Chinese Economics Thread

[Hendrik_2000]

First of all, I know nothing, or do nothing like in the highlighted texts in the first paragraph. Actually, I don't know who they are, nor what they did. So I don't have so much mentality, culture or psychological influence from the west. To be honest, much less than you. All I am familiar with the west are materialistic, such as tech, science, military, industry and history (not the right or wrong part which is culture related, but the fact part).

Second of all, the rest highlighted texts you just said is what I am saying all this time. By saying "it happened with every civilization" you are acknowledging that China will face the same problem/challenge as the west some time, which is what I was saying (the west and China both had ups and downs). This is exactly the kind of mistake that the article seemed to make that is "some culture is guaranteed certain success". If you admit the downfall of the west (today) is due to its "cradle to grave, achievement", then you must admit that it is not due to an "inferior" culture, after all social welfare is far from being part of culture, China had that too before 1980s, that led China's almost broke. Is that then failure of Chinese culture? Certainly not, then why would these things become proof of western's culture's shortcoming today? Wasn't China extremely political in the 1960s and 1970s? More so than the west?

To reinterate, all I want to say is that

1. There is no culture supremacy that contribute to the success
2. Culture itself is just another product of human economy activity.
3. Therefor, every culture has its ups and downs, pros and cons. That applies equally on China and any other culture. China is not exception.

Remember, there is a country right now thinking it is unique and exceptional, it is where the author lives right now. The author should think again if there is truly exceptional culture by just look around himself. His flattering China does not make him right, nor does it help China (but rather opposite), and I totally object that.

Communism failed China it has nothing to do with Chinese culture Add to that the low rank that Merchant hold in Chinese society contribute why China was poor Then DXP travel to SEA and he see with his own eye how overseas Chinese thrive and he ask why ?
You get the answer "To get rich is glorious"

I never say Chinese culture is the best But Chinese culture did value hard work, honesty, treat the other people fairly, thrift all of the characteristic for a successful businessman
That contribute to their success
Think of it why should a customer goes back for a deal if he does not treat fairly of feel cheated

You get it the other way round economic activity is human activity and it reflect the value(culture) of that person as I explain it above

I agree with your 3rd point

 

[solarz]

Communism failed China it has nothing to do with Chinese culture Add to that the low rank that Merchant hold in Chinese society contribute why China was poor Then DXP travel to SEA and he see with his own eye how overseas Chinese thrive and he ask why ?
You get the answer "To get rich is glorious"

I never say Chinese culture is the best But Chinese culture did value hard work, honesty, treat the other people fairly, thrift all of the characteristic for a successful businessman
That contribute to their success
Think of it why should a customer goes back for a deal if he does not treat fairly of feel cheated

You get it the other way round economic activity is human activity and it reflect the value(culture) of that person as I explain it above

I agree with your 3rd point

I have to strongly disagree with your views. You are exhibiting the same ethnocentrism that characterized 19th century western intellectuals. You even use the same kind of circular logic.

Chinese culture does not predispose success. 5000 years of Chinese rise and fall proves the fallacy of that argument. What Chinese culture is particularly strong at is to provide an enduring identity, even through centuries of decline.

 

[Tse]

