个人资料
正文

洛杉矶时报: 通往成功的比赛中,中国是如何击败印度的

(2015-04-16 18:49:36) 下一个
这是97年的文章。
虽然18年了,但它讲透了印度经济永远无法起飞的根本原因。印度47年独立时比中国略强,两个国家处于基本相同的起点,90年开始学中国进行经济改革,25年后今天的结果证明了这篇文章的前瞻性。

-----------

(RoneTempest是《洛杉矶时报》驻北京记者。在派驻中国之前,他是该报驻印度记者,在印度呆了三年。今年8月,RoneTempest在《洛杉矶时报》上发表长文,How China Beat India in Race for Success,对比中国和印度的发展道路,并从西方的观点就中、印两国经过五十年“竞争”后出现的不同结果进行了仔细分析。文中有许多值得注意的观点,特别是一些印度学者对中国发展情况的看法更引人注目。)
五十年前的这个星期,印度次大陆挣脱了英国的殖民枷锁,组成了印度和巴基斯坦两个国家。印度选择了民主的道路。

印度领导人尼赫鲁在1947年8月14日独立日前夕说:“多年以前我们的命运就注定了,现在是我们实现我们的承诺的时候了。我们今天的庆祝只是迎向等待我们的伟大胜利和成就的起步而已,机会之门为我们打开了。”在此同时,毛泽东的人走到了长征的最后一程,同蒋介石国民党人的内战胜利在望。新的中华人民共和国比印度还穷,经过多年的战争和占领以后,正为生存而挣扎,他们选择了马克思列宁主义的道路。1949年9月30日,人民共和国成立前夕,毛泽东说:“中国历史的新时期开始了。四亿五千万人民的中国从此站起来了,我们国家的前途是无限光明的。”在那使人沉醉的日子里,亚洲两个受伤的大国的领导人都承诺要把他们的国家从深渊中解救出来。尼赫鲁说,印度独立的目标是结束“贫穷与无知和疾病与机会不等。”除了1962年短暂的中、印边境冲突外,两个一无所有的国家的制度之间的竞争并没有完全浮现出来。但是,当印度领导人今天在准备庆祝印度头一个五十年的时候,却不得不承认除了在人权和公民自由的领域外,几乎在每一个层面,中国都在改善其人民--包括最穷的公民--的生计方面比印度做得更多。

今年稍早时印度当时的总理高达对一群商人说:“我感到无地自容”。“我们讲解放讲了那么多。但是像中国这样的共产国家却能够做得那么多,而我们却不能。这表示有些事情不对劲。”同样的,印度的外交部长和前驻中国大使海达尔也在最近接受采访时评论说:“毫无疑问,从直接的对比当中,中国做得比印度更好。所有的主要指标都比印度更好。”这两名资深的领导人愿意那没坦诚地批评自己的国家,这就很能够说明中国与印度之间的差别,当然在政治开放和表达自由方面也是如此。

印度人可以公开说他们所想的,几乎什么都可以。而中国的言论自由很少,特别是在政治事务方面。人民大会开会很枯燥,没有什么公共辩论或争议。虽然中国领导人也会不迟疑地提到中国很穷,但都是拐弯抹角地提到,不把责任扯进去。可是在印度领导人的快语背后却是对世界人口最多的两个国家之间日益扩大的发展差距的巨大关注。

学者、外交官和经济学家都想用不同的理论解释中国在教育、保健和一般生活水准方面对印度巨大而又日益增加的优势。最常见的理论是印度太过于多元化,有15种语言、五种主要宗教和数不清的等级,缺少实现有效的全国教育和灭贫计划的统一性和共同感。为了赶上中国和东南亚国家,印度最近开展了类似于中国的市场改革,最重要的是降低限制性关税和奖励外国投资。

但是,最令印度不安的是他们越来越发现中国的快速进展并不只是经济步骤而已。许多专家现在相信到目前为止中国得以如此迅速向前推进的原因是部分得力于较早时更粗暴的改革,特别是1949年至1976年毛泽东专政统治时期在枪尖下强迫实施的土地改革措施。人们只主要记得毛泽东时代1960-1961年大跃进失败之后的饥荒和1966-1976年文化大革命的恐怖政治统治和迫害。但是,特别是在共产统治初期的1950年代,中国却得利于土地的重新分配、普及义务教育、简体字和保健与福利政策以及有助于恢复中国的精神和自尊的其他改革。虽然从今天来看问题要复杂得多,但是对宗教、迷信、秘密会社、帮会和宗派的镇压也帮助中国打破了贫困的恶性循环。

