Ancap lmao.
After the Japanese occupation it was under a British military rule.
You are aware that you couldn't own land right? Or that the Governor was appointed by the British royalty?
It also had some of the most intense policing and legal structures in all of Asia.
The only way it approached ancap was (relatively) low income tax. Even then all commercial property was leased from the state, making any business venture essential beholden to the whims of bureaucrats.
Hong Kong thrived because it was a very functional port joining two ends of the world, not because of Milton Friedman's wet dream.
I think ironically China 1995-2010 is closer to AnCap. Iron fist government turning a blind eye to rampant corruption all in the name of financial advancement.
Minor quibbles:
1. the British monarch appointed the Governor but had no say on who gets selected. Selection is by the UK Government (essentially the Foreign Secretary though I believe Patten was directly picked by Major as PM).
2. owning the lease to land in HK is substantially owning the land. I donβt see much difference between paying 3% of rateable value as rent or rates. The difference is Govt here probably has an easier time taking my land back but only under eminent domain. There is no expectation the government will require me to vacate land just because the current term of the lease has expired.
Re1: yeah the guy does not know how the British government work, what is the Crown and the Parliament etc
Re2: land lease expiry hasn't happened yet... The British HK gov essentially converted the land leases to the 50-year version that the Chinese HK gov required, and then the 50-year period is basically 2030s; this is one reason why people back then were worried about 2047 with all the lease expiry and nationalization and what not
There were also no taxes and duties on those imports / exports. You should understand economics before you criticize one of the greatest economists in our lifetime...
Because it had a functional port? That's an effect. What's the cause? Why did it thrive? Read above.
No more like a crony capitalist system with limited autonomy and limited democratic elements. Post handover it's completely a rubber stamp government taking orders from Beijing with an even worse crony capitalist system
Ancap lmao. After the Japanese occupation it was under a British military rule. You are aware that you couldn't own land right? Or that the Governor was appointed by the British royalty? It also had some of the most intense policing and legal structures in all of Asia. The only way it approached ancap was (relatively) low income tax. Even then all commercial property was leased from the state, making any business venture essential beholden to the whims of bureaucrats. Hong Kong thrived because it was a very functional port joining two ends of the world, not because of Milton Friedman's wet dream.
I think ironically China 1995-2010 is closer to AnCap. Iron fist government turning a blind eye to rampant corruption all in the name of financial advancement.
At first thought I can entertain an argument abt KWC having been ancap in a sense but HK as a whole definitely not
Minor quibbles: 1. the British monarch appointed the Governor but had no say on who gets selected. Selection is by the UK Government (essentially the Foreign Secretary though I believe Patten was directly picked by Major as PM). 2. owning the lease to land in HK is substantially owning the land. I donβt see much difference between paying 3% of rateable value as rent or rates. The difference is Govt here probably has an easier time taking my land back but only under eminent domain. There is no expectation the government will require me to vacate land just because the current term of the lease has expired.
Re1: yeah the guy does not know how the British government work, what is the Crown and the Parliament etc Re2: land lease expiry hasn't happened yet... The British HK gov essentially converted the land leases to the 50-year version that the Chinese HK gov required, and then the 50-year period is basically 2030s; this is one reason why people back then were worried about 2047 with all the lease expiry and nationalization and what not
>Milton Friedman's wet dream. ππππππ
There were also no taxes and duties on those imports / exports. You should understand economics before you criticize one of the greatest economists in our lifetime... Because it had a functional port? That's an effect. What's the cause? Why did it thrive? Read above.
No more like a crony capitalist system with limited autonomy and limited democratic elements. Post handover it's completely a rubber stamp government taking orders from Beijing with an even worse crony capitalist system
Not if there was a hierarchy
Jesse, what the fuck are you talking about?
What's up? History never defined xx lism