I think Hendrik is talking about culture like work ethic, parenting, sociocultural obstacles like excessive concern about certain "rights", preconceptions regarding foreign methodology, rather than culture in the sense of "ethnocultural heritage" which obviously is only superficial and has no significant influence on economics. I think it's difficult to deny that Westerners have been getting a little spoilt lately. I seem to recall that in one European country, most workers spend half their working hours taking naps. We all know that the work ethic in different provinces of China is quite varied; we SEA Chinese are descended from Guangdong/Fujian and inherited their behaviour - I heard that many Northerners see us as crafty people, which also how we are viewed by most Malays, Pinoys, Viets, Burmese, Thais etc., yet nowadays we see the millenials rapidly adopting modern-Western work ethic and have become a menace to employers. Chinese socioeconomic principles were not always the same, e.g. Well-field system (Zhou era tenant farming), Equal-field system (Tang era land redistribution). Despite the supposed anti-commercial ideals from the Zhou dynasty, as early as the Han period, most travelling merchants were able to avoid registration: built connections with officials, bought up huge tracts of land and wore fine silks, in many cases becoming wealthier than even top nobles. From the Song dynasty onwards merchants became so respectable that even Confucian scholars started becoming traders through proxies and colluding with the great merchant associations which had formed, and by the Ming they even proudly declared in family histories that their family members were merchants, cooperating with merchants to build infrastructure. Taoists were known to promote low tax privatisation, legalists planned economy, and under Confucians there were government-funded free-of-charge public hospitals, public schools etc., hence the fluctuations in China's history, and even then, a particular policy only works well when in a suitable situation (e.g. supply side economics), and in any case wealth and even technology does not usually correspond to power - as the Song dynasty can show.
Now just to be clear, according to economic historians (e.g. Paul Bairoch), the GDP per capita in some provinces of China were still on par with Western Europe until 1800, and the rest was on par with the rest of Europe. Only after the British started smuggling tons of opium (they grew so much, they starved to death 10 million Indians to make way for opium) that the capital outflow caused a deflationary spiral (like the Great Depression) triggering devastating rebellions which killed almost 1/4 (!) of China's population and wiped what was left of the economy. In the Self strengthening movement, steamships, modern mines and cotton mills, telegraph etc. were built up extensively, and countless students were sent to US, Germany and Japan. British, German and Russian officers who inspected the military said that it was the most modern in Asia: it managed to intimidate the Russians into withdrawing from Xinjiang (1881), defeat the French on land (1884) and Britain was worried that China might conquer Australia! The reason why China kept getting thrashed was not technology but warlordism: during the Taiping/Nian/Lilan/Panthay/Dungan Rebellion, the Banners were annihilated and the Imperial Court was not able to fully control the (Huai Army, Chu Army etc.) modern private armies who quelled the rebels. In 1884 the Beiyang fleet ignored orders, refusing to fight, and then the Nanyang fleet did the same in 1895, and in 1900 TEN provinces sided with the foreigners. The commanders could not even get removed for corruption or even treason - hence the rise of warlords in 1915. The century of humiliation was the poorest China ever reached in history, and it was not caused by culture.

 

[solarz]

I think Hendrik is talking about culture like work ethic, parenting, sociocultural obstacles like excessive concern about certain "rights", preconceptions regarding foreign methodology, rather than culture in the sense of "ethnocultural heritage" which obviously is only superficial and has no significant influence on economics. I think it's difficult to deny that Westerners have been getting a little spoilt lately. I seem to recall that in one European country, most workers spend half their working hours taking naps. We all know that the work ethic in different provinces of China is quite varied; we SEA Chinese are descended from Guangdong/Fujian and inherited their behaviour - I heard that many Northerners see us as crafty people, which also how we are viewed by most Malays, Pinoys, Viets, Burmese, Thais etc., yet nowadays we see the millenials rapidly adopting modern-Western work ethic and have become a menace to employers. Chinese socioeconomic principles were not always the same, e.g. Well-field system (Zhou era tenant farming), Equal-field system (Tang era land redistribution). Despite the supposed anti-commercial ideals from the Zhou dynasty, as early as the Han period, most travelling merchants were able to avoid registration: built connections with officials, bought up huge tracts of land and wore fine silks, in many cases becoming wealthier than even top nobles. From the Song dynasty onwards merchants became so respectable that even Confucian scholars started becoming traders through proxies and colluding with the great merchant associations which had formed, and by the Ming they even proudly declared in family histories that their family members were merchants, cooperating with merchants to build infrastructure. Taoists were known to promote low tax privatisation, legalists planned economy, and under Confucians there were government-funded free-of-charge public hospitals, public schools etc., hence the fluctuations in China's history, and even then, a particular policy only works well when in a suitable situation (e.g. supply side economics), and in any case wealth and even technology does not usually correspond to power - as the Song dynasty can show.
Now just to be clear, according to economic historians (e.g. Paul Bairoch), the GDP per capita in some provinces of China were still on par with Western Europe until 1800, and the rest was on par with the rest of Europe. Only after the British started smuggling tons of opium (they grew so much, they starved to death 10 million Indians to make way for opium) that the capital outflow caused a deflationary spiral (like the Great Depression) triggering devastating rebellions which killed almost 1/4 (!) of China's population and wiped what was left of the economy. In the Self strengthening movement, steamships, modern mines and cotton mills, telegraph etc. were built up extensively, and countless students were sent to US, Germany and Japan. British, German and Russian officers who inspected the military said that it was the most modern in Asia: it managed to intimidate the Russians into withdrawing from Xinjiang (1881), defeat the French on land (1884) and Britain was worried that China might conquer Australia! The reason why China kept getting thrashed was not technology but warlordism: during the Taiping/Nian/Lilan/Panthay/Dungan Rebellion, the Banners were annihilated and the Imperial Court was not able to fully control the (Huai Army, Chu Army etc.) modern private armies who quelled the rebels. In 1884 the Beiyang fleet ignored orders, refusing to fight, and then the Nanyang fleet did the same in 1895, and in 1900 TEN provinces sided with the foreigners. The commanders could not even get removed for corruption or even treason - hence the rise of warlords in 1915. The century of humiliation was the poorest China ever reached in history, and it was not caused by culture.

