logoalt Hacker News

lenerdenatoryesterday at 6:03 PM1 replyview on HN

I think that it's both a rewriting of history and a rationalization of the investment on some people's parts.

Nixon's opening of relations with China was definitely a move against the USSR, but that was nothing compared to the extent of investment that was seen after the fall of Communism in Europe. The fact that the CPC was still very much in charge while all of this investing was occurring had to be rationalized somehow in the minds of people who were less cynical, and "it'll help liberalization" was probably one of the rationalizations used. And in some ways, you can use investment as a way to leverage social changes within countries, and some people (though apparently not enough) thought that was the intention with China, but there was only a carrot, not a stick, and by the time there was a desire to use a stick, there was too much dependency on China as a market and producer for the West. That's where we're at now.


Replies

alephnerdyesterday at 6:06 PM

> but that was nothing compared to the extent of investment that was seen after the fall of Communism in Europe

Most of the capital investment and institution building that led to China Shock in the 2000s only happened due to the extreme degree of tech and capital transfer in the 1970s-80s, along with the visiting student program. Heck, Vietnam had a higher HDI [0] and GDP PPP per Capita [1] than the PRC until the early 2000s. The only difference was Vietnam was strictly in the Warsaw Bloc camp, and was negatively impacted by the collapse of the USSR, Czechoslovakia, and GDR while China was able to leverage ties with the US during that period.

[0] - https://countryeconomy.com/hdi?year=2005

[1] - https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?end=2...