> I now use it as a rebuttal to the stock assumption that Western-style democracy, capitalism, and individualism are the only route to prosperity.
There are many paths to prosperity. Are you suggesting it's preferable to forsake democracy, capitalism, and individualism and implement a system of governance that encourages mass murder [0], famine [1], human rights abuses [2], industrial espionage [3], unsafe goods [4], and scientific fraud [5]?
Why are you assuming I'm "suggesting it's preferable"? Put down the pitchfork for a moment! I'm not arguing that Chinese-style communism is a better system. I'm arguing that the belief that western values and economics are the only path to prosperity is incorrect.
I'd rather live in the American system. I'm sure there are a lot of people who grew up in China and would rather live in the Chinese system.
As for your laundry list of "China bad!", I could come up with counterexamples of the US doing the exact same things at various points in our history. Chill.
>Also, I'd request that you stop downvoting me simply because you disagree. However, I assume that your (self-described) "progressive politics" [1] are motivating your decision to downvote more than the content, so I'm not holding out much hope.
I'm not downvoting you. I can't downvote you, per how HN software works - you can't downvote replies to your own comments. Sorry, you'll just have to figure out why you're alienating people other than me.
>Here you engage in the logical fallacy of 'whataboutery'.
I'm not the one who started it. I simply brought up China's remarkable economic success, and you responded with a laundry list of "China Bad!" that mostly had nothing to do with economics.
>If, instead of relying solely on GDP per capita, we factored human costs into our assessments
Sauce for the goose. Rather than the abstract theoretical exercise you presented, you should offer a measurable scale, so we can compare China to western nations. Otherwise, it's meaningless. Otherwise, I'll see your human costs and raise you a slavery.
If you'd stop thinking about why China is more evil than the west for a bit and step back, you might see that economic acceleration from agrarian poverty to modern middle class is a widespread phenomenon that seems to happen to nations regardless of their history, language, culture, government, etc. A bad social structure eventually falls away and is replaced by a better one, and over the course of a couple of generations, the nation accelerates radically. It happened in China, in Iran, in Ireland, and many other seemingly unlikely places.
> I simply brought up China's remarkable economic success, and you responded with a laundry list of "China Bad!" that mostly had nothing to do with economics.
You're right that I insufficiently explained what I meant with the links. I'll break down how I felt the list had economic relevance:
[0][1] ~55mm people died or were killed during the Great Leap Forward and the Chinese famine likely stemmed from it as well. Looking at a series of historical Chinese GDP data, you can see that these policies caused economic contraction of -26.6% at their peak. If evaluating the merits of economic systems, this is a clear failure.
[2] China uses its human rights abuses to further its economy. Consider the harvest and sale of human organs [`]. That's clearly economic activity. It's also mortifying. Ultimately though, I'd say it's relevant to the discussion.
[3] Industrial espionage has everything to do with economics. There's no doubt that China is the largest perpetrator of industrial espionage in the world. If you want to demonstrate that Western values aren't necessary to develop prosperity, it doesn't help to steal so much IP from the West.
[4] Chinese consumers do not trust many consumable Chinese goods. That's certainly related to economics. In fact, it indicates weakness in the Chinese regulatory regime. I'm not informed enough to posit why this is, but my understanding is that foreign consumable goods command a premium because of it.
[5] Science and technology are major drivers of economic growth. Fraudulent research undermines trust in the published body of research, making it more difficult to perform science in the future.
Hopefully you can see the economic relevance now. I'm happy to make lists of problems with Western economies, of which there are many, but I won't pretend China is a paragon of economic development.
> Sauce for the goose. Rather than the abstract theoretical exercise you presented, you should offer a measurable scale, so we can compare China to western nations. Otherwise, it's meaningless. Otherwise, I'll see your human costs and raise you a slavery.
The exercise was simply to demonstrate that an economy is more than just GDP. As for hard numbers, consider the 55mm killed in the Great Leap Forward. Although I had already mentioned slavery as an atrocity perpetrated by the US, I'll provide numbers. In 1860 there were 3.9mm slaves in the United States. Approximately 12.5mm slaves landed in the US during the slave trade [^]. Since we live in the present and not history, let me provide some current statistics. 1mm - 3mm people are currently in concentration camps in Xinjiang [!]. 70mm Falun Gong practitioners are prohibited from their beliefs [~].
Your argument still engages in whataboutism. In July you tweeted [#]:
> Whataboutism is a lazy and uninteresting argument. It’s what you use when you don’t like someone’s point, but don’t have a solid argument against it. If you’re using “But what about...?” as the basis of a rebuttal, check and make sure you’re not just being dumb.
And you are attempting to put words in my mouth here:
> If you'd stop thinking about why China is more evil than the west
I never stated that I believe China to be evil or western countries to be good. In fact, I consider China's economic development to be a phenomenal advancement for human welfare. However, that is not what's being discussed. We are considering whether China's prosperity could have occurred without the existence of Western values.