哈佛大学经济学家阿马提亚.沈(AmartyaSen)是在印度西孟加尔生长的人,他辩称“中国对印度的相对优势是其改革前(1979年以前)奠基工作的产物,而不是其改革后重订方向的结果。”过去半个世纪的大部分时间中,印度同中国的生活水准是相差不多的。就基础设施--铁路运输和道路--和公务员制度来说,印度实际上比中国开始得更早。独立以后两国的进展都踌躇不前。即使是迟至1960年,两国在减少文盲、营养不良和婴儿死亡率方面记录都不是很好。中国正面临着世界最后一次大饥荒。印度1960年的人均寿命只有44岁,中国是47岁。独立后的头几年,两国都依赖外国的援助和专技知识。中国依赖的是苏联,印度依赖的是大英国协和西方捐助国。但是中国在1962年就突然切断了同苏联的关系,而印度仍然是西方外援的主要受援国。到1970年代末期,即使是在邓小平的经济改革实施之前,中国也已经几乎在衡量经济和社会发展的每一个尺度上开始超越印度

据联合国开发计划署最新的各国人力发展指标显示,根据识字率、平均寿命和平均收入计算,中国的得分是60,接近所有发展中国家的最高分,但是印度只有44分。亚洲国家中唯一低于印度的是老挝(寮国)和孟加拉国。美国前驻印度大使莫尼汉把印度的民主称为“功能性无政府状态”。虽然等级制度和普遍对妇女的歧视大大限制了印度的自由,但是活跃的民主事例却很突出。该国人权事务委员会的官员去年报告说,在印度最穷的奥利萨邦的卡拉汉蒂至少有12人饿死。但是卡拉汉蒂有人饿死的同时,当地的政治官员却说当地选举的投票人数却是破记录的。德里大学的学者也是奥利萨本地人的莫汉提说:“有人饿死,但同时也有人真正在竞选。饿肚子的人也去投票。”对莫汉提来说,这是印度的矛盾之处。贫穷与不平等同上升中的权利参与感同时存在。

中国是世界上最大的共产专制国家。但是中国却是充满了进步和成就的国家。随着新的千年的到来,中国即将跨入征服古老的贫穷和愚昧的门槛。住在江苏富庶地区一个大砖房中的76岁退休养蚕工人丁海清说:“印度和中国是地球上人口最多的两个国家。进入现代以来,开头是差不多相等的。印度是个殖民国家,中国是个半殖民国家;印度选择了资本主义道路,中国选择了共产主义道路。”丁海清得意得看着他的院子和玫瑰花说:“我可以告诉你,中国的路选对了,从一个贫穷落后的国家变成比较先进的国家。”

不管怎样,中国尽管个人自由受到限制,但却更能够接受改变和引进的概念。印度即使它的民主让人印象深刻,却几乎落后于中国20年才开始放弃基于失败的苏联模式的经济体制。在新德里与麦肯锡顾问公司合作的一名顾问基托.波尔说:“中国是‘封闭的系统、开放的心灵’,印度则往往被称为‘开放的系统、封闭的心灵’”。哈佛经济学家阿马提亚.沈是越来越多研究中国-印度的学者之一,他说:“中国是唯一人口与印度相当的国家,而两国刚开始现代化的时候,穷困的程度都差不多。“ 1940年的时候,两国的情况是如此的类似,一直到1970年代两国的经济和社会发展程度都极为相近。因此很自然的人们要问,从那以后,两国的进展情况到底怎样了。”至少到目前为止,中国是更好地实现了尼赫鲁所说的消灭“贫穷与无知和疾病与机会不等”的挑战。例如,从1960以来,中国使公民的平均寿命增加了20岁以上,中国男人的平均寿命为69岁,中国妇女为71岁。印度的平均寿命虽有增加,但平均只有62岁。在识字率方面,差别更大。尽管中国有十年文革的动乱,很多学校都关了,但实现了人口81%的成人识字率,而印度为52%。同时中国的青少年已接近从前认为不可能实现的普及识字率。中国只有3%的青少年男孩和8%的青少年女孩是不识字的。印度则有四分之一的青少年男孩和几乎一半的青少年女孩是不识字的。几乎在所有的经济类别上中国都一面倒地超越印度。从1990-1994年,中国的年均国内总产值增长率为12.9%,印度为3.8%。1994年的印度人均收入为320美元,只占中国的530美元的60%。印度也丧失了它从英国统治以来在铁公路方面占有的优势。中国刚刚完成了两条铁路,一条为北京-香港线,一条为上海-新疆线,现在的铁路里程数与印度相当。中国的城市,即使是在最穷的省份,也都在到处盖房子。印度的高级外交官海达尔回忆说,当他还是驻北京大使的时候,中国宣布要在十个月内修好一条环城公路和十来个立交桥。他说:“之后我看到就像他们所说的。想想当我回到德里时,连我离开时所盖的那个立交桥都还没盖好,那份难过就不用说了。”