This is a very warped interpretation of history.

The Beiyang fleet refused to fight the French because their commanders knew they would be annihilated. The Black Flag may have won some battles against the French, but ultimately Vietnam became a French colony. Later on, the entire Beiyang fleet was annihilated by the Japanese.

Why do you think the Banner armies could not withstand the Taiping rebellion? Why do you think the imperial court tolerated the creation of the Huai and Xiang armies?

The fall of the Qing dynasty was like the fall of every other major dynasty: corruption in the imperial court leading to mismanagement of the agrarian sector, leading to widespread famine, leading to peasant rebellions. It is a familiar pattern played out again and again throughout Chinese history.

Song was a wealthy dynasty, but its court politics produced a string of weak emperors. Those weak emperors caused the loss of vital strategic lands, depriving Song of the ability to breed its own horses for war. That became the fatal weakness of the Song military. China today is also still relying on foreign countries for certain key military technology, but unlike the Song dynasty, China's economic success has enabled it to make great strides toward acquiring those technologies.

 

[solarz]

I think the disconnect here is that we are talking about two different kinds of success.

@Hendrik_2000 and @Tse are referring to personal success, where one makes money, provides for their family, and maybe build some legacy for the kids.

@taxiya, @plawolf, and I are talking about national success, which is a different matter altogether.

Yes, I would agree that in personal success, the culture of overseas Chinese plays a big part. We value education, good work ethics and familial bonds, which allows us to achieve financial success over generations. However, personal success does not necessarily translate into national success. Just because our culture enable us to do well as immigrants, does not mean that same culture will necessarily make China, as a nation, succeed.

I can understand that, as immigrants whose family left China before the founding of the PRC, some of you may not be very familiar with the developmental path of modern China, but I can assure you, China's success today is built not upon culture, but upon policy.

First is the policy of land reforms. While it did lead to the great famine of the 60's, it also empowered hundreds of millions of Chinese who previously lived under the whims and mercies of their landlords. This empowerment allowed the creation of a vision, THE vision, of a modern China where everyone is equal. It might sound trite and cliché today, but in 1949, it was an utopian dream. Without this vision, modern China would not have been possible. This was what Sun Zhongshan sought to achieve, but he never succeeded in spreading this vision beyond the intelligentsia. Mao's greatest contribution to Chinese history is the spread of this vision to every Chinese citizen, and it would not have been possible without those land reforms.

Second is the policy of "Two Bombs and one Satellite". In the deepest throes of the Cultural Revolution, the government decided to pursue these three highly ambitious scientific programs. The success of these programs assured China's military security, and kickstarted China's scientific expertise. In only 10 years, China went from digging in the dirt to sending satellites into space!

Third is the policy of market reform initiated by Deng Xiaoping. I believe we are all familiar with its results, and I needn't explain those further.

Those are just the major, landmark, policies. Aside from them, there are countless smaller policies and initiatives that built China into what it is today. It was not Chinese culture that initiated and then implemented these policies, it was the existence of a strong, central authority, and the support and belief of an empowered Chinese population.

 

[Tse]

Why do you think the Banner armies could not withstand the Taiping rebellion? Why do you think the imperial court tolerated the creation of the Huai and Xiang armies?

Actually that was directed at hendrik's mention of Kang Youwei. The Banner armies were destroyed because they had decayed into a ceremonial force with barely any training after the end of the Dzungarian Wars, and the Green Standard were equipped as police forces rather than soldiers - during the Late Ming/Early Qing, China was extremely enthusiastic about Portuguese military tech. The problem was that the government did not take defence seriously later on: it cannot be ascribed to culture (Manchu culture is peaceful?!), but policy.

The Beiyang fleet refused to fight the French because their commanders knew they would be annihilated. The Black Flag may have won some battles against the French, but ultimately Vietnam became a French colony. Later on, the entire Beiyang fleet was annihilated by the Japanese.

