5 ms·

The CPC drove its own people into poverty in the first place, after WWII. Liberalisation and foreign trade is what brought them out of poverty over the past 30

The CPC drove its own people into poverty in the first place, after WWII. Liberalisation and foreign trade is what brought them out of poverty over the past 30 years.

z2 6y ago
Kind of, in the sense that yes, growth was stunted and even reversed for decades. But the starting point was low. The war with Japan and earlier revolutions to overthrow the Qing government weren't kind to economic activity, and the population basically limped into the 1940s with barely functional physical and financial infrastructure.
- flurben 6y ago
  As I responded to someone else : --- China was actually quite wealthy under the Qing Dynasty, and fluctuated between 10% and 35% of global GDP. In 1949, when the PRC was formed, they represented 9.5% of the global economy. In 1990, after 41 years of Communist Party rule, China was 1.59% of the global economy. ---- So while it is accurate to say that China's economy did poorly in the 19th and early 20th century, it is also true to say that the CPC proceeded to drive the nation into abject poverty.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - platinumrad 6y ago
    Hmm, I wonder what happened between the fall of the Qing Dynasty and 1949. Do you have a source for this 1.59% figure that you're posting everywhere? I've honestly looked and can't find one.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    Always ignored in similar discussions, in 1950 the US convinced the UN to establish an embargo against China lasting for twenty years. Mao's economic policies were undoubtedly terrible, but the Western destruction of the Chinese economy did not stop in 1949.
    - flurben 6y ago
      That was a direct consequence of the PRC's decision to attack the UN coalition army in Korea, and is the result of another failed policy of the PRC.
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        The UN coalition army that refused to acknowledge China's existence, invaded China's neighbor and marched to China's border. That does not justify twenty years of an embargo.
        flurben 6y ago
        That is factually untrue. The war began when North Korea invaded South Korea. As I said, the PRC's policies are what drove its people into poverty. It was a choice the PRC made to attack the UN armies, it chose to do so fully aware of the consequences of supporting North Korea and Kim Il-sung.
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        >That is factually untrue. The war began when North Korea invaded South Korea. Which led to almost everything that happened in my post, the UN had already refused to acknowledge China. Nothing factually untrue in it at all. >it chose to do so fully aware of the consequences of supporting North Korea and Kim Il-sung. Mao called the decision blackmail at the time, and it's a fairly apt description. Imagine the hell that would be raised if China helped a Mexican despot and marched an army to the US border.
        free_rms 6y ago
        The 'UN' at that pinpoint in time had no representation from China or Russia, so it was basically NATO.
      - rejschaap 6y ago
        I feel you are misrepresenting what happened. As I understand it the PRC did not want this conflict and tried to prevent it, but failed. They were basically forced into the conflict by the Soviets and the Americans and suffered immense losses.
  - z2 6y ago
    Charts on China's historical relative share of GDP and other measures beg to differ. Or at least they suggest that the first derivative matters a lot more than snapshot numbers. Nobody's defending that repression and misguided autocracy weren't pure stupidity and self-flagellation. The 'Great Leap Forward' of the late 50's caused extreme damage to life and economy, compared to the west rebuilding and setting up the first pieces of a transition to the digital economy, and the rest of East Asia gearing up for its own export-driven 'miracle'. But in general, social and economic things have momentum, and that momentum in infrastructure, technology, education, reserves, everything really, had stagnated and was thus in a downward relative spiral vs a rapidly developing west since the 1800's. After WWII, China had a quarter of the production capacity of the late 20's, a mostly illiterate and increasingly angry rural population, and hyperinflation. There was no golden goose to slaughter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Maddison_statistics_of_the_ten_largest_economies_by_GDP_(PPP)#/media/File:1_AD_to_2008_AD_trends_in_%_GDP_contribution_by_major_economies_of_the_world.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Maddison_statistics_of_t... https://www.principles.com/the-changing-world-order/#chapter1EvolutionAndCycles https://www.principles.com/the-changing-world-order/#chapter...
blackrock 6y ago
Wow. You totally ignored what happened before that, which led to the CCP takeover. How about the fact that the British and the Americans and all the other western governments were shoving opium down their throats? And they were making a pretty penny from all of it. The criminal British empire made their riches from drugging China with opium.
- flurben 6y ago
  China was actually quite wealthy under the Qing Dynasty, and fluctuated between 10% and 35% of global GDP. In 1949, when the PRC was formed, they represented 9.5% of the global economy. In 1990, after 41 years of Communist Party rule, China was 1.59% of the global economy. You cannot blame that on opium or the west, that is the result of Communist policies like the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward, to say nothing of the ruthless control and censorship of information.
  - free_rms 6y ago
    The qing dynasty ended in like 1910ish. And 1949 is a weird time to try and measure economic output numbers. Half the world in ruins, and China itself being mostly illiterate peasants.. you have a cite for that number? Does it have a dollar figure per capita?

