4 ms·

According to Index of Economic Freedom, Hong Kong has had the highest degree of economic freedom in the world since the inception of the Index in 1995.[0] Hong

According to Index of Economic Freedom, Hong Kong has had the highest degree of economic freedom in the world since the inception of the Index in 1995.[0] Hong Kong is the 32nd largest export economy in the world and the 12th most complex economy according to the Economic Complexity Index (ECI).[1] Hong Kong’s unemployment rate was 3.3% as of January 2017 according to Trading Economics.[2] I think these metrics Trump the photos. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Hong_Kong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Hong_Kong [1] http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/hkg/ http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/hkg/ [2] http://www.worldstopexports.com/hong-kongs-top-10-exports/ http://www.worldstopexports.com/hong-kongs-top-10-exports/

zhemao 9y ago
It also has one of the highest levels of income inequality, which is what this article highlights.
- illegal_in_ca 9y ago
  Isn't inequality a measure of efficiency, though? A day or two ago, the caffeteria workers were complaining about living in a garage and not being able to bring their children to work. So? The engineers are the ones the provide value to the company. The support staff is there to do just that: support. The kitchen staff live in the garage, the engineers live in main house, and the president is a multi-billionaire. I don't see what the problem is. Do we want a pauper in the White House? Programmers in the garage? And the gardener in the 4 bedroom, 3 bath, two story with a view? Seems a little topsy turvy to me. Once upon a time, those ‘Coffin Cubicles’ would be seen as a sign of effiency, not squalor. I don't see want, I see abundance. Television, pills, cell phones and comraderie. Not everyone can live in a house with a yard. I certainly don't. We simply do not have enough room. We have to make the best of it. If you chose to live in Hong Kong, you make the best of what you've got. I'm sure the benefits outweigh the downsides. The article says they eat out more often than they cook for themselves. Must be nice. I had to make pancakes this morning (took like 20 minutes), but they just roll out of of bed, head downstairs, and pick up some noodles on the way to work? That's the effiency I'm talking about. It doesn't look like much, but they have everything they need, all in one place, ready to go. Minimalism. Simplicity. Efficiency. I'm kind of jealous.
  - lyudmil 9y ago
    Would you still view inequality as efficiency if you were the one whose work is deemed less valuable? It's strikes me as a very easy statement to make when you can afford not to live like the people depicted. Efficiency is about producing more of what you like, while keeping as much of the stuff you like that has already been produced. Whenever it's brought up like you have done, it's always an ideological point to some extent, because "what we like" is not well-defined. If I define inequality as a "bad," and capital as "not necessarily a good," then an exchange of inequality for capital is not efficient.
    - trevyn 9y ago
      I view inequality as providing a visceral drive to improve my lot in life. I want the things that the billionaires have, so I'm going to try my darnedest to work smart and hard and get there. If there were no billionaires to look up to, that's a signal that I can't really improve my life much, so why try hard?
      - lyudmil 9y ago
        It's perfectly okay to use inequality as a personal motivator like you do, but it doesn't follow that inequality is a good thing. What you may find gives you drive might crush others, who would otherwise lead a fulfilling life in which they grow into their innate talents and enrich the life of the people they interact with. I personally strongly disagree that one wouldn't try to improve one's life unless forced to by difficult circumstances. I think we have sufficient evidence that humans are innately curious and creative, and find self-fulfillment in pursuing their curiosity, discovering new things, and otherwise "improving." It's actually fascinating to me that you have the view of human nature that you do. I don't think this is the right thread to discuss this, but in general I'm very eager to explore that further.
        trevyn 9y ago
        I agree that humans have an innate drive for self-improvement, and adding an economic motivator (and therefore inequality, by definition) helps focus and amplify that drive toward improvements that also efficiently increase quality of life for others. Because of the economic motivator, I want to build things that people are willing to exchange resources for -- if they're not willing to exchange resources, it's honestly hard to argue that the item was ultimately very valuable to them. As long as there is value to humans in exchanging different types of resources, I fail to see how economic inequality is unavoidable. We can argue over the appropriate degree, but some level of inequality seems fundamental to the nature of our universe.
ximeng 9y ago
Don't Be naive about HK's economic freedom. The monopolisation of real estate and the rigidity of the political system means actual competition to the elite families is minimal.
crdoconnor 9y ago
This is essentially the result of what happens when a country prioritizes "economic freedom" (investor supremacy).
- awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
  It's actually a result of colonialism. The british and the elite hong kongers lived like kings and took the lion share of land/wealth and relegated the ordinary hong kongers to poverty.
legulere 9y ago
Those pictures show that economic freedom, a high export rate, a complex economy and a low unemployment may not be good goals to optimize for.

