4 ms·
You're quoting the statement that a large share of the population is not much better off from a decade ago. The Economist provides facts that a very large part
by dsplittgerber 17y ago
You're quoting the statement that a large share of the population is not much better off from a decade ago.
The Economist provides facts that a very large part of the population is much better of (not in poverty anymore), as per the statistic I quoted. Also, it's rather unconvincing to argue that the Chinese government is effectively anti-poor, given the same statistic.
Sure, there is widespread corruption and they are stiffling private enterprises. That's not the same as being anti-poor, IMHO.
- rortian 17y agoFirst, your quote from the economist covers 24 years. During that period a lot of people came out of extreme poverty. That does not mean that a huge portion of them are not poor. It'd be interesting to be able to look at the original papers and break down what you think is not anti-poor. You've conceded that the corruption is widespread, so please stop acting like this is some sort of charity.