"Trust me on this" doesn't carry any weight. We very much like to see your rational arguments.

The great leap forward killed over 30 million people, while the cultural thingie killed about 2 million, as well as destroyed education for the entire populace (education=economic foundation). Tell me, how is that better than pre-1949 China? Also, as an economist, could you kindly tell us the difference between mainland China and Taiwan in terms of per-capita GDP? thanks

“2> you said "The economic performance of the "Chinese Communist Party Fund" in the past 10, 5, and 1 years all exceed world average performance. So it is a fund that performs well in short, medium, and long terms. ".
In terms of past 10,5 or 1 years, you are right. but in terms of past 50 years, you are wrong. why? because, as i knew, under KMT rule, the income per chinese was ranking more higher than that of today. so this comes a conclusion, in terms of 50 years, this fund performs worse than 50 years ago;�

You must be dreaming if you think the average Chinese person had a better life during the Nationalist 1927-49 era than in the post-1949 period.

Absolutely 100% dead wrong. Trust me on this.
.

what i am going to say is that the criterion is very important. if you choose a specific and special time span to compare between China Corp and other foreign corp, you must play a fair game. Using a strategy same as a famous chinese story-"Tian Ji Sai Ma"(use one's best horse to compete with others' common horse, use one's common horse to compete with other' worst horse, use one's worst horse to compete with others' best horse, then one should get a 2:1 victory) is not fair. Here i can see Math use same strategy by using China Corp's best performace time span(starting from 1980) to compete with others.

besides, when we are going to pick the stock, we usually should take the RISK into our consideration. stock market always has RISKS. sometimes RISKS is unavoidable, sometimes the RISKS are catastrophy that may costs all of your savings. so this comes a question, how risk the China Corp may have? I knew this is a complicate question, but you know, there are so many pessimissim upon this stock. some thinks that this stock may collapse because their "financials/management/controlling" policies are not transparance. the risk of this stock mainly lies on its leader-CCP. if CCP goes wrong, then this stock may goes wrong too. if CCP goes to disatrous, then this stock may also goes to disatrous too. you go to the rural china and western china, to see how many unrests and complaints happened there, then you can draw a clear POTENTIAL RISKS REPORT for that.

Who the hell says that the price of economic development is not being able to choose your leaders and dungeons full of people who say what they really think in public?

China, South Korea, Taiwan et al, were authoritarian when they were poor and they were still authoritarian when they started their development. Authoritarianism was a pre-existing condition that was shed at the earliest opportunity, not a cause of development.

To put it in terms math would understand it's like this: I have a bad knee, an old football injury. Recently I got a promotion at work. It must have been because I have a bad knee! The bad knee has nothing to do with the promotion. In fact, it makes me a less efficient worker because the pain is distracting and I don't get around that well.

How much more efficiently, vibrantly and quickly would Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore have developed if they had gotten rid of their dictators earlier?

I hope China_hand or somebody Chimes in and notes how Russia has "collapsed" since the Soviet Union died so I can watch Ivan slap him around a little.

jeffery_jeffery wrote:

In terms of past 10,5 or 1 years, you are right. but in terms of past 50 years, you are wrong. why? because, as i knew, under KMT rule, the income per chinese was ranking more higher than that of today. so this comes a conclusion, in terms of 50 years, this fund performs worse than 50 years ago;

Harking all the way back to 1949 to judge the CCP's performance does not make any sense to me. Today's CCP is assuredly different from the CCP before 1980. Maoist CCP would have very much hated Deng's post-1980 CCP. So really, if you must judge the CCP, you need to specify which CCP you're talking about; either pre-1980 or post-1980. China's 'economic' performance can only be judged in this context. And certainly, ever since the CCP opened up China in the early 80s, China's economic take-off is the envy of all developing nations, and there's no going back. This is a fact.

First of all, it's not fair to criticise Jeffrey for going all the way back to 1949 to judge China's economic performance. Jeffrey wrote this in response to Math's essay. Math is trying to draw a parallel between historical performance of investment funds and historical performance of the China Incorp., so to speak.

Secondly, when judging economic performance of a nation, important indicators are not confined to past or current performance. Ultimately, it's the sustainability of growth that one should be focusing on. On that note, I'd like to quote the abstract of a paper released by the Carnegie Endowment titled The Economic Basis for Social Unrest in China:

"Much of our recent attention has focused on anti-Japan riots in China, yet a competing story in recent years is the extraordinary scale of social unrest linked not to patriotism and foreign policy but to economic tensions and perceived economic loss. Some analysts even allow that the anti-Japanese riots themselves were permitted to continue so that China's citizenry could "blow off some steam" over the government's poor economic performance. In this essay, Albert Keidel develops an analytical framework for considering the economic roots of protests in China. He argues that the disturbances derive most of their basic energy directly from dissatisfaction over the impact of economic reforms and market-based modernization. In addition, widespread enterprise and government corruption and malfeasance supplement and greatly amplify this basic dissatisfaction."

This is only one piece of research that caught my eyes. You can access the full text from the link. Other commenters who are better in economics than I do may want to draw our attentions to other reports on the sustainability of China's economic growth.

1>you said "In the past 57 years, there was no civil war in China". actually i won't agree with your points. first, you should clearly define the concept of "civil war". what is civil war? how about comparing the Cultural Revolution to a medium-size "civil war"? their aftermath, their deep influence on common people's lives..you should compare these so that yo can get a more sensible conclusion;

2> you said "The economic performance of the "Chinese Communist Party Fund" in the past 10, 5, and 1 years all exceed world average performance. So it is a fund that performs well in short, medium, and long terms. ".
In terms of past 10,5 or 1 years, you are right. but in terms of past 50 years, you are wrong. why? because, as i knew, under KMT rule, the income per chinese was ranking more higher than that of today. so this comes a conclusion, in terms of 50 years, this fund performs worse than 50 years ago;

3> you said "The speed of reduction of China's poor population and illiterate population (both absolute numbers and proportion to population) far exceeds world averages.".
actually i do think this problem is about the comparing criterion, like the first point i mentioned. in US, maybe a person earns 1000USD/Month can be categorized to "poor", but in China, he definitely can be titiled "elite"; and, how much time do you use to assess the "reduction speed"? 5 years? or 10 years? or 50 years( from its very beginning to present)? if you use 50 years, then i think i am sorry, you conclusion is wrong.

I will continue this article..
see you next morning.