Talk:Economy of Hong Kong

message: One can debate this point.  Most regions of China do not have the control over land sales or labor immigration that the HKSAR has.
: but compared to the rest of the People's Republic of China it has a very free economy.
:: That is also debatable.  Hong Kong is a very attractive place to do business because it has good clean courts and a legal system which is absent from the rest of the PRC.  A lot depends on what you mean by "free" but if you mean "absence of government" then this doesn't hold.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadrunner (talk • contribs) 15:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something does not have to be completely free to be more free than something else. Compared to the rest of the world Hong Kong has a very free market. Usually by "free-market" people mean a low amount of coercion either by the government or by criminals. So having a good legal system is usually required to have a free market. Most think tanks rate Hong Kong as one of the freest economies in the world, if not the freest. --Jayson Virissimo (talk) 06:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Debate

message: Hon
"The economy of Hong Kong has often been cited by people such as Milton Friedman and the Cato Institute as an example of the benefits of laissez-faire capitalism. However, many analysts believe that this characterization of the Hong Kong economy is not entirely accurate"
"However" points to a contradiction, while there isn't any: HK can be an example of the benefits of laissez-faire capitalism without being the perfect model. The words "the benefits of" should be removed to eliminate the contradiction. (Ori)
:corrected. The revised version is "Hong Kong's economic policy has often been cited by economists such as Milton Friedman and the Cato Institute as an example of laissez-faire capitalism, attributing the city's success to the policy. However, others have argued that the economic strategy is not adequately characterised by the term laissez-faire."
--Lowerlowerhk (talk) 06:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction

message: GDP per capita seems way too high.  Anyone have a source on this info? novacatz 01:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: GDP per capita was HK$215,006 in 2006, equal to US$27,565. Source: http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hong_kong_statistics/statistical_tables/index.jsp?charsetID=1&subjectID=12&tableID=030 --- DOR (HK) 17 Aug 2007
Similar results are shown in the CIA World Factbook. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2004.html 
Rinke 03:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Per capita GDP

message: I deleted the last line, 2008, as there is no reference to this being a forecast nor any citation. I refrained from extensively rewriting the entire table on issues such as definitions ("real GDP" in what currency, on what basis, etc), but it is clearly a problem. -- DOR (HK) Dec 14, 2007
::Well, I see someone has restored the most absurd part of this article: the table "Average Annual Growth Rate within 5 previous years" has an entry for a year that hasn't even started yet, let alone been completed (i.e., 2008). And, so to prevent people convulsing in fits of laughter at the stupidity of the previous editor, I've once again deleted that line. -- DOR (HK) Dec 19, 2007  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.176.69.125 (talk) 05:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Macro-economic trend

message: I have just flagged the Employment in Hong Kong article for copyright violation. It is an almost complete verbatim lift from . I have noticed that the article is linked to various Hong Kong-related articles, including the Hong Kong featured article, via the Economy of Hong Kong navbox. Should a re-write be necessary, some local community help would be welcome and appreciated. Luke! 08:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Employment in Hong Kong]] 

message: We don't have to copy CIA Factbook's structure exactly you know.....67.0.66.220 04:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIA factbook 

