Comment on Why does China have so many multi billionaires if they are aiming to be a communist country?

• Objection@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  The people of Taiwan, despite sharing a common cultural and ethnic history as mainland China, enjoy a substantially higher standard of living than their mainland peers.

  This is a ridiculous comparison. Taiwan received substantial foreign aid from the US because of it’s strategic value against the mainland, while the PRC was subject to a massive economic embargo.

  Yes, they’ve raised hundreds of millions out of poverty, but that’s been the case throughout East Asia. The whole region saw its standard of living dramatically rise as it industrialized. And the capitalist countries have enjoyed far greater economic success than the communist ones.

  Sorry, which countries are we talking about again? There’s not that many countries in East Asia. Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan all benefited from foreign investment and trade, and again, with much smaller populations.

  If you’re going to argue that the embargo on China was an inevitable result of its communist policies, well, that’s a big part of why they did the reforms in the 80’s.

  The absolute number of people is a red herring. Obviously big countries have more people.

  That… what? I don’t follow what you’re saying here at all.

  It’s much easier for a small country to modernize in a short period of time, especially with outside help. It’s very difficult to reach all the people in all the rural areas of China, it means more infrastructure has to be built, more people have to be educated, etc.

  I’m hoping you’re not one of those .ml folks that acts like a Republican and calls every source they don’t like “Fake News.” But in case you are, can you provide your own sources?

  My source is the extremely biased, far-left communist newsletter known as The World Bank.

  I would be curious on your thoughts of the per-capita incomes of China vs the capitalist East Asian countries. Can you show that China has performed better than them on a per-capita basis?

  I don’t agree that per-capita is the relevent statistic for the above reasons.

  source

  • WoodScientist@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    You linked a source repeating your earlier claim about the raw number of people lifted out of poverty. Again, I ask, what about per-capita income?

    This is a ridiculous comparison. Taiwan received substantial foreign aid from the US because of it’s strategic value against the mainland, while the PRC was subject to a massive economic embargo.

    China received extensive aid from the USSR.

    That… what? I don’t follow what you’re saying here at all.

    Do you understand what “per capita” means? It would be far more impressive for a country of one million people to lift 950,000 people out of poverty than for a nation of 1 billion people to lift 800 million people out of poverty.

    It’s much easier for a small country to modernize in a short period of time, especially with outside help. It’s very difficult to reach all the people in all the rural areas of China, it means more infrastructure has to be built, more people have to be educated, etc.

    Why? I see no reason for this. Larger countries have more resources. Everything you need to lift people out of poverty scales with population. If anything, it’s actually EASIER for large countries to lift themselves out of poverty. A tiny micro-nation with a population of 10,000 isn’t going to be building an aircraft factory. There’s a lot of minimum-size requirements on certain national infrastructure. If anything, the bigger, the easier it is to modernize. Yes, the larger population creates greater needs, but you also have more people to address those needs.

    And China was not unique in having disconnected rural populations. Small countries and big countries both have isolated rural areas.

    I don’t agree that per-capita is the relevent statistic for the above reasons.

    It’s the only meaningful way to compare countries. Otherwise you just end up making brain-dead conclusions like, “the big country has the big number. Therefore it’s better.”

    source

    • Objection@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      You linked a source repeating your earlier claim about the raw number of people lifted out of poverty. Again, I ask, what about per-capita income?

      Yeah, because I didn’t make any claims about per-capita income. That’s how sources work.

      China received extensive aid from the USSR.

      Lol? That’s a joke right?

      You never heard about a little thing called the Sino-Soviet split? Even before that, the Soviets had plenty of their own problems, they were nowhere near as wealthy as the US and were struggling to survive and rebuild from WWII, and again, that much smaller aid for a much shorter period of time was distributed to a much larger population.

      Do you understand what “per capita” means?

      Yes I know what per capita means.

      It would be far more impressive for a country of one million people to lift 950,000 people out of poverty than for a nation of 1 billion people to lift 800 million people out of poverty.

      Not really, no.

      Why? I see no reason for this.

      Because modernization in developing countries is dependent on foreign technologies that have to spread to a much wider area, and that takes time.

      It’s the only meaningful way to compare countries.

      I don’t really understand why we’re comparing countries.

      Otherwise you just end up making brain-dead conclusions like, “the big country has the big number. Therefore it’s better.”

      That is not remotely close to anything I’ve said or believe.

      source
  • drmoose@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Taiwan received substantial foreign aid from the US because of it’s strategic value against the mainland

    And? China literally owns the 2nd largest land mass in the world. So which variables are allowed in this math and which aren’t? Maybe if you give us a list we can defeat your delusion more swiftly.

    source

    • Objection@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Which variables are allowed in the math depends on what the point of the comparison is. And as I said, I’m not really sure what the point of comparing these countries is. It’s pretty apples to oranges and doesn’t really tell us anything about the efficacy of China’s reforms in the context of their specific conditions.

      The fact that there’s such a difference in landmass is just another reason why it doesn’t make sense to compare the two. If you want to compare China to another country for some reason, it would probably make sense to compare it to a country with more similar conditions, like India perhaps.

      source