The chart you listed is for the years before the CCP won the civil war in 1949. But agreed that many of the problems overcome were also problems that were created after the war.
Japan controlled much more of China than the communists did before 1945. And having half your country occupied is bad for GDP. You made a mistake and believed some propaganda here.
Chinese GDP was higher during WWII than over the next several years, the actual minimum 1959 to 1961 was well into communist rule. Literally CCP rule was worse than the anarchy of civically war, it’s right up there with the insanity of Pol Pot.
This so historically stupid claim, it's not even wrong tier.
There was no GDP data under KMT - it wasn't even formally calculated.
CCP started GDP calculations, but using soviet MPS GDP accounting system that basically omitted services and lowballed production prices.
The only GDP data we have that is pseudo normalized are via estimates like Maddison project. Even they don't bother to recompose China/KMT data during WW2. The TLDR is prewar peak 1939 data (right before JP invasion) around 288B, PRC took over in 1949, GDP was 245B in 1950, grew to 306B by 1952. GLF tanked GDP from 460b to 350B... i.e. the worst case scenario of GLF floor was still 40% larger than 1950.
E: Note wiki data links to ourworldindata that pulls from Maddison and in table form KMT/WW2 data is not available and only pulling from closest data point 1938/1950 and naively extrapolating per capita. Because KMT data doesn't exist.
GDP isn’t just some arbitrary abstraction it’s the amount of goods and services produced by an economy.
At the low end of economic output starvation or the lack thereof is a strong indication of GDP. You do need to adjust for exports and imports but you don’t need to have a particularly deep insight into the economy beyond that.
Of course GDP is an arbitrary abstraction, it's literally derived from arbitrary systems of measurement, i.e. why soviet had mps system and west had sna, and each get to decide what to value and how much... arbitrarily... and even when they calculate, a lot of it is guestimate because no one has perfect or even good data, especially 80 years ago in developing countries.
> starvation or the lack thereof is a strong indication of GDP
No that's just an indicator that some cohort starved due to distribution failure. And to be blunt... that cohort was rural / peasants doing mostly subsistence agriculture tier production that do not count much towards GDP. An urban worker in industry can generate 10x GDP surplus than farmers in a commune.
Hence starvation (mostly in rural) has disproportionately less GDP weight vs urban worker productivity. An economy losing millions of peasants while still modernizing/industrializing can easily maintain higher total GDP than peaceful agrarian society. AKA CCP speed running first 5 year plan post WW2 raised the GDP floor so much that they can unalive 10s of millions of peasants and still have higher GDP vs pre/post war which, was incidentally also not peaceful agrarian society, but even messier interregnum shitshow with significantly shit state capacity than relatively unified postwar PRC under CCP. Republican Era KMT (during anarchy/civil war) simply couldn't organize fragmented China to be as productive as PRC under CCP, who can lose millions of peasants with marginal productivity of labour near zero and still do massively better in gdp/economic terms.
Between 1954 and 1959, China supplied 160,000 tons of tungsten ore, 110,000 tons of copper, 30,000 tons of antimony, and 90,000 tons of rubber to the Soviet Union. That’s how they repaid a loan not through industrial production because their economy wasn’t producing significant high value output from raw materials, they couldn’t even smelt ore efficiently.
Re-education camps don’t generate value. They didn’t have a surplus of urban workers instead Mow just destroyed the economy. Killing off the educated doctors etc isn’t a free action, it has negative consequences.
China literally had net migration out of cities, so no this wasn’t over investment in industry or a distribution issue this was just abject failure and total economic collapse. Total Anarchy would have been better for the economy than Mao.
Both the Soviet and Chinese first few five year plans accomplished the following:
1. Mass starvation at a few points due to central planning errors
2. Horrifying purges and paranoia that cannot be excused as "errors"
3. Achieving mass literacy and a partially industrial economy in a single generation, from a medeival starting point.
Most good Americans who paid attention in civics class learned 1 and 2 very well without truly appreciating 3.
You have to understand that they were coming from a peasant economy where nobody could even read. It's an accomplishment despite Mao's shortcomings and awful deeds. And look at the scoreboard today. Highest GDP by purchasing power parity in the world. Xiaomi cars are nicer than Teslas, only non-American tech industry, high speed rail, etc etc.
There’s a long list of countries that industrialized more quickly without suffering such internal economic issues. The USSR and China suffered because of poor governance not industrialization.
Second, Mass literacy occurs via teaching kids. It has little to do with what the wider economy as seen by both modern and historic literacy rates.
It’s been 65 years since the Chinese famine, what actually fixed the country was economic reforms. MAO’s death helped but the system simply didn’t work so they tried something else.
Not only would total anarchy been worse for economy than Mao, you would struggle to find another developmental model that did as well as Mao. Especially the only comparable size peer, India who objectively did worse, under most developmental metrics.
