NO HK and China's econ

[elkarlo]

What if at the end of WWII, the Nationalists seized Hong Kong from the Japanese, or accepted their surrender. Then refused to return it to the British, whom the Americans would leave SOL in this situation.

That said, now with China, and how much money and know how has been transmitted through HK, how would China's 1990 to now growth be like? Would it be dramatically slower? Less foreign investment? Would more Taiwanese be involved than IOTL?

 

[elkarlo]

Anybody? I wanted to know if anyone knew about HK role in bringing China into the modern era, economically

 

[Jeb Bush]

more like China bailing out HK during the 96-97 asian recession

 

[elkarlo]

True. But Hong Kong was the vehicle for most of China's investments. No HK and it would have gone much slower/no?

 

[stjernkjempe]

True. But Hong Kong was the vehicle for most of China's investments. No HK and it would have gone much slower/no?

Not relay. ITTL of HK being in part of PRC and the civil war going largely as IOTL there is still Singapore, Taiwan and expat community in USA to connect china to other markets and foreign capital. PRC is such a big economic entity that they could drive their own industrialization by "mostly" internal demand like India but the growth rate would be "low" and "only" around 7-9% yearly. Its the economic policy's and enactment of them that mater more for large countries like Russia, China, India, USA, Indonesia etc... That said trade helps a lot like loot. Small open economies like Holland, Denmark, Norway and my Sweden is good examples of this but Spain and yes Greece are examples of this to only whit the reminder that economic policy matters a lot even for small open economies.

 

[Lucius Verus]

To be honest HK is just a proxy, and as proxies go they are expendable. If HK wasn't there, there's no reason another local financial center wouldn't have picked up the slack.

The bulk of the thanks goes to a "domestic" source, that is to say Taiwan. A close highly developed economy with similar culture and close proximity. It was the Taiwanese entrepreneurs that gave the Chinese the jump-start it needed, it was they that brought the skills, organization, and global supply chain integration that sped up the Chinese boom. And just a note, Taiwanese investors are treated differently from "Foreign" investors the details of which would span countless books of technicalities .

 

[Anaxagoras]

If the British don't control Hong Kong after the war, that means that John James Cowperthwaite never becomes Financial Secretary of Hong Kong and the policy of "positive noninterventionism" is never put into practice. This, in turn, means that Hong Kong is not the economic success story that it was IOTL.

 

[elkarlo]

Not relay. ITTL of HK being in part of PRC and the civil war going largely as IOTL there is still Singapore, Taiwan and expat community in USA to connect china to other markets and foreign capital. PRC is such a big economic entity that they could drive their own industrialization by "mostly" internal demand like India but the growth rate would be "low" and "only" around 7-9% yearly. Its the economic policy's and enactment of them that mater more for large countries like Russia, China, India, USA, Indonesia etc... That said trade helps a lot like loot. Small open economies like Holland, Denmark, Norway and my Sweden is good examples of this but Spain and yes Greece are examples of this to only whit the reminder that economic policy matters a lot even for small open economies.

True on Sing, but Taiwan, I think given their relationship, outside money wouldn't flow in that way.

I do know that tons of Taiwanese went to the Mainland starting in the late 80's, and many even had a second family there.

true, 7-9% could be done, much like India. But if they did it that way, China would be years behind where it is now. Much like India. Deleoping, but still has WAYS to go.

Esp if the joint ventures don't come. That would slow Chinese development down significantly. As the Chinese would have to learn things the hard way, instead of being taught

 

[elkarlo]

To be honest HK is just a proxy, and as proxies go they are expendable. If HK wasn't there, there's no reason another local financial center wouldn't have picked up the slack.

The bulk of the thanks goes to a "domestic" source, that is to say Taiwan. A close highly developed economy with similar culture and close proximity. It was the Taiwanese entrepreneurs that gave the Chinese the jump-start it needed, it was they that brought the skills, organization, and global supply chain integration that sped up the Chinese boom. And just a note, Taiwanese investors are treated differently from "Foreign" investors the details of which would span countless books of technicalities .

true, but HK being so dang close, and being so well versed in banking and industry, it would hard to fully replace it. They could but it wouldn't be the same

 

[RousseauX]

True on Sing, but Taiwan, I think given their relationship, outside money wouldn't flow in that way.