zhemao 9y ago

It also has one of the highest levels of income inequality, which is what this article highlights.

illegal_in_ca 9y ago
Isn't inequality a measure of efficiency, though? A day or two ago, the caffeteria workers were complaining about living in a garage and not being able to bring their children to work. So? The engineers are the ones the provide value to the company. The support staff is there to do just that: support. The kitchen staff live in the garage, the engineers live in main house, and the president is a multi-billionaire. I don't see what the problem is. Do we want a pauper in the White House? Programmers in the garage? And the gardener in the 4 bedroom, 3 bath, two story with a view? Seems a little topsy turvy to me. Once upon a time, those ‘Coffin Cubicles’ would be seen as a sign of effiency, not squalor. I don't see want, I see abundance. Television, pills, cell phones and comraderie. Not everyone can live in a house with a yard. I certainly don't. We simply do not have enough room. We have to make the best of it. If you chose to live in Hong Kong, you make the best of what you've got. I'm sure the benefits outweigh the downsides. The article says they eat out more often than they cook for themselves. Must be nice. I had to make pancakes this morning (took like 20 minutes), but they just roll out of of bed, head downstairs, and pick up some noodles on the way to work? That's the effiency I'm talking about. It doesn't look like much, but they have everything they need, all in one place, ready to go. Minimalism. Simplicity. Efficiency. I'm kind of jealous.
- lyudmil 9y ago
  Would you still view inequality as efficiency if you were the one whose work is deemed less valuable? It's strikes me as a very easy statement to make when you can afford not to live like the people depicted. Efficiency is about producing more of what you like, while keeping as much of the stuff you like that has already been produced. Whenever it's brought up like you have done, it's always an ideological point to some extent, because "what we like" is not well-defined. If I define inequality as a "bad," and capital as "not necessarily a good," then an exchange of inequality for capital is not efficient.
  - trevyn 9y ago
    I view inequality as providing a visceral drive to improve my lot in life. I want the things that the billionaires have, so I'm going to try my darnedest to work smart and hard and get there. If there were no billionaires to look up to, that's a signal that I can't really improve my life much, so why try hard?
    - lyudmil 9y ago
      It's perfectly okay to use inequality as a personal motivator like you do, but it doesn't follow that inequality is a good thing. What you may find gives you drive might crush others, who would otherwise lead a fulfilling life in which they grow into their innate talents and enrich the life of the people they interact with. I personally strongly disagree that one wouldn't try to improve one's life unless forced to by difficult circumstances. I think we have sufficient evidence that humans are innately curious and creative, and find self-fulfillment in pursuing their curiosity, discovering new things, and otherwise "improving." It's actually fascinating to me that you have the view of human nature that you do. I don't think this is the right thread to discuss this, but in general I'm very eager to explore that further.
      - trevyn 9y ago
        I agree that humans have an innate drive for self-improvement, and adding an economic motivator (and therefore inequality, by definition) helps focus and amplify that drive toward improvements that also efficiently increase quality of life for others. Because of the economic motivator, I want to build things that people are willing to exchange resources for -- if they're not willing to exchange resources, it's honestly hard to argue that the item was ultimately very valuable to them. As long as there is value to humans in exchanging different types of resources, I fail to see how economic inequality is unavoidable. We can argue over the appropriate degree, but some level of inequality seems fundamental to the nature of our universe.

ximeng 9y ago

Don't Be naive about HK's economic freedom. The monopolisation of real estate and the rigidity of the political system means actual competition to the elite families is minimal.

crdoconnor 9y ago

This is essentially the result of what happens when a country prioritizes "economic freedom" (investor supremacy).

awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
It's actually a result of colonialism. The british and the elite hong kongers lived like kings and took the lion share of land/wealth and relegated the ordinary hong kongers to poverty.

legulere 9y ago

Those pictures show that economic freedom, a high export rate, a complex economy and a low unemployment may not be good goals to optimize for.