I have applauded the incredible economic success of Hong Kong, which has long been ranked as the world’s most economically free jurisdiction.
Well, given China’s recent decision to impose more controls on Hong Kong, I want to share this interview I did last October.
At the risk of patting myself on the back, I think everything I said still applies.
Especially when compared to what some others are saying. Writing for Bloomberg last October, Shirley Zhao and Bruce Einhorn seemingly want readers to think that low tax rates somehow are the cause of Hong Kong’s challenges.
Hong Kong has remained the world’s freest economy, thanks partly to low taxes and the rule of law. But widening inequality has also fueled the worst unrest the city has seen since the former British colony returned to China in 1997.
…The combined net worth of the territory’s 20 richest people…is pegged at $210 billion… the city’s income inequality, as expressed in Gini coefficient, was the most for any developed economy in 2016… About 1 in 5 residents lives below the poverty line. …Lam is under pressure to soothe tensions and find ways to ease the housing crisis in the least-affordable market without rocking a tax regime that made Hong Kong Asia’s financial hub.
I disagree with much of their analysis.
As I noted in the interview, the problem with housing is caused by government ownership of land.
Moreover, I can’t resist pointing out that the assertion about 20 percent of the population living in poverty has been shown to be utter nonsense. That figure comes from “poverty hucksters” who deliberately conflate inequality with poverty (an example of the “Eighth Theorem of Government“).
And, speaking of inequality, Hong Kong historically has been a great place to be poor for the simple reason that it’s a great place to climb out of poverty.
Or, to be more precise, it’s been a great place to climb out of poverty. Whether that will still be true in the future depends on China.
I have no idea what Beijing will do, but I explained in the interview that it would be good for everyone if China took a hands-off approach to Hong Kong.
Why? This chart, based on the Maddison database, shows that Hong Kong’s rapid growth rate has slowed ever since Hong Kong was transferred from British rule to Chinese rule. Since China has wisely not interfered with Hong Kong’s pro-growth economic policy, the most logical explanation for the slowdown is that entrepreneurs and investors are worried about what may happen in the future.
Needless to say, the best way to rejuvenate rapid growth is for Beijing to somehow display a commitment to economic liberty in Hong Kong (consistent with the one-country-two-systems approach).
P.S. As I warned in the interview, the United States should not goad China into any sort of crackdown, either political or economic.
P.P.S. The best-case scenario is a Singapore-style evolution in China, meaning sweeping economic liberalization and gradual political liberalization.
P.P.P.S. The worst-case scenario is backsliding by China on previous economic liberalization, combined with unfriendly relations with the western world.
[…] Given that is used to be a role model, the last two sentences about Hong Kong are rather depressing. […]
[…] Given that is used to be a role model, the last two sentences about Hong Kong are rather depressing. […]
[…] Given China’s increased influence, I’m also not surprised that many successful people are now escaping Hong […]
[…] may not bode well for the durability of Hong Kong’s spending […]
[…] may not bode well for the durability of Hong Kong’s spending […]
[…] may not bode well for the durability of Hong Kong’s spending […]
[…] difference between Cuba and Hong Kong. But since Hong Kong’s economic attractiveness is being eroded by China, let’s instead see how Cuba compares to a handful of other […]
[…] the difference between Cuba and Hong Kong. But since Hong Kong’s economic attractiveness is being eroded by China, let’s instead see how Cuba compares to a handful of other […]
[…] Let’s now give some extra attention to Hong Kong. […]
[…] I can’t really use Hong Kong as an example any more, and now it looks like I’ll have to drop Chile off my list. So my […]
[…] of Economic Freedom of the World, I largely focused on the jurisdictions that got high scores (Hong Kong, Singapore, and New Zealand) and countries that got low scores (Venezuela in last place, of […]
[…] may be wondering how Hong Kong is still ranked […]
[…] may be wondering how Hong Kong is still ranked […]
[…] the world’s freest nation wasn’t actually a nation. It was Hong Kong, the autonomous (at the time) region of China. Switzerland was in second place, followed by New Zealand, Ireland, and Denmark […]
[…] Have the warlords turned the Horn of Africa to a new version of what Hong Kong used to be? […]
[…] Hong Kong vs. the United States […]
[…] *Let’s hope China doesn’t ruin Hong Kong’s economy. […]
[…] *Let’s hope China doesn’t ruin Hong Kong’s economy. […]
[…] 1. Hong Kong is no longer in first place. Indeed, it’s no longer even part of the rankings because the authors have determined that Hong Kong no longer has real sovereignty. […]
[…] 1. Hong Kong is no longer in first place. Indeed, it’s no longer even part of the rankings because the authors have determined that Hong Kong no longer has real sovereignty. […]
[…] Kong’s political autonomy, but I fear it is just a matter of time before economic freedom is negatively impacted. For what it’s worth, I’m also distressed that economic policy seems to be moving in […]
[…] Which is why is better to be on the correct side of this spectrum. In other words, as far from Soviet-style central planning as possible (I used to cite Hong Kong as an example of laissez-faire, but that may no longer be accurate). […]
[…] Singapore has now displaced Hong Kong as the world’s most market-friendly jurisdiction (because Hong Kong’s score declined, not because Singapore’s score increased), with New Zealand, Australia, and Switzerland […]
[…] But I sadly concur that the trendline for Hong Kong is not overly encouraging. […]
Reblogged this on Boudica BPI Weblog.
To me, the biggest flaw in the Zhao-Einhorn piece is that they must be reading the Beijing propaganda as their sole source. The “worst unrest the city has seen” has nothing to do with income inequality. It is explicitly and unambiguously tied to the despotic efforts to suspend the rule of law. The protesters are not the unequallly poor. They are the students and the rising young professionals and shop keepers who value their liberty for both its economic and human advantages.
So in 1997, the global Leftists applauded the City of Hong Kong freeing themselves from the colonial chains of the UK and joined the communist-sponsored “freedom” of the Peoples Republic of China.
Fast forward 20 years and see the riots in Hong Kong that occurred when the communist overlords in Beijing decided justice (communist style) would be dispensed in the PRC proper, not in the city of Hong Kong.
Although authoritarian governments have never lasted long, it is amazing that so many people world-wide, including our beloved U.S.A., buy whole heartedly into communism/socialism/Marxism (call it what you will). The main selling point for authoritarianism is simply that, as Marx and Engels wrote, the landlords would lose their private property and it would be given to the proletariat. Marx claimed that communism’s cornerstone was the abolition of private property.
It’s a seriously pragmatically-flawed economic concept but it plays very well to the unpropertied masses (Alinsky called them the “have nots”). Capitalism relies on the accumulation of private property. Those who have none are critical of those who do have some and thus the homeless and very poor are the main recruits for a Marxist revolution or, at least, a Fabian socialist system.
Hong Kong is a wealthy city (thanks to the UK) and only 20% of the people are below the poverty line (?) (during the Obama regime, the U.S.A. the figure was 12 – 15%). The communists in the PRC would like to keep Hong Kong “barefoot and pregnant).
I remember hearing jackasses 20 years ago pointing at the hordes of poor people clustered around the outskirts of Hong Kong and saying that was proof that the place was horrible. When I pointed out that all those poor people were attracted to Hong Kong from other places because there was more opportunity there because of the proximity to Hong Kong, they had nothing say. They didn’t learn anything, of course, they just had nothing clever to say about it.