COMMENTS:
Voted : 1 percent
less than 1 percent, likely.
by LCD on Wed Dec 06, 06 10:05am
[+]
Voted : 1 percent
...And your point is? Singapore, China, and South Korea all had lower standards of living than much of Latin America 5 decades ago and look at them now. It does have to do with how well your government faces the global economy, business climate, and many other factors. Hint for Latin America: Hugo Chavez may not be your best model.
In 2003, the average per capita income in Beijing was $1,900 per year. And Beijing is considered rich by Chinese standards.
What was it 40 years ago? What's the per capita income in the southern coastal cities and Hong Kong? Oh, and I note you left South Korea and Singapore off your list, commu-crank.
Hong Kong............$26,700
Singapore............$27,490
South Korea..........$19,200
Fifty years ago, Singapore was mostly known for its sleaze--gambling dens and whores.
Felix:
2003 was 3 years ago, not 40. And I assumed you were talking about the 1 billion people in the People's Republic of China, rather than Hong Kong, which just merged with the PRC in 1999, and still operates quite independently. Hong Kong has just shy of 7 million people.
And Singapore has a whopping 4.3 million people.
And South Korea has 48 million people.
So I guess I would ask what your point is? This proves that the fact stated in the quiz is wrong?
That what works for a tiny country like Singapore will automatically work for a giant like China if they all just read enough Milton Friedman books?
Well, it's worked better for them than reading anything by that wanker, Karl Marx, hasn't it? You haven't intelligently discussed longitudinal change over time, which, if you look up South Korea post-1970 or China, post free market semi-reforms, tells a very interesting story. The per capita income in a number of the Chinese trade cities in the south now are several times that Beijing number.
The fact is this: any country can prosper, once it has the proper leadership, materials, and cultural attitudes. Closing up to the market, going protectionist, nationalizing industries, and blaming outsiders, aka, the Chavez Method, usually fails to accomplish a damned thing save keeoing your party in power.
Voted : 1 percent
Swing low, and you'll never miss.
Felix, with that last comment, you left most of us in the dust...
Felix:
The point of this ballot was that there is a tremendous wealth disparity in the world. And you assumed that it was an attack on Western capitalism. Why? I wasn't criticizing free markets, or siding with Karl Marx or Adam Smith. I was merely pointing out the reality of poverty in the world.
Although, I would argue against the idea that if we would all just become conservative, pro-Chamber of Commerce Republicans that we would all be rich, rich, rich!
Voted : 1 percent
I'm a betting man $10.00
^ Wah hoo
Voted : 1 percent
I think it is less than 1 per cent.
|