许多专家说,中国成功的关键是掌权以后不久进行的土地改革。耶鲁大学历史学教授JonathanD.Spence发现,就在1949年共产胜利后的那几年,中国南部和中部农业区有40%的土地从地主手中没收,然后重新分配出去,大约有60%的农民得到了好处。目前在中国的乡村地区正出现土地改革的成果受到侵蚀的现象。中国农民仍然不许直接拥有土地,但是许多人已经占有大片他们经营和管理的土地,跟实际拥有没什么差别。安徽63岁的陈兴汉,6岁的时候替地主打工,后来他参加了革命,变成基层干部。现在他经营着省里最大的私人农场之一,大约200亩,是凤阳地区最有钱的人之一。他还有一所制砖厂和碾米厂。他雇用了133个人,包括13个农田手。他说他应归功于邓小平的“致富光荣”。他说:“我是个地主,但我是为农民服务的地主。我不是资本家,我要带农民致富。”但是,除了少数例外情况(主要是富庶的旁遮普和领导的西孟加尔邦),印度从来就没有过土地改革。德里大学的莫汉提说:“同中国相比,印度的发展战略不能确保耕者有其田,大部分地区仍然盛行在外地主、合耕和暗藏地主制度。”印度最富庶的两个邦--上普拉得什和比哈什--仍然受困于在外地主和佃耕这一几近封建主义的制度。新西兰前驻北京大使、最近才卸下驻印度大使职务的尼克.布里奇说:“我认为中国占有优势的主要原因之一是中国经历了暴力革命。人把地主杀了。印度仍然还有地主,扯国家的后腿。”

中国的农村集体所有制拖到了1979年,等到邓小平实施农村承包制之后农民才能够耕自己的地,把收成卖到市场上去。但是基本的改革,革命时期进行的土地重新分配仍然基本没变。中国农民一旦从集体制脱离开来后,很快地就有钱起来。制度上一些中央化的公社式结构仍然保留了下来,帮助农民组织和协调各种工作。

印度一位著名的农经学家、印度“绿色革命”的建构人斯瓦民纳森说:“中国在一些领域取得了进展,而我们没有。由于可以在单一的政党下进行社会动员,所以他们可以更好地控制水源和实施虫害管理。”他说:“中国人对农业就业和非农业就业之间的就业创造有一套综合的办法,这是我们国家所没有的。结果是印度到处充斥着都市贫民窟,无地的贫民飘移到孟买、加尔各答和马德拉斯,过着最穷困的日子。”中国人口的增加和农业现代化也造成了多余的劳动力。大约有8,000万到1亿流动人口变成了主要城市的内部移民、打工仔、建筑工人和路边n摊贩。但是有好几份研究报告指出,另有1亿人口被周围的“乡镇企业”吸收了,这是印度所没有的。

莫汉提说:“从经济上说,中国比印度做得好得多的主要理由是两国经历了不同的革命后得出不同的政治制度。我认为中国人从一开始就被迫去面对挑战。从1949年起,他们必须提供一些基本的经济需要来证明他们的革命是行得通的,这当中部分的原因是他们不断受到西方的攻击。”“在印度,我们也有崇高的价值。但是争取自由的结果是很大的妥协……广大人民的基本需要被拖后了。”

麦肯锡顾问公司的多米尼克.特克1995年主编了一部大的研究报告,比较“二十一世纪的两大巨人(中国和印度)”。他说,印度的民主制度在某些方面拖住政府无法刺激经济增长,举例来说,民主政府必须更多地注意通货膨胀问题和对“强大的既有游说势力”作出反应。特克说:“民主制度给你所能做的设限,压抑住经济。但它给你稳定。印度也许不会像中国一样一年增长12%。但会保有稳定。” 其他的观察家却不那么肯定。他们说,严格的经济分析没有看到的是等级、宗教和经济阶级之间日益扩大的分野。中国得以快速转向市场经济的一部分原因是中国注意到了最基本的社会需要。因此毛泽东的虽然尝试达到最完美的共产境界,采行了普及教育和公共保健,并提高妇女的地位,但它也奠定了市场经济的基础。

哈佛经济学家阿马提亚.沈说:“中国市场经济的力量是建筑在较早时发生的社会变革上的。印度是不可能不触及教育、保健和土地改革的社会变革就也一下子进入大流的,是这些变革使致中国有今天的成就。”

_________

呵呵,印度就是缺了毛那样的强势领袖对社会进行彻底的变革,毛26年对中国的改造才是中国能有后来成功的基础。

毛建立的共产党权威政府体制,土改,全民教育全民医疗,男女平等官民平等,简化字,破四旧,对宗教、迷信、秘密会社、帮会和宗派的镇压,缺了哪样中国都不会有今天。
[ 打印 ]
阅读 ()评论 (1)
评论
听听意见 回复 悄悄话 Everyone bangs on about how diverse India is, ethnic, religious, linguistic groups, hence its problems of governance. But China is even more diverse not only in terms of ethnic groups but also climate zones, geography, regional histories. Strong central government, attention to infrastructure, education, control of population increase, constraining religion(s), these are elements of success. Many Chinese health and quality of life indicators now rival the US (which, alas, isn't saying much because terrible governance, radical income inequality, racism, pockets of extreme poverty and unemployment have shredded the post-1975 American fabric).

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
登录后才可评论.