The rate of change will obviously be grater from 1988-1998 than from 2000-2010 because prior to 1988 China was a completely closed society (especially prior to

The rate of change will obviously be grater from 1988-1998 than from 2000-2010 because prior to 1988 China was a completely closed society (especially prior to 1978) and just beginning to wake up from the cultural revolution, a highly chaotic period where progress LITERALLY stopped. That said, this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Prc1952-2005gdp.gif http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Prc1952-2005gdp.gif appears to disproves your point. Not accounting for inflation, nominal GDP grew about 8,000 bln from 1990-2000, which is paralleled in only 5 years between 2000-2005. As for corruption, I don't think you've done much to further your argument that "China has been a historical corrupt society for thousands of years". Benefiting from close ties to the government is a natural economic condition found in every country. Hello US Lobbying industry? And the percentage of multi-millionaires with close family connections doesn't say much either, only that China has a growing class of oligarchs, again a condition found in many many many other countries. That said, it wouldn't be fair for me to wholly dismiss your points. Yes corruption is widespread, but I don't see how that proves your point that China as a society has been utilizing corruption to cheat their business partners for thousands of years. That is an absurd point that is not at all grounded in history nor facts. Finally I think you mis-understood my point in regards to S. Korea/Japan. They have had LONGER to grow economically in the sense that until the mid 1970s China was essentially a collapsed country, with really NO economy. Irregardless of time, both S. Korea and Japan grew their economies out of authoritarian governments. S. Korea was for most of the latter half of the 20th century a military state and Japanese politics was dominated by a single party. Both not exactly what I would call open democratic regimes. No idea what you mean by "a non 'free-market' system is a better approach when it's provided such poor returns...", can you define "poor returns"? China has been one of the fastest growing economies for the past 30 years. How is that poor returns? In fact, its the very authoritarian regime you lambast as being economically inefficient that has been cited as the source of China's seemingly "magical" growth. Lastly, you absolutely CANNOT ignore China's massive population when analyzing the country's current and future states. Having to support a nation of 1.3 billion people is an epically difficult task and as I state in a prior comment, ALL problems in China derive from its population problem. Anyways the point of all of this is not to defend China. The hyperbole and level of mis-understanding among the HN community in regards to China is absurd. This is not a good/bad issue. China's problems are nuanced, just like all things in life. It helps no one by making blanket statements that are derived from quick google searches and superficial understanding of complex issues.