> A bad social structure eventually falls away and is replaced by a better one, and over the course of a couple of generations, the nation accelerates radically.
Ideally this is what happens. Economic growth models (like Solow) indicate that this is an expected outcome over time. However, there are no guarantees. Structural phenomena impact this quite a bit. Countries with better infrastructure, physical, legal, and otherwise, should enjoy higher rates of growth. Yet many developing countries have less developed infrastructure. This serves as an impediment to such economic convergence.
> seems to happen to nations regardless of their history, language, culture, government
This is obviously not true. Corruption appears to harm economic growth (most strongly in the medium term) [<]. Argentina, had the largest economy in the world in 1895. Poor decisions on the part of the government caused a century of economic turmoil. My understanding that corruption is simultaneously a government and a cultural phenomenon, so you can see that history, culture, and government can have measurable impacts on economic growth.
As long as we're playing whataboutism... the Great Leap Forward occurred roughly 10-20 years after WWII, which led to a similar number of deaths in Europe. Without looking up data, I think it's safe to assume Europe's economies contracted substantially during WWII as well. So there's plenty of "clear failure" to go around. At best, one might argue that the US recovered from WWII faster, because it was the only major nation left undamaged.
As for the argument about the impact of concentration camps... the US currently has 2.3M people incarcerated with a third the population of China. If you're arguing that this is somehow economically relevant, then you're arguing the US (the richest nation in history) has it even worse.
I don't think the argument that "Countries with better infrastructure, physical, legal, and otherwise, should enjoy higher rates of growth" goes where you want it to go. Just about any "developing country" has a far higher rate of growth than the mature western nations with the best infrastructure. If the theory doesn't fit the facts, the theory is wrong. I think you may be conflating current state with growth here. They're not the same.
Speaking of developing nations, Argentina is not the example you want it to be, either. Per Wikipedia, Argentina's per capita income from 1890-1950 was "similar to western Europe". The economy grew steadily until the 1976-1983 coup and military dictatorship, which is when the debt crisis set in. It took nearly 20 years of difficult experiments to get past the problems caused by seven years of right-wing incompetence. The Argentinian economy has grown more or less steadily and well since 2002, and their per capita income is on par with Brazil, Chile, and other major South American nations. (As an aside, in Prisoners of Geography, Tim Marshal argues that Argentina and other South American nations are ultimately limited economically relative to powerhouses like the US, China, and France, due to their geography - and that the success of the US, China, and western Europe is a direct consequence of some really marvelous geographic features, such as outstanding ports and long navigable rivers through rich farmland.)
So anyway... if the question is, as you phrase it, "whether Chinese prosperity could have occurred without the existence of Western values", well, maybe. Western technology, moreso than western values, has led to the rise of not only China, but dozens of other nations as well. Vaccination, industrialized farming, and other advances have created wealth throughout the world (again, read Factfulness!). It's not as simple as saying China succeeded by industrial espionage, any more than it's simple to say that America succeeded through exploitation of other nations. The technological acceleration of the past two centuries has been widespread, with widespread impacts.
But the "western values" I started with were democracy and free market capitalism. China succeeded without democracy or free market capitalism. Your continued insistence that China is a more violent and brutal state than the western nations only reinforces my initial argument.
> Without looking up data, I think it's safe to assume Europe's economies contracted substantially during WWII as well... At best, one might argue that the US recovered from WWII faster, because it was the only major nation left undamaged.
I'd argue you can't compare Great Leap Forward with WWII. The GLF was domestic policy (like Holodomer) and ultimately the responsibility of the government at the time. WWII was an international war, which definitionally is not domestic policy. Europe indeed did experience contraction coincident with WWII [0]. The United States had a surge of economic activity at this time, nearly doubling GDP during the war [1].
> As for the argument about the impact of concentration camps... the US currently has 2.3M people incarcerated with a third the population of China.
You're not comparing similar categories here. US prisons hold people convicted of crimes as determined by a constitutional judicial process. More than 50% of the prisoners were sentenced due to commission of a violent crime [2]. Yes, the prison system needs substantial reform, but I find it hard to believe that ~1mm convictions are illegitimate. Meanwhile, concentration camps imprison people without charges filed or intent to file charges (a violation of Article 9 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights). I'm not comfortable drawing an equivalence between a legal process and a clear breach of human rights.
> If you're arguing that this is somehow economically relevant
I never made such a claim. You requested "a measurable scale" of human capital and rights violations, so I attempted to quantify it with the number of lives impacted.
> I don't think the argument that "Countries with better infrastructure, physical, legal, and otherwise, should enjoy higher rates of growth" goes where you want it to go. Just about any "developing country" has a far higher rate of growth than the mature western nations with the best infrastructure.
