They require the same "economic" power to uplift out of poverty,
its not as if 2 of those 3 were tiny, but strategically placed ports vs china, with a literal continent's worth of people
Wait what is this supposed to be proving? Because this data is showing that China is improving at roughly the same rate as the others despite being spread out over 500x the land area, 30x the population, and starting at half the level of the others. Also Hong Kong’s fastest economic development over the course of the graph is since it was handed back to China
This is accidentally endorsing China
Neolibs are dumbasses, that's all. They see a graph and lines and shit and assume it says something to endorse them. Also at one point a solid chunk of the people there believed that GDP is the sum of all wealth in existence (I desperately wish I could still find that old reddit thread to mock those dipshits), which is funny because they don't know the meaning of the things the prioritize.
“Evidence based policy”
Doesn't even know how to read the evidence
GDP is such a shit measurement. It makes sense that neolibs love it, because if you privatize something that raises the GDP since people will inevitably have to pay more. The US health system is amazing from a GDP standpoint, even if it is horribly inefficient.
A car crash raises GDP because it means extra ambulance trips and hospital stays.
9/11 was amazing for GDP! The tech bubble had just burst, and a major recession was looming. The economy was safe until 2008!
Osama Bin Laden saved The Line. :amerikkka-clap: :stonks-up:
I love talking about this. The private healthcare industry is 20% of America’s GDP lol
Neoliberal thought:
-
Have a position/argument that you favor
-
Fuck around with data and invent a graph that "proves" your argument
-
Repeatedly point at the graph
-
I'm not sure, I wanna say it was 2018 or later, specifically it was in response to something Bernie wanted to do with healthcare or something, and they were trying to make the case that it would cost more than there was money on earth/ money in the US because it would cost more than the global/ or US GDP or something, which they thought was the sum of all money.
Wait, i thought neoliberals didn't care about GDP? Aren't people who care about that Keynesian?
Well, heh, as you can see, the line on this graph is LOWER for China than the lines for other places! That means that CHINA is not as good as them! But, I wouldn't expect a COMMIE like you to understand BASIC ECONOMICS!
Right? Two of the states on the graph are literally port cities, one of which was literally part of the British Empire, another of the states is a small island propped up/exploited for cheap labor by the US, and the last one is a massive, mostly rural country that started with next to no heavy industry and a populace that had been deliberately kept illiterate and uneducated by its old aristocratic and nationalist ruling class.
Although now I'm curious what the same metrics applied to, say, Beijing or other major cities in China would say, because the relative underdevelopment and poverty of China's massive rural population has been a constant issue for China for a bunch of reasons ranging from the conflict between its dependence on a large rural labor pool for food production and the constant flow of labor from rural areas into cities (that is to say, rural poverty makes people want to move to cities instead, but if everyone who wanted to did then it would cause a famine because there wasn't enough rural labor for agriculture), to outright armed uprisings demanding better conditions and more equitable returns on the food they produce, hence why a lot of their modern programs are specifically aimed at eliminating rural poverty and building out the sort of infrastructure and development in rural areas that's needed to accomplish that.
Edit: also look at how Hong Kong spiked upwards on the graph after being handed over to China, China stagnated for a full decade during the onset of liberalization before returning to a rate of improvement slightly than it's pre-liberalization rate and then started rapidly increasing in the past decade as more left wing elements of the CPC came into power and replaced some of the more liberal elements. I'm sort of curious what the same data for more recent years would show, considering the large poverty-reduction programs that they carried out in the past few years.
Don’t forget mainland China had also been looted for a century and in a state of war/occupation for the 75 years preceding this graph.
And to your second point, there are now cities in China larger than HK or Singapore that didn’t even exist when this graph starts.
Don’t forget mainland China had also been looted for a century and in a state of war/occupation for the 75 years preceding this graph.
That's a major contributing factor as to why China was so relatively underdeveloped as of the revolution, yes. And for a sense of just how little industry they had at that point, in 1950 China's entire steel production was less than that of Russia in 1917 (and the comparative underdevelopment of Russia is often something that left anticommunists point to when saying "lOoK hOw It WaS dOoMeD fRoM tHe StArT! sHamE iT dIdN't HaPpEn SoMeWhErE cIvIlIzEd InStEaD!"), and a lot of the heavy industry that they did have was aging factories built by the Japanese in Manchuria during its occupation (and using those factories was an ideological sticking point for the CPC, because they basically couldn't be operated without mimicking the sort of abusive and extractive methods that they were built for).
