Thread: Hong Kong Was Better Under the British

Originally Posted by nostromo

You can go everywhere with public transport fast and efficiently, even beyond disneyland.

yes, that must be the only place in the world where you can do that

disneyland in reference to airport. you must know what a mess it is to get to airport or which one in paris. in hk you just take the train.

^ good you are beyond stupid, you are American, right ?

Originally Posted by Butterfly

^ good you are beyond stupid, you are American, right ?

You can not take it in, your lack of knowledge. Facts laid for you. Why not have counter-argument to what I said, if you feel you are in right, instead of calling me stupid. Oh right you can not, since what I said is the scientific fact, so you just call me names.

I know you hate US/UK/AUS/NZ/Canada but did you know Tintin (greatest Belgian ever lived, as you as well named him, although he is a cartoon character) liked these places. Herge was not like you.

the stupidity of your argument speaks of itself,

judging a country success by some misleading economics metrics is just that, a misleading and stupid argument

HK has failed politically as a British colony, and the British could have saved it from failing but they didn't

having tycoons exploiting a mass of poor people is not a sign of success, you silly retard. Singapore is also a dynasty, not a democracy, and incidentally it was a "socialist" system or "planned economy" regime as it is often called when you don't want to say "socialist"

Hit a nerve, then.

But you did not quite answer my call for counter-argument. Evidence is not what you say or think. You must back it up in some way.

Originally Posted by nostromo

but today Hong Kong is richer than France or Belgium.

I would be interested in your definition of the metrics by which you are calculating the above statement?

Originally Posted by nostromo

But you did not quite answer my call for counter-argument. Evidence is not what you say or think. You must back it up in some way.

you haven't backup any of your arguments with valid and credible evidence, so there is absolutely nothing more to add or counter-argue

you are speaking out of your arse, as usual

Originally Posted by Butterfly

HK has failed politically as a British colony, and the British could have saved it from failing but they didn't

That depends on how you look at it- economically, HK was and is a great success for the brits. Think HSBC, Swire/ Cathay Pacific, Standard Chartered, Jardine Matheson etc, as well as many individual fortunes made. The biggest fortunes of all, ultimately, were made by some Chinese billionaires- but that is at least proof that HK was never a closed colonial shop.

The Chinese billionaires now basically run the place, in tandem with the PRC- HK has regressed somewhat to crony Capitalism, politically speaking. Not that an element of this wasn't always there, but it has certainly got worse since the hangover.

Chris Patten's attempts to 'democratise' HK in the final days before the hangover were nothing but rank amateurism, and insincere nonsense. The chinks just ended up saying do what you will, because we are only gonna wipe it all out as of the 1st July 1997, and duly did. They ended up just blanking him and his minions. If the Brit's were serious about this, they needed to start the process a lot (over a decade) earlier- which they manifestly failed to do. Then again, HK was never anything but Leased from China. Other than that embarassment- and the squalor of the Colony's establishment in the first place- I think the Brit's can hold their heads high over Hong Kong.

Think of the influence HK has had on the 'opening up' of China itself. The Chinese learnt a lot from the example of HK- not that they will ever officially admit that about a Colony humiliatingly pried from them by drug running foreign devils, of course.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by nostromo

but today Hong Kong is richer than France or Belgium.

I would be interested in your definition of the metrics by which you are calculating the above statement?

Just think of HK as a surrogate of the wealthy mother ship.

Contrary to popular suggestion, Beijing was smart not to interfer much when the changeover came about......they allowed [within certain bounds] HK to function as the magnet and conduit that it has been for the last few decades.

And it funtioned as a Chinese model, not a British one [such a fucking myth].

Originally Posted by sabang

the hangover.

too many beers last night ?

Originally Posted by sabang

Chris Patten's attempts to 'democratise' HK in the final days before the hangover were nothing but rank amateurism, and insincere nonsense.

well at least he tried, and he was right to do so, yes a bit late, but proved the point that China was interested in any reforms. Think of it as a test.

Originally Posted by sabang

Think of the influence HK has had on the 'opening up' of China itself.

as much as Taiwan did ?

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

Contrary to popular suggestion, Beijing was smart not to interfer much when the changeover came about

all they had to do was to exploit the existing system, less the Democratic reforms

Originally Posted by Butterfly

too many beers last night ?

Too many beers That night, for sure. 'one Party, two Hangovers' was the HK expats term for all the fanfare. A load of parties in town that night- my lot partied in a mega flat up on Mt Butler, watching the fireworks spectacular but mostly ignoring the TV coverage.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

as much as Taiwan did ?

More, much more.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by nostromo

but today Hong Kong is richer than France or Belgium.

I would be interested in your definition of the metrics by which you are calculating the above statement?

Oh, just old plain OECD figures, that are handy in what I posted before:

Richest countries
3 Singapore
5 Hong Kong
7 USA
These are richest industrial countries
These are Ex-British Empire


List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by nostromo

But you did not quite answer my call for counter-argument. Evidence is not what you say or think. You must back it up in some way.

you haven't backup any of your arguments with valid and credible evidence, so there is absolutely nothing more to add or counter-argue

you are speaking out of your arse, as usual

I posted evidence earlier in this thread. I can not make you read it.

Hong Kong was never a country per se nostremo, but a bastard child of China leased to the British and handed back when it was out of diapers.

Originally Posted by sabang

Originally Posted by Butterfly

too many beers last night ?

Too many beers That night, for sure. 'one Party, two Hangovers' was the HK expats term for all the fanfare. A load of parties in town that night- my lot partied in a mega flat up on Mt Butler, watching the fireworks spectacular but mostly ignoring the TV coverage.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

as much as Taiwan did ?

More, much more.

Good one Sabang wish it was a good party. I was in Europe that day.

Originally Posted by Zampan0

Originally Posted by Butterfly

The government is still not democratic, but now it is accountable only to a highly corrupt and abusive single-party state.

I stopped reading after this. Democracy was abandoned as a flop over two thousand years ago by the Greeks who invented it. Hugo and anyone else that buys into Democracy is a dope. "highly corrupt and abusive single-party state."?? It's hard to name any governments that aren't. Maybe Norway, I'm not sure.

I personally wouldn't want to live under any foreign rule if at all possible. Sort of like the Thai's, i.e., having never been conquered or colonized by anyone.

Greek invention of democracy.
If that is repeated often enough and subjected to such attention over and again, it might pass a real and true.

Fodder for Eurocentric mythology and historiography.

Here's a good vid. that explains the different forms of governments.

Originally Posted by Zampan0

^ Right, sorry. Mobocracy is the word I was after.


"The history of democracy traces back to Athens to its re-emergence and rise from the 17th century to the present day. According to one definition, democracy is a political system in which all the members of the society have an equal share of formal political power. In modern representative democracy, this formal equality is embodied primarily in the right to vote."

History of democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ghandi got rid of them his way, but I prefer the way America got them out. The plumey bastards never had a chance once Mel got involved.

You [et al] just don't get it. Not connected at all.
Shouldn't surprised when your wired in a particular linear model.

Democracy is a system of balance of power so social stability can endure,

nothing more, nothing less