of gold taken to Taiwan. You are making assertion that I have no idea if true or not. I have to search for this and this is one site that mentioned that amount of gold taken (it also mentioned what the gold was used for) -
http://therealasset.co.uk/nationalist-china-gold/
Apparently the amount is disputed (3-5 million taels), but you can calculate how much that was/is worth if you want.
Here they calculated that the gold is worth less than the aid given by US biannually after 1950 -
http://michaelturton.blogspot.com/2008/08/myth-of-chinese-gold-in-economic.html
Whether you believe that site or not is up to you, but your figure of 250 billion is so far off that I doubt you could be right either even if they are not. I would therefore consider your numbers to be suspect.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/sep/16/china-and-india-13-charts-that-show-how-the-countries-compare#comment-40961379