Between 1954/ 1959 PRC exchanged material for capita goods and Soviet training speed run industrialization. AKA they were turning surplus rocks they couldn't process into machines so they can process non export into capita stock. You know, developing. This economic/history 101.
Mao even including GLF engineered one of the greatest most condensed human uplift effort. World Bank summary of CCP progress from postwar to 70s, i.e. under Mao noted how PRC, relative to developing pears was significantly more industrialized, like 40% vs low income avg 25% share of economy. With matching proxy indicators like 3x energy consumption per capita vs India, 2x literacy, 1/3 infant mortality rate. aka Mao speedrun PRC to middle income industrial levels - GLF one step back, 5 step forward success. State provided services were also assessed to be far more effective in meeting basic needs vs low income peers. Life expectancy 65yrs vs 50yrs (India) for low income... "outstandingly high" in WB remark. WB concludes CCP efforts by late 70s... again Mao's doing left "low-income groups far better off in terms of basic needs than their counterparts in most other poor countries"... "most remarkable achievement during the past three decades".
All the subsequent snowballing from Deng, not possible without Mao building a captive, mobile, diciplined rural workforce with high industrial experience, reeducating masses to be fungible workers for migrant economy.
In retrospect, GLF in fact, close to free action. Post WW2 PRC was so devoid of talent that Mao could depopulate cities and slap doctors around with trivial long term penalty option. Starting proper industrialization, mass mobilizing low end barefoot doctors alone out state capacities GLF/CR missteps and saved more lives than it bled. i.e. even in terms of mortality vs death averted, Mao comes out massively ahead. That +15 years above baseline life expectancy x 1000 billion new births is about ~200m lives worth. This not accounting averted deaths of countries who started similarly but did not poverty / malnutrition alleviate early enough, i.e. India generating GLF deaths every few years over decades. That averted another 200m deaths. Most of this attributed to Mao speedrunning nation building did actually solve famine after GLF via all the infra built. Something that historically every Chinese polity had to worry about.
Any leader who improved HDI for as much people in as short of a time as Mao would have been given a Nobel Economics Prize and Nobel Peace Prize. Fixating on spike of deaths at PRC scale is boring libtard innumeracy, i.e. ~4% which plenty of leaders of matched/exceeded. Not nice but completely valid to treat human resources as resource and trade for long term gains. Mao increased PRC industrial output by like 30x, from macro economic utilitarian, HDI trend line goes up, PRC brrrting growth, dead peasants and sad elites simply doesn't fucking matter, it's minor shock to overall system capacity which Mao built so much in so fast that it raised aggregate Chinese HDI above most peers even if it also broke a few millions of eggs.
> Between 1954/ 1959 PRC exchanged material for capita goods and Soviet training speed run industrialization.
This wasn’t an exchange of good this was a subsidy. Loan repayments at extremely generous 1% interest rates. The use of raw materials shows just how poorly their efforts where despite the aid.
You can try and repaint history into a history of pulling themselves up, but the reality is they had a high literacy rate and for the time period a well functioning economy before the communists took over. Afterwards 50 million people starved to death that’s not progress that’s horrifying inefficiency writ large.
The CCP still has a hate boner for Taiwan because it shows they are objectively doing a bad job as that fragment of the same country still has a higher standard of living and better technology despite the massive disadvantages of vastly smaller economies of scale.
Last reply to more ahistoric cope, the exchange of raw materials was because postwar PRC had nothing else to barter, you know because incumbent KMT fucked it up.
Chinese literacy rates was fucking pre CCP, it was agrarian nation that CCP uplifted. If you want to cope with repainting history, go accuse world bank... in the 80s, by every metric except human lives, CCP was horrifyingly efficient, precisely because they value human lives less.
What techstack does TW have that PRC doesn't? TSMC based off foreign tech stack. Let's not forget ROC is also outcome of subsidy / finance program by US. The difference between PRC and ROC is PRC sugar daddy was poor USSR, TW was rich US, and population scale means US could injected more to smaller pop to bring up development. All while US+co sanctioning PRC btw, hence PRC succeeded where TW has not, and did so on hard mode.
Smaller economies of scale is precisely why TW/ROC is unimpressive, TW should be much richer for how small it is and how lavishly it was rewarded. There's reason TW has to literally ban TWners from working in PRC high end industries... because PRC tier1 opportunities has vastly exceeded TW.
Even in a society of 1 person that person would prefer to live in a mud hut than outside getting rained on. Ignoring imputed rent ignores that value and therefore is objectively wrong.
Did China really do it though? We can clearly see that China has achieved huge economic growth since Deng Xiaoping took control. But the specific numbers can't be attempted to be believed. Communist Party officials at every level heavily manipulate the official economic data to meet their annual goals and no independent auditing is allowed.
