During Mao’s reign, agriculture numbers were padded constantly. They were only padded by a few percent at each level, but as each reporting hierarchy added its own padding, eventually you got massive overestimates.
This is why 50 million people died in the famine under Map, more than the Holocaust and “gulag archipelago” combined. I don’t think people
realize just how bad it was, it was a time of absolutely insanity and deprivation.
40% of all building structures were torn down between between 1958-1963 if that gives you any idea of how detached from reality society under Mao was.
Also, China is lying about their pollution numbers, and just simply moving the factories farther west. Western China is one of the most rural parts of the world and its very hard to measure / prove who is using what / polluting what. No matter what the US does regarding global warming, it’s very likely any gains will be “eaten” by a growing, data faking, Chinese government.
Yes, China has a long history of doing exactly this but it goes back to as far as thousands of years in all the different dynasty.
The only good thing is with all the surveillance in place, and the Anti - (selected) corruption happening this may actually work. ( Or may be not )
Yang Jisheng (30 October 2012). Tombstone: The Great Chinese Famine, 1958-1962. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. p. 240. ISBN 978-0-374-27793-2.
Kimberley Ens Manning; Felix Wemheuer; Gao Hua (1 January 2011). "Food Augmentation Methods and Food Substitutes during the Great Famine". Eating Bitterness: New Perspectives on China's Great Leap Forward and Famine. UBC Press. p. 177. ISBN 978-0-7748-5955-4.
Ralph Thaxton (5 May 2008). Catastrophe and Contention in Rural China: Mao's Great Leap Forward Famine and the Origins of Righteous Resistance in Da Fo Village. Cambridge University Press. p. 128. ISBN 978-0-521-72230-8.
Jump up ^ Yang Jisheng (30 October 2012). Tombstone: The Great Chinese Famine, 1958-1962. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. p. 126. ISBN 978-0-374-27793-2.
Dali L. Yang (1996). Calamity and Reform in China: State, Rural Society, and Institutional Change Since the Great Leap Famine. Stanford University Press. p. 65. ISBN 978-0-8047-3470-7.
Let me put it this way: if someone then does provide citations, it suddenly sounds harsh, and could do with an apology. But in that case, why not be civil to begin with? Like you were, for example.
Or, if you’re actually interested in the pursuit of truth, why not try and truly contribute by spending 30 seconds looking for references yourself, and adding those??
Wikipedia posted a great article called "Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat."  It describes the various ways special interest groups and fringe fanatics will fight to make their views recognized. One of the ways they called "gaming the system" where they frivolously request .
The fact that China underwent a terrible famine shortly following the Communist Revolution is pretty common knowledge. Other than that, he wasn't clear what he was requesting citations for.
"Exploitation and inequality is innate to the industrial-capitalist system; a fact well-known at least since the time of Marx." Citation needed?
The quote was taken from an article on environment problems in India. My problem with this is only that they said it without showing their work. If Marx said this, cite him. If it’s “well-know” prove it. Since they don’t bother to support this anywhere near the text of the claim, I don’t trust them anymore. I’m out, even if I was inclined to agree with them.
I agree in general that we shouldn’t be rude or dismissive, but I think we also need to retain the ability to call out unsubstantiated claims that purport to be common knowledge, or are poorly attributed, and to protect our time.
In the rare case that I regret reading something pretty long halfway through, I sometimes quickly post this way, get down voted, and hope I saved somebody some time. Anyone who wouldn’t read the article knowing that statement was in it can then choose not too. I guess if this is more annoying than reading a bad article, I could stop doing it or at least rephrase.
When I'm feeling especially snarky, I'll use lmgtfy.
In a world filled with fake news, a tradition of posting at least one link might be a good thing? (Unless it's personal experience, which is useful in itself.)
This burden of research that some impose upon others is bullshit. If one is intellectually omnivorous they do not keep links of all their findings handy, it is simply not possible. This incessant wailing for citations is an activity fit for gutter-snipes, not productive software engineers.
> But rather than admit this truth and risk being accused of failure or, worse still, denounced as ‘counter-revolutionaries’, local party bosses fiddled the figures they sent to the central authorities.
> They curried favour by vying with each other to increase their targets of food production to ludicrous and entirely fictional levels. Then they lied that they had not only met but exceeded them.