Actually I was thinking about the Battle of Zhennan Pass and Phu Lam Tao, the Tonkin Affair, and the Retreat from Lang Son, which was such an embarassment to France that the Prime Minister was ousted, France stopped all colonial adventures for 10 years, and the Chamber of deputies voted just 3 votes short for withdrawal. China was forced to concede because the naval defeat cut the supply chain to Taiwan. (PO, Chung-yam (28 June 2013). Conceptualizing the Blue Frontier: The Great Qing and the Maritime World in the Long Eighteenth Century (PDF) (Thesis). Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg. p. 11.)

Bruce A. Elleman (2001). Modern Chinese warfare, 1795–1989 (illustrated ed.). Psychology Press. p. 87,89. ISBN 0-415-21474-2. "Not surprisingly, considering Li Hongzhang's political power, many of the best and most modern ships found their way into Li's northern fleet, which never saw any action in the Sino-French conflict. In fact, fear that he might lost control over his fleet led Li to refuse to even consider sending his ships southward to aid the Fuzhou fleet against the French. Although Li later claimed that moving his fleet southward would have left northern China undefended, his decision has been criticized as a sign of China's factionalized government as well as its provincial north-south mindest. ... China's central fleet, based in Jiangsu Province, proved unable to break through Admiral Courbet's blockade of Taiwan. Although the south quickly requested assistance from the northern fleet, Li Hongzhang refused to place his own ships in danger. This decision almost guaranteed that China's coastal waters would be dominated by the French."

The 1895 defeat was caused by massive corruption, due to the military cliques being totally unaccountable - with ammunition missing, maintenance funds squandered, salaries unpaid etc. But before the war, British and German military experts were totally convinced that China would win (I was shocked to read this too) (Kwang-Ching, Liu (1978). John King Fairbank, ed. The Cambridge History of China. Volume 11, Late Ch'ing, 1800–1911 Part 2 (illustrated ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-22029-7. Page 269) The Imperial court also cut off funding for the Beiyang fleet after 1889, and tech advances 1884-1895 were quite great, so it would certainly have been more effective in 1884 and whether they would have lost is uncertain, but the Nanyang and Fujian Fleet didn't seem to care, and even slight French losses could have pushed the anti-colonial faction over the threshold.

Weakness was caused by the rise of the cliques - only inevitable because of the rebellions caused by British opium smuggling which was unhindered because of China's defence policy 1759-1853, but not "culture". What I'm trying to say is that the claim that Chinese had some kind of cultural refusal to modernise (which a lot of Westerners love to repeat) is greatly exaggerated. But I am not trying to say that the success of China is a purely cultural phenomenon. Land reform: Chiang did that in 1950s, ditto for mainland. Defence: he had the USN. DXP open-up & reform = ROC 1959 19-point prog of econ and financ reform. So of course policies led to results. But there is a cultural aspect when obstructionist lobbies appear due to dubious "rights" and anti-so-and-so sentiment, which we see in Hong Kong & Taiwan right now, and elsewhere. And I'm not saying that culture is a magic wand that can save the nation from everything.

This is rather important to us personally, because down here there are even today hordes of certain ethnicities who LOVE to say that Chinese became wealthier because of "colonial policy", "extortion/bribery/triads", my favourite: "worshipping demons" and other rubbish in order to justify stealing our possessions, wiping our identity or outright massacres. Every single country in SEA (except SG, debatably) has these kind of policies.

 

[taxiya]

I think the disconnect here is that we are talking about two different kinds of success.

@Hendrik_2000 and @Tse are referring to personal success, where one makes money, provides for their family, and maybe build some legacy for the kids.

@taxiya, @plawolf, and I are talking about national success, which is a different matter altogether.

Yes, I would agree that in personal success, the culture of overseas Chinese plays a big part. We value education, good work ethics and familial bonds, which allows us to achieve financial success over generations. However, personal success does not necessarily translate into national success. Just because our culture enable us to do well as immigrants, does not mean that same culture will necessarily make China, as a nation, succeed.

I can understand that, as immigrants whose family left China before the founding of the PRC, some of you may not be very familiar with the developmental path of modern China, but I can assure you, China's success today is built not upon culture, but upon policy.

First is the policy of land reforms. While it did lead to the great famine of the 60's, it also empowered hundreds of millions of Chinese who previously lived under the whims and mercies of their landlords. This empowerment allowed the creation of a vision, THE vision, of a modern China where everyone is equal. It might sound trite and cliché today, but in 1949, it was an utopian dream. Without this vision, modern China would not have been possible. This was what Sun Zhongshan sought to achieve, but he never succeeded in spreading this vision beyond the intelligentsia. Mao's greatest contribution to Chinese history is the spread of this vision to every Chinese citizen, and it would not have been possible without those land reforms.