My statement should have included the phrase "ceteris paribus". This paper [3] has been cited ~450 times, so I assume it reflects mainstream economic thought.
"The paper finds that IPRs affect economic growth indirectly by stimulating the accumulation of factor inputs like R&D and physical capital. The positive effects of IPRs on factor accumulation, particularly of R&D capital, are present even when the analysis controls for a more general measure of property rights"
> Speaking of developing nations, Argentina is not the example you want it to be, either.
Are you referring to this page [4] which states the following?
"Beginning in the 1930s, however, the Argentine economy deteriorated notably. The single most important factor in this decline has been political instability since 1930, when a military junta took power, ending seven decades of civilian constitutional government. In macroeconomic terms, Argentina was one of the most stable and conservative countries until the Great Depression, after which it turned into one of the most unstable. Despite this, up until 1962 the Argentine per capita GDP was higher than of Austria, Italy, Japan and of its former colonial master, Spain."
The source confirms that Argentina has a long history of economic difficulty and points to a chaotic legal infrastructure as an origin. Comparing the GDP per capita to other nations is valuable, as it indicates 1. the early strength of the Argentinian economy; 2. the length of time it took war ravaged nations to recover. However, we should also consider the 'missing' economic growth. Had Argentina enjoyed greater levels of political stability would the economy have maintained its trajectory? If so, Argentinians today enjoy less consumption than they would have otherwise.
> As an aside, in Prisoners of Geography, Tim Marshal argues that Argentina and other South American nations are ultimately limited...
Without having read the book, it sounds reasonable. Along those lines, there's a claimed relationship between a nation's natural resources known as the resource curse [5]. Perhaps this, too, has contributed to Argentina's economic woes?
> Western technology, moreso than western values, has led to the rise of not only China, but dozens of other nations as well... The technological acceleration of the past two centuries has been widespread, with widespread impacts.
I think we agree on this, but we don't see eye to eye on the origins of this acceleration. My understanding is that the acceleration in growth rates originated in Western Europe as a result of the Enlightenment [7]. Could the economic acceleration have occurred in other ways? Certainly it's conceivable, but in millennia of history it didn't happen any of those ways. So what were the values of the Enlightenment?
"In France, the central doctrines of the Enlightenment philosophers were individual liberty and religious tolerance, in opposition to an absolute monarchy and the fixed dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church." [6]
Those appear to be the values you identified earlier. As for capitalism, Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations helped formalize the understanding of free markets. China, itself, implements a form of capitalism [8].
> But the "western values" I started with were democracy and free market capitalism
To quote you they were "Western-style democracy, capitalism, and individualism". If you believe China has been the beneficiary of Western technology, then it logically follows that China's prosperity stems from those values.
The Great Leap Forward and WWII are absolutely comparable. China had been fighting colonial domination (first European, then Japanese) for almost 50 years by the time WWII (and Japanese occupation) ended. This was followed by several years of civil war that finally ended in 1949 with the exile of the nationalists to Taiwan. They had a population of illiterate, impoverished peasants, a demolished urban infrastructure, and a whole lot of local corruption to root out in order to consolidate power. A large-scale famine was inevitable. This was exacerbated by a total lack of international trade, due to anti-communist action in the West and an untrustworthy Soviet Union to the north. It was hard times.
As for Argentina... as you noted, Argentina was doing better than some European nations until the early 1960s. What happened? Well, back to the geography problem. Argentina is a remote nation, with limited ports. Spain, Italy, and Austria were part of Europe, possibly the most geographically gifted place on Earth (except for maybe the continental United States). And the US was dumping resources into Europe via the Marshall Plan, to rebuild the infrastructure and stabilize the governments. It's not surprising that they would eventually pass Argentina.
That said, the current state of Argentina is not bad. It's not rich, but it's on par with its peers in Chile and Brazil, and the debt from bad government in the 1970s/1980s is mostly paid off.
As for the cited paper... I really don't give a shit if it's been cited 450 times. It's demonstrably wrong. Developing nations with immature physical and legal infrastructures grow measurably faster than the wealthiest nations, with mature infrastructure. If you treat growth as an S-curve, this is totally an expected result. Double-digit growth rates in the developing world are not unusual. When's the last time a western nation had that kind of economic growth?
There are many paths to prosperity. Are you suggesting it's preferable to forsake democracy, capitalism, and individualism and implement a system of governance that encourages mass murder [0], famine [1], human rights abuses [2], industrial espionage [3], unsafe goods [4], and scientific fraud [5]?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_China
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine
[2] https://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/china/
[3] https://www.newsweek.com/china-involved-90-percent-economic-...
[4] https://qz.com/1133484/buying-infant-milk-powder-is-still-a-...
[5] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/13/world/asia/china-science-...