> On paper, China was bursting with food of every type. The people’s bellies were full. Poverty and want had been eradicated.
> In reality, as the notional, non-existent surpluses were commandeered to feed the industrial workers in the cities, vast areas of China were left with a fraction of the sustenance needed to survive.
> In one province, the grain harvest shrank from 82,000 tonnes in 1957 to 18,000 tonnes three years later. Yet the local party boss still reported a bumper harvest of 130,000 tonnes.
"Madman who starved 60million to death: Devastating book reveals how Mao's megalomania turned China into a madhouse"
Clearly it would be better to cite the book (which I can't easily, as not all knowledge can be hyperlinked), or a higher-quality secondary source, but this is definitely sufficient enough to put the onus firmly on you to cite why you are so resistant to this thought process.
Some tips, if the issue is that you don't know how to do research: You might try searching for the title of the book, which might find you some more reviews, and you might find some which disagree and essentially write a "rebuttal". You might also can try to search for those specific numbers in the final paragraph I quoted from this article.
I'm also not at all ashamed to keep doing something I usually do and recommend it to others. As you say, it usually takes only a couple minutes to do, so why not?
If it's a subject I know (and I'm therefore commenting about) then I generally find it pretty easy to find a reliable link.
I don't know about you but I'm not exactly super knowledgeable about Maoism, the "Great Leap Forward" and the state of chinese agriculture in the 1950's. Maybe I'm just being ignorant but given that this is a computer hacking forum I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect that most readers will be better versed in the subject than I am.
So yeah, Citations Needed as far as I'm concerned.
The sun rises in the East. Citation needed?
Children love frosted cupcakes. Citation needed?
> Although actual harvests were reduced, local officials, under tremendous pressure from central authorities to report record harvests in response to the innovations, competed with each other to announce increasingly exaggerated results. These were used as a basis for determining the amount of grain to be taken by the State to supply the towns and cities, and to export. This left barely enough for the peasants, and in some areas, starvation set in. A 1959 drought and flooding from the Yellow River in the same year also contributed to famine.
> During 1958–1960 China continued to be a substantial net exporter of grain, despite the widespread famine experienced in the countryside, as Mao sought to maintain face and convince the outside world of the success of his plans.
There's a small industry of people who try to measure Chinese growth in other ways that are harder to forge such as railway shipment tonnage and energy consumption; it'll be interesting to see to what extent those methods are vindicated if/when better quality data becomes available.
A large motivation is how the taxes collected are shared between the central government and the local governments. A new tax sharing scheme introduced last year makes underreporting of the local GDPs profitable for the local governments, meaning they get to remit less taxes to the central government.
That actually validates some of the slowdown that I saw while I was in China. Business felt slow, and it seems that there wasn't the fast feel anymore compared to 2007. Very little small company activities, and alot of economic activities seem to involve state-owned companies (and we all know how slow they are).
If we assume 20-30% fake data across most of its local provinces the last couple of years, this would probably place China's GDP growth at around 1% a year (maybe even negative), way below 7% consistently claimed by the government. However, the 1% would be consistent with the drop in exports in recent year.
Of the 31 provinces, direct-controlled municipalities and autonomous regions in China, three have already admitted falsifying certain economic data. Starting with the northeastern province of Liaoning in January 2017, the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region and the city of Tianjin have said their statistics were wrong.
Of the three, only Tianjing has admitted doctoring the overall provincial gross domestic product figures. Liaoning and Inner Mongolia had padded something else: their fiscal revenues.
Now Xi is trying fix what's wrong. ( Only if you are not reading too much into it )
Outside of economic stagnation, environmental disasters are the no. 1 perceived threat today to rule & order by the CCP.
and this year, Shanghai's air pollution has been worse than Beijing. Some say due to the cold air pushing the pollution down this year.
― Winston S. Churchill
-- Abraham Lincoln
If these government official were lying, giving them incentives to admit they are lying is the worst outcome I can think of.
Practice is the only criterion for the test of truth, and since the end of the cold war, only china has been able to narrow the gap between the United States and the United States
"Practice is the sole criterion for testing truth. Since the end of the Cold War, only China has narrowed its gap with the United States in terms of economic scale."