Second is the policy of "Two Bombs and one Satellite". In the deepest throes of the Cultural Revolution, the government decided to pursue these three highly ambitious scientific programs. The success of these programs assured China's military security, and kickstarted China's scientific expertise. In only 10 years, China went from digging in the dirt to sending satellites into space!

Third is the policy of market reform initiated by Deng Xiaoping. I believe we are all familiar with its results, and I needn't explain those further.

Those are just the major, landmark, policies. Aside from them, there are countless smaller policies and initiatives that built China into what it is today. It was not Chinese culture that initiated and then implemented these policies, it was the existence of a strong, central authority, and the support and belief of an empowered Chinese population.

Totally agree, it is the different perspectives that leads to the disagreement.

Oversea Chinese migrant see personal, community tradition and ethic as the whole thing of culture, a narrow definition. From this point, people see culture as the sole reason for their success compared with other people around them, because that culture is the only difference. People also limit the scope to a few generations after their ancestor settled in the foreign countries, and they only see "going upwards".

Chinese citizens in China, on the other hand, see extra things as part of culture (broader definition), the institution, the machinery of the state that connect every community and individual. That part of culture has evolved over continuously for thousands of years. From this perspective, Chinese see not only the recent raising of China, but also constantly reminded by the failing of China every 300s years. Then the picture is all different from oversea Chinese, we see chaos, defeat and disasters as well as glories. It is this experience and awareness that Chinese dismiss the notion of culture supremacy.

 

[solarz]

This is rather important to us personally, because down here there are even today hordes of certain ethnicities who LOVE to say that Chinese became wealthier because of "colonial policy", "extortion/bribery/triads", my favourite: "worshipping demons" and other rubbish in order to justify stealing our possessions, wiping our identity or outright massacres. Every single country in SEA (except SG, debatably) has these kind of policies.

I totally understand where you're coming from, and I do believe the successes achieved by overseas Chinese in their respective countries are due to our culture.

However, I just don't agree with the view that this culture caused the rise of China as a modern nation.

In many ways, the culture of overseas Chinese is different from the culture of Chinese in China. Overseas Chinese underwent selective pressure, right from the start. Only people with a certain drive would choose to emigrate in the first place. Further, those Chinese who don't make it overseas tend to return to China, which is why you don't see many Chinese beggars in foreign countries. Those who remain, and thrive, are those with those strong work ethics and drive for success.

Chinese in China face very different pressures, and don't have the option of returning home.

 

[taxiya]

Someting in the line of this
南橘北枳，成语，出自《

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

·内篇杂下》：“橘生淮南则为橘，生于

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

则为枳，叶徒相似，其实味不同。所以然者何？水土异也。”

晏子将使楚，楚王闻之，谓左右曰：“晏婴，齐之习辞者也，今方来，吾欲辱之，何以也？”左右对曰：“为其来也，臣请缚一人，过王而行，王曰：‘何为者也？’对曰：‘齐人也。’王曰：‘何坐？’曰：‘坐盗。’”晏子至，楚王赐晏子酒，酒酣，吏二缚一人诣王，王曰：“缚者曷为者也？”对曰：“齐人也，坐盗。”王视晏子曰：“齐人固善盗乎？”晏子避席对曰：“婴闻之，橘生淮南则为橘，生于淮北则为枳，叶徒相似，其实味不同。所以然者何？水土异也。今民生长于齐不盗，入楚则盗，得无楚之水土使民善盗耶？”王笑曰：“圣人非所与熙也，寡人反取病焉。”

The true orange from the south becomes trifoliate orange, looks same, but different because of environment.

Yan Zi (of Qi kingom) visited Chu (kingdom), King of Chu was determined to humiliate him. The King let a prisoner to pass his front when receiving Yan Zi, the King then asked "where is the criminal from", the answer is arranged "from Qi". The King then asked Yan Zi "your people are good at being thief?". Yan Zi said "I heard Orange grow in south, but become trifoliate because of different earth and water. The Qi person does not steal at home, but becomes thief after moving to Chu, it must be that Chu makes them steal?" The King laughed and replied "I should not have joked with sage like you, now I am humiliated".

Learn from our ancestors, be humble, don't act like the King of Chu.

 

[Franklin]

Empires and people's rise and fall is due to human nature itself. People work hard and sacrifice and they reach the top. After being at the top for a while they become lazy, decadent, arrogant and they begin taking things for granted and they will begin to fall. This has nothing to do with culture, race, religion, politics or ethnicity but its due to the fact that we are humans and its part of our DNA. No one escapes from it.