These help a lot to be sure, but the city has gone from having an economy that was almost a third of the mainland's in 1993, to a fifth at the handover, to less than 3% today.[0] It is still important but no longer crucial to China. In a generation or so, it will be just another city among dozens.
The idea that rights and liberties are absolutely essential is a nice bedtime story we can tell ourselves, but if there weren't multiple paths towards economic development, then China would never have risen to the current level. Even in the West we probably only got those rights because it made economic sense to have them with the way we developed over time.[1]
> These help a lot to be sure, but the city has gone from having an economy that was almost a third of the mainland's in 1993, to a fifth at the handover, to less than 3% today.
That is because of China's growth, not Hong Kong's loss. China was just way way behind in 1993.
> The idea that rights and liberties are absolutely essential is a nice bedtime story we can tell ourselves, but if there weren't multiple paths towards economic development, then China would never have risen to the current level.
Frankly, just being able to access gmail without using a flaky VPN is a huge boon to many when doing international business.
Well, China of course can make Hong Kong "a city among dozens" if it tries hard, but today a citizen of Hong Kong has an average income of $46 000, while a Chinese citizen only $8 960 [1]. For comparison, in Korea an average income is $28 000 and in Japan it is $38 000. But I agree that Chinese government definitely is able to lower the income of the citizens to Chinese average within 20 years.
> The idea that rights and liberties are absolutely essential
First, they are absolutely essential for higher quality of life. You cannot measure it with just GDP per capita or income per capita. For example, Middle Asian oil-selling countries might have high income, but life is not very pleasant there, especially if you are a woman, a gay, a journalist or part of any other minority.
Also, it is more difficult to make business in authoritarian countries because of excess control over any activities which creates opportunities for corruption. For example, in China to release a mere smartphone game, the developer first has to approve the scenario and characters in the government (yes, they really have such requirements). Of course, officials have no motivation to hurry because it is you who is losing profits, not them. And you have to repeat the procedure when releasing an update.
Also, in authoritarian countries the government typically tries to gain control over any large enterprise, and after that the profits are going to nobody knows where (but the friends and relatives of officials supervising the enterpsie suddenly become successful eneterpreneurs) and the losses are compensated from the budget.
Despite all of these absurd constraints on business, companies are bending over backwards to establish themselves in China, because the market is that huge and profitable.
All of these points are great, but HK became wealthy as an intermediary between Asia and the West. Now it is losing what remains of that role. They will lose their high salaries not primarily because of the mainland's interference (although I'm sure it'll be huge factor) but for the same reason that wages are stagnating or dropping in the West. As time goes by there are fewer and fewer clear reasons why the average HKer will be worth a higher salary than so many other nations.
I'm not exactly sure what your comment is even supposed to mean, but I'll bite. Maybe my predictions will turn out to be dead wrong, but as it stands it's unlikely that anyone is willing or prepared to stop what China is doing, and it's unlikely that Hong Kong is going to last very long because they have less and less power as time goes by. I personally am a lot more sympathetic to HK's struggle, and I encourage people to take to the streets because it is very likely to be their last stand. They certainly have more balls than I do. But life isn't like a movie and I'm pretty pessimistic about their chances.
If there is tyranny, it's just that it always comes down to power in the end. Freedom and the rule of law work well because they have made it easier for a society to flourish over the long term, but if conditions change so can their effectiveness. I wouldn't be surprised if human rights disappear like a puff of smoke if the 99% lose their bargaining power because of automation.
Actually, the fake news these days make me re-think the concept of `free speech`.
Firstly, More free speech sometimes means more fake news. Creating and spreading false or biased news are so easy, as the society goes, the problem we deal become more and more complicate, if we cannot get the right info and we do not possess the right mind how come expect us to make a ration decision, we all know what happened to Galileo, can anyone say
what they did to Galileo is undemocratic.
Secondly, the common crowd are not that care about the truth, i discussed with a few people lives in HK through the internet, they actually do not know anything about the extradition law, and they still went to the protest. This is why I do not believe in any form of direct democracy.
"Please don't make insinuations about astroturfing. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried, email us and we'll look at the data."
The idea that rights and liberties are absolutely essential is a nice bedtime story we can tell ourselves, but if there weren't multiple paths towards economic development, then China would never have risen to the current level. Even in the West we probably only got those rights because it made economic sense to have them with the way we developed over time.[1]
[0] http://www.ejinsight.com/20170609-hk-versus-china-gdp-a-sobe...
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-39706765