I do know that tons of Taiwanese went to the Mainland starting in the late 80's, and many even had a second family there.

true, 7-9% could be done, much like India. But if they did it that way, China would be years behind where it is now. Much like India. Deleoping, but still has WAYS to go.

Esp if the joint ventures don't come. That would slow Chinese development down significantly. As the Chinese would have to learn things the hard way, instead of being taught

Why wouldn't Taiwanese flow to the Mainland in lieu of Hong Kong?

The existence of HK doesn't account for the main difference between remittances of Chinese diaspora and the Indian diaspora: the former of which largely dedicate the money to investment while the latter for consumption. Taking away HK doesn't change the fundamental entrepreneur nature of the Chinese overseas communities and thus the investment flows into the mainland because it makes them money.

 

[EternalCynic]

Why wouldn't Taiwanese flow to the Mainland in lieu of Hong Kong?

The existence of HK doesn't account for the main difference between remittances of Chinese diaspora and the Indian diaspora: the former of which largely dedicate the money to investment while the latter for consumption. Taking away HK doesn't change the fundamental entrepreneur nature of the Chinese overseas communities and thus the investment flows into the mainland because it makes them money.

The absence of Hong Kong may lead to significant butterflies.

Deng will press harder for dialogue with Chiang (Jr.) on Taiwan. Chiang will restate is no-contacts-at-all policy. Reagan may well view a prospering China to be important. So he presses Chiang into talking with Deng. This may cause significant political effects.

The first SEZs will be located in Fujian, where most Taiwanese originate. Shanghai will be another major investment destination. This may well strengthen the emerging Shanghai faction in the Communist Party.

Guangdong will definitely remain an economic backwater until the 1990s.

 

[Anaxagoras]

true, but HK being so dang close, and being so well versed in banking and industry, it would hard to fully replace it. They could but it wouldn't be the same

But if the British are not in charge of Hong Kong after the war, Hong Kong wouldn't be so well-versed in banking and industry.

 

[elkarlo]

But if the British are not in charge of Hong Kong after the war, Hong Kong wouldn't be so well-versed in banking and industry.

That is my point. It would just be some town. If there is no HK of TTL, how would China develop?

 

[elkarlo]

Why wouldn't Taiwanese flow to the Mainland in lieu of Hong Kong?

The existence of HK doesn't account for the main difference between remittances of Chinese diaspora and the Indian diaspora: the former of which largely dedicate the money to investment while the latter for consumption. Taking away HK doesn't change the fundamental entrepreneur nature of the Chinese overseas communities and thus the investment flows into the mainland because it makes them money.

No, not from Taiwanese, but from people outside Taiwan. As, i feel that people would be hesitant to invest in a country that wasn't truly a country, and could go to war with China. I think the legal status of taiwan would turn off many people.

But it wasn't just Chinese money that went into China. It was mutual funds, and many companies investing via Hong Kong. Which would reduce the amount of investing imho. I mean by billions of dollars a year

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1O0tuyVDMtI has a lot of points made by HK businessmen.

 

[elkarlo]

The absence of Hong Kong may lead to significant butterflies.

Deng will press harder for dialogue with Chiang (Jr.) on Taiwan. Chiang will restate is no-contacts-at-all policy. Reagan may well view a prospering China to be important. So he presses Chiang into talking with Deng. This may cause significant political effects.

The first SEZs will be located in Fujian, where most Taiwanese originate. Shanghai will be another major investment destination. This may well strengthen the emerging Shanghai faction in the Communist Party.

Guangdong will definitely remain an economic backwater until the 1990s.

interesting. Thanks. Too bad you got banned

 

[EternalCynic]

interesting. Thanks. Too bad you got banned

I'm not banned. I'm Ssanned.

 

[elkarlo]

I'm not banned. I'm Ssanned.

So, would no HK have made Shanghai even more important than it is now?