The CPC drove its own people into poverty in the first place, after WWII. Liberalisation and foreign trade is what brought them out of poverty over the past 30 years.

z2 6y ago

Kind of, in the sense that yes, growth was stunted and even reversed for decades. But the starting point was low. The war with Japan and earlier revolutions to overthrow the Qing government weren't kind to economic activity, and the population basically limped into the 1940s with barely functional physical and financial infrastructure.

flurben 6y ago
As I responded to someone else : --- China was actually quite wealthy under the Qing Dynasty, and fluctuated between 10% and 35% of global GDP. In 1949, when the PRC was formed, they represented 9.5% of the global economy. In 1990, after 41 years of Communist Party rule, China was 1.59% of the global economy. ---- So while it is accurate to say that China's economy did poorly in the 19th and early 20th century, it is also true to say that the CPC proceeded to drive the nation into abject poverty.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- platinumrad 6y ago
  Hmm, I wonder what happened between the fall of the Qing Dynasty and 1949. Do you have a source for this 1.59% figure that you're posting everywhere? I've honestly looked and can't find one.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  Always ignored in similar discussions, in 1950 the US convinced the UN to establish an embargo against China lasting for twenty years. Mao's economic policies were undoubtedly terrible, but the Western destruction of the Chinese economy did not stop in 1949.
  - flurben 6y ago
    That was a direct consequence of the PRC's decision to attack the UN coalition army in Korea, and is the result of another failed policy of the PRC.
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      The UN coalition army that refused to acknowledge China's existence, invaded China's neighbor and marched to China's border. That does not justify twenty years of an embargo.
      - flurben 6y ago
        That is factually untrue. The war began when North Korea invaded South Korea. As I said, the PRC's policies are what drove its people into poverty. It was a choice the PRC made to attack the UN armies, it chose to do so fully aware of the consequences of supporting North Korea and Kim Il-sung.
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        >That is factually untrue. The war began when North Korea invaded South Korea. Which led to almost everything that happened in my post, the UN had already refused to acknowledge China. Nothing factually untrue in it at all. >it chose to do so fully aware of the consequences of supporting North Korea and Kim Il-sung. Mao called the decision blackmail at the time, and it's a fairly apt description. Imagine the hell that would be raised if China helped a Mexican despot and marched an army to the US border.
        free_rms 6y ago
        The 'UN' at that pinpoint in time had no representation from China or Russia, so it was basically NATO.
    - rejschaap 6y ago
      I feel you are misrepresenting what happened. As I understand it the PRC did not want this conflict and tried to prevent it, but failed. They were basically forced into the conflict by the Soviets and the Americans and suffered immense losses.
- z2 6y ago
  Charts on China's historical relative share of GDP and other measures beg to differ. Or at least they suggest that the first derivative matters a lot more than snapshot numbers. Nobody's defending that repression and misguided autocracy weren't pure stupidity and self-flagellation. The 'Great Leap Forward' of the late 50's caused extreme damage to life and economy, compared to the west rebuilding and setting up the first pieces of a transition to the digital economy, and the rest of East Asia gearing up for its own export-driven 'miracle'. But in general, social and economic things have momentum, and that momentum in infrastructure, technology, education, reserves, everything really, had stagnated and was thus in a downward relative spiral vs a rapidly developing west since the 1800's. After WWII, China had a quarter of the production capacity of the late 20's, a mostly illiterate and increasingly angry rural population, and hyperinflation. There was no golden goose to slaughter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Maddison_statistics_of_the_ten_largest_economies_by_GDP_(PPP)#/media/File:1_AD_to_2008_AD_trends_in_%_GDP_contribution_by_major_economies_of_the_world.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Maddison_statistics_of_t... https://www.principles.com/the-changing-world-order/#chapter1EvolutionAndCycles https://www.principles.com/the-changing-world-order/#chapter...

blackrock 6y ago

Wow. You totally ignored what happened before that, which led to the CCP takeover. How about the fact that the British and the Americans and all the other western governments were shoving opium down their throats? And they were making a pretty penny from all of it. The criminal British empire made their riches from drugging China with opium.

flurben 6y ago
China was actually quite wealthy under the Qing Dynasty, and fluctuated between 10% and 35% of global GDP. In 1949, when the PRC was formed, they represented 9.5% of the global economy. In 1990, after 41 years of Communist Party rule, China was 1.59% of the global economy. You cannot blame that on opium or the west, that is the result of Communist policies like the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward, to say nothing of the ruthless control and censorship of information.
- free_rms 6y ago
  The qing dynasty ended in like 1910ish. And 1949 is a weird time to try and measure economic output numbers. Half the world in ruins, and China itself being mostly illiterate peasants.. you have a cite for that number? Does it have a dollar figure per capita?