By pulling ten million people a year from farms into factories and ploughing 40% of GDP into infrastructure and education. Sounds like a sound analogy to me.
They're for those within the population that are willing to submit themselves to the whim of the state and whose prosperity in some way directly benefits the oligarchs that run the state.
Certainly, as just a few examples, they are not for the well-being of the Uyghar population or pro-democracy activists or journalists investigating human rights violation or supporters of Tibetan independence.
Don’t worry we have those 80 hour weeks in software too. I can think of a few examples. For example with mobile App Store review time used to be kind of like that. You submitted your app waited a few business days and prayed there wasn’t an obscure rejection that lead to an appeal which could take even longer. Very stressful when you are cueing up a launch and press releases on a certain date. you had to make sure you were done a few weeks in advance to account for everything.
I don’t work much on apps anymore but I hear it’s somewhat better now.
Another big area is compliance, those processes can take forever.
Biggest jump is 400K and that's at L7, for Principal SE, the top level. Below that each level is about a $100-150K jump. Nothing to complain about, to be clear.
E6 -> E7 at Meta is $1M (which sounds a little bit crazy tbh). Google L6 -> L7 is 300k, but their numbers look smaller than what I'm privy too. A generic Level 6 to 7 (staff to senior staff) promotion can easily be $500k at a tech company.
And yet, how many people are actually happier with that extra $500k? It's one thing if you're not making enough to allow you and whoever else you might need to support to be happy and comfortable and be able to save enough for emergencies and retirement, but I'm dubious that someone only one other away from a half million dollar raise is in that position.
Something that's often overlooked is the time equivalent of money. If the average salary is $50k but you get $500k, you only have to work 1 year in every 10, and that's crazy.
And the feeling of safety that comes with it. I left my previous employer during an acquisition and took a year off and am taking my time to find the right next gig. I cannot imagine the terror of having to find a new job, any job, ASAP because otherwise we starve and lose the house. Substantial savings are honestly much nicer than spending on a lavish lifestyle.
yes thats true if you survive it. Have two friends with a salary over 300k a year. one worked 5 years and retired the other bought more luxury products to reflect his income and is now completly burned out after 3 years but forced to work because of his 300k a year lifestyle
at that price level as a senior engineer there are plenty jobs available, no stress on that point.
i have little savings but my life is great, my kids love me, my health is good, i work from home and i have time for my friends. honestly everyday is great.
> And yet, how many people are actually happier with that extra $500k?
A hella lot people, are you seriously that dense? If there were gladiator fights for 500k, I would be a fucking janitor cleaning up the bloody mess, because of how many people would die for a chance to make 500k extra.
I think you're overestimating how much making $800k versus $300k would actually make most people happier. You're welcome to disagree with me, but there's plenty of research indicating this might be the case (from a quick Google for "happiness self reported by income" this is the first result: https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/does-more-money-correlate-g...).
If you think that everyone is the would either agrees with you or is "dense" without doing any sort of cursory investigation on whether the alternate view might actually be common or supported by evidence, I'm honestly not really sure why you're bothering to engage in discussion in the first place.
> The main finding of our reanalysis of MK’s study is that the shape of the distribution of happiness changes—slightly, but systematically—as income rises. The same increases of income have different effects on the happy and on the unhappy regions of the distribution. In the low range of incomes, unhappy people gain more from increased income than happier people do. In other words, the bottom of the happiness distribution rises much faster than the top in that range of incomes. The trend is reversed for higher incomes, where very happy people gain much more from increased income than unhappy people do. The upper part of the happiness distribution rises with log(income) at an accelerated rate in that range, while the lower 20% is almost completely flat.
So it sounds like this study is saying people who are unhappy and have low income or are already happy and have high incomes will become a lot happier with more income. The lower end would be consistent with people are are unhappy because of the lack of income, and I don't think would apply very much to people one promotion away from a $500k raise. For the other end, it seems like it would be consistent that people who have high incomes and are happy might be just as likely to become happier from other things instead of more income; maybe they're just people who are naturally happy whenever something good happens regardless of what it is, and because they have high incomes, they don't need to worry about existential life issues most of the time.
In other words, none of this seems to heavily contradict what I said, other than the caveat that if you are already happy, you might still be happier with more income (but we don't know that you might be just as happy from getting a new hobby or spending more time with your family instead of getting promoted). Even without that caveat, it does not seem like your link is nearly enough to make a reasonable argument that I'm dense for happening to cite an effect from an article that, according to your link, was a valid result according to both of the authors.
But concrete is measured by volume at least in the US (cubic yards…sigh). I think this is because different mix designs can change the resulting weight. I’ve even heard of adding air to make for better pumping.
#/media/File:GDP_per_capita_development_in_China_1913_to_1950.svg){kind=link}
reply