Also, would there be an appreciative drop in foreign investment? Given Taiwan's legal status?

 

[EternalCynic]

So, would no HK have made Shanghai even more important than it is now?

Also, would there be an appreciative drop in foreign investment? Given Taiwan's legal status?

Too hard to say. But Hong Kong retains so many soft advantages (e.g. clean government, good rule of law, English speaking, etc) that even Taiwan lacks. Taiwan can pick up some of Hong Kong's status, but not all. Shanghai IOTL remained a backwater until 1990, so its growth will be earlier. But China itself will grow at a slower pace, like 5 or 6 %.

As for Taiwan itself, its ambiguous legal status wasn't a barrier to investment IOTL so it won't be ITTL. The most important butterfly will be the cross strait relations. Until 1987 the entire ROC was under "temporary martial law" to fight against "communist bandits". ITTL Reagan will likely push for dialogue. The butterflies can be huge.

 

[stjernkjempe]

True on Sing, but Taiwan, I think given their relationship, outside money wouldn't flow in that way.

I do know that tons of Taiwanese went to the Mainland starting in the late 80's, and many even had a second family there.

true, 7-9% could be done, much like India. But if they did it that way, China would be years behind where it is now. Much like India. Deleoping, but still has WAYS to go.

Esp if the joint ventures don't come. That would slow Chinese development down significantly. As the Chinese would have to learn things the hard way, instead of being taught

Why wouldn't Taiwanese flow to the Mainland in lieu of Hong Kong?

The existence of HK doesn't account for the main difference between remittances of Chinese diaspora and the Indian diaspora: the former of which largely dedicate the money to investment while the latter for consumption. Taking away HK doesn't change the fundamental entrepreneur nature of the Chinese overseas communities and thus the investment flows into the mainland because it makes them money.

The absence of Hong Kong may lead to significant butterflies.

Deng will press harder for dialogue with Chiang (Jr.) on Taiwan. Chiang will restate is no-contacts-at-all policy. Reagan may well view a prospering China to be important. So he presses Chiang into talking with Deng. This may cause significant political effects.

The first SEZs will be located in Fujian, where most Taiwanese originate. Shanghai will be another major investment destination. This may well strengthen the emerging Shanghai faction in the Communist Party.

Guangdong will definitely remain an economic backwater until the 1990s.

No, not from Taiwanese, but from people outside Taiwan. As, i feel that people would be hesitant to invest in a country that wasn't truly a country, and could go to war with China. I think the legal status of taiwan would turn off many people.

But it wasn't just Chinese money that went into China. It was mutual funds, and many companies investing via Hong Kong. Which would reduce the amount of investing imho. I mean by billions of dollars a year

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1O0tuyVDMtI has a lot of points made by HK businessmen.

HK Banks were good at stealing (yes outright stealing) clients from Taiwanese Banks in the 80is and 90is. When it were clear HK would make the transition into China proper it all accelerated on the basis of "why invest in Taipei when you can stay in HK and get into china directly". ITTL this is not so much the case and Taipei is the only game in town whit inside connections (ignoring SP).

Now the analysis that the Shanghai faction of the communist party is interesting. Its where the butterflies is born. No HK acting as a secondary point of contact whit the western world makes Shanghai all to valuable. So when they take it mid 49 (or is it later ITTL due to HK being part of ROC?) they cant afford to let here harbors be as damaged as they were ITTL. The early party wanted its options open (several overtures to USA were rebuffed after all) and this is reflected in Shanghai IOTL so it would be even more so ITTL.

While the great leap might go off as IOTL the cultural revolution wont fly at all if the Shanghai faction is stronger ITTL. They were neither agrarian or Stalinist so the cultural revolution might be cut short and bloodier whit less intellectuals ending their days on the Chinese farmlands.

There is also plenty of interesting people from HK that would end up in Taiwan and SP instead of staying in HK ITTL. ROC taking HK from Britan might also make them listen to PRC when they come asking for the seat in UN and it would lead to USSR not walking out. thus no Korea war ITTL... and from that the cold war is butterflied massively...