The old aristocracy also contributed to the problems, particularly when it came to education which was systematically denied to most of the population (and as a side note, that created some interesting policies on the part of the CPC in the early 1950s: despite the popular idea of mass purges of elites, bourgeoisie, and landlords a lot of them wound up cutting deals with the CPC to hand over their capital and land to the state in exchange for bureaucratic positions since they were literate and the newly formed state desperately needed literate bureaucrats immediately).
And to your second point, there are now cities in China larger than HK or Singapore that didn’t even exist when this graph starts.
Yeah, I'm just curious how those numbers would line up, since China's cities specifically would probably be starting at or above the point Hong Kong started at, and probably growing faster except for during certain periods. China's development has just been so uneven between rural and urban areas that mashing the stats for both together creates a number that's fundamentally dishonest for both.
Except the KMT did one final looting on its way from the mainland and took the entire treasury and diplomatic ties with it
When the KMT fled to Taiwan they took a shit load of gold and valuables with them from banks all across China.
Turns out if you take other people's wealth, those people tend to become poorer. Shocker.
Never mind that one of these is the most populous nation on earth that consists of a large landmass, while the other two are small colonial outposts, two of which are city-states and the other of which is an island!
Do neoliberals love graphs so much because they do not understand maps?
Also where did Taiwan’s massive amount of gold reserves come from? :curious-marx:
Fuck the KMT & DPPchuds and their cheerleaders.
eh its a generic neoliberal state, with maybe worse protections for lgbt vs the west, close to South Korea
i mean yeah unfortunately drug laws are fucked all over asia, China has similar penalties
Kind of understandable in light of the whole opium thing
Not right, but the historical forces behind that are much different and less steeped in racism than Western anti-drug laws.
Its a neoliberal police state hellhole with some randomly good housing policies
It's also a big conduit for the Chinese export market.
Trying to dunk on China by pointing to Singapore is a clear illustration of not understanding cause and effect.
What western imperialism does to mfer. HK and Singapore were colonial outposts and inherited their capital investments and infrastructure. Taiwan got to loot their former citizens first and then snagged dat western development aid (for anti-communists only). China got to rebuild after a devastating world war and civil war then build an industrial sector from nearly scratch... Now they are about to strip the United States of its hegemony ahaha :sicko-hyper:
Also on top of all these, for the vast majority of this time span China's development didnt benifit at all from the imperialist looting and pillaging of the global south by world capital, something that is a big handicap. No one got or stayed poor and exploited for China to get richer and more developed. As opposed to western capital's neoliberal tax heaven protectorats in east asia.
yeah, at this point, it's like watching fans of a team crying about the refs when their team is getting blown out. all cope no substance
Sooo started from behind, improving at the same rate without as much outside help, all while being far larger? lmao
They're all small islands. You could show the same three islands and the US looking at COVID rates, and it will REALLY make them look good.
Lol imagine comparing the entire united states to Martha's Vineyard (leave out Nantucket like they leave out Macau) Nova Scotia and Vancouver.
Why did they put socialist in quotations
Doesn’t that undermine their argument
Well in neolib brain they are probably meaning for those quotations to mean "communism" because to a neolib that's supposed to be an insult to socialists.
China's Schrodinger's Communism. We literally cannot tell you whether it is Communist or Capitalist until we evaluate what comes out of the economic black box. Good news means Capitalist. Bad news means Communist. Any evidence to the contrary is a trick or a lie, because you couldn't know what was going on inside the box, only what came out.
Weird how countries do well in a global trade system when their existence is recognized.
The Neolib sub is filled with “I am very smart” dorks thinking they are enlightened for supporting free trade because it allows them to pretend they give a shit about lifting the global poor out of poverty, even though it’s purely because exploiting cheap (or in many cases forced) labor makes goods cheaper over here in the US. If they were just honest about it it would be less cringe, instead it’s juniors at GW named Brad saying “why do you hate the global poor?” while fantasizing about working for the State Dept and writing the perfect essay post about how $13.25/hr is actually the optimal national minimum wage instead of $15. Also that sub is astroturfed to all hell, Neera probably workshopped some of her tweets on there. DORKS!! I will give them that it’s one of the least bad subs on r*ddit re: trans rights though.
-Soulja
So what it says is that they were always higher and are still higher although improving accordingly?
...ok?