message: It is unclear what the second table is measuring: GDP? If so, we have already established that data before 1971 was based on trade. --- DOR (HK) 17 Aug 2007
As there is no further comment, I've deleted this section. -- DOR (HK) Dec 14, 2007
|-
</table>
The following table demonstrates which periods in the past exhibited some of the largest growth margins.  
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Start Period || End Period || Growth Percentage
|-
| 1948 || 1950 || 28.78%
|-
| 1950 || 1955 || 3.41%
|-
| 1955 || 1960 || 11.98% 
|-
| 1960 || 1964 || 16.35%
|-
| 1964 || 1966 || 18.20%
|-
| 1966 || 1970 || 15.10%
|-
| 1970 || 1975 || 22.47%
|-
| 1975 || 1980 || 39.04%
|-
| 1980 || 1985 || 18.70%
|-
| 1985 || 1990 || 21.86%
|-
| 1990 || 1991 || 15.34%
|-
| 1991 || 1992 || 15.82%
|-
</table>
:: I see that this completely incomprehensible table has been restored. Does anyone at all have any idea what it is measuring, and what the units might be?  Does anyone know what “largest growth margins” [which is not an economic term] is supposed to mean? Does anyone find it odd that – in the same article that clearly states that GDP data from pre-1971 are simply based on trade – this table creates (source?) data as far back as 1948?  Isn’t the rule around here that one should post an intention to delete for a while (say, Aug 17, 2007 to Dec 14, 2007, as I did) to allow counter-comment, and if none arises, to go ahead and delete?  -- DOR (HK) Dec 19, 2007  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.176.69.125 (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I’ve changed the “colonial” label to “pre-War,” since Hong Kong was still a colony in the periods listed below (1950s, etc). I’ll wait for comment before making a second change, which is to replace “Textile manufacturing in particular, dominated all other sector, serving as the backbone for the entire economy,” in the 1950s to 1960s section with “Trade continued to dominate the economy, but manufacturing – particularly textiles – rapidly rose during this period.” Source: Hong Kong Annual Report 1959, p. 366 Appendix VII and VIII (Direction of Trade – Imports and Direction of Trade – Exports), which show 1957 HK$8.2 billion two-way trade. The earliest GDP figures, from 1961, put the total economy at only HK$7,453 million. The level holds through 1959. In addition, Chapter 3: Occupation, Wages and Labour Organization gives a break-down for estimated occupations that has agriculture and fishing (380,000) exceeding “industrial undertakings” (217,367) on p. 28.DOR (HK) (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I readded the pg number and measurement.  It is GDP.  If you don't think it is appropriate there are plenty of other charts to replace it with. It will take time to research another, certainly not anytime soon (from me anyways).  Others may have something more for you. Benjwong (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Did I miss it before, or has someone added the "2007" line with HK suddenly being a financial services center? If there is no objection, I'll delete that row of the column with the reference to IPOs.DOR (HK) (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the transition table to reflect the leading role of business services. For some reason, my citation doesn't format correctly, so if anyone would like to help out, here it is -- 1950s to 1970s source is Key Indicators of Developing Asian and Pacific Countries, Vol XXII July 1991, Economics and Development Resource Center, Asian Development Bank, p. 140.  And, for the rest of the table, source is Hong Kong Census and Statistics, http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hong_kong_statistics/statistical_tables/index.jsp?charsetID=1&subjectID=12&tableID=035 DOR (HK) (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Transformation

message: It is unclear what point is being made in comparing a city to a continent-sized economy. A more useful comparison would be with New York City, London or even Singapore. --- DOR (HK) 17 Aug 2007
::Four months later . . . no comments . . . which should indicate I can delete the garbage, right? Nope. It gets put back in!  --- DOR (HK) 19 Dec 2007
:::The sections “Present” and “Future” are so full of POV I don’t know where to start. First, we have the mention of the wealth gap (as if this is the most important subject), but no mention as to why this might be important. Second, the gap is compared to the PRC, which is probably the single most unlikely comparsion that might have been made. Why not Puerto Rico? Third, it blandly states that “financial tycoons” oppose “universal suffrage,” without defining either term or explaining what this has to do with Hong Kong’s economy. As for “Future”, we have a statement that the economic future is “far more exposed to the challenges (?) of economic globalization. This seems to suggest economic globalization is a Bad Thing, rather than being one of the greatest contributors to Hong Kong’s success and prosparity. The absurdity gets worse: How does the only international-class business and financial center on the Asian side of the world suffers from some sort of a geographic disadvantage (1500 km!) vis-à-vis Shanghai? How do we determine that Shanghai has “a municipal government that is capable of turning the city into China's main economic center by as early as 2010” ?  Why do we accept that “the target is to allow Shanghai to catch up to New York by 2040-2050,” when such a “target” has never been articulated in any official PRC government document? And, why would that belong in an article on Hong Kong’s economy? And, having raised all this doom and gloom (talk about POV!), we then have this: “Until then, Hong Kong is expected to have higher [than what?] overall economic figures yearly.”  Frankly, this is embarassing.--- DOR (HK) 19 Dec 2007
::::Please wipe this page clean if you have better data. Just remember almost all data between 1970s and 1997 put Hong Kong in the category of a country of its own. So is natural to make that comparison.   However the comparison with other major cities and the end of One country two systems are all common things found in economical sources.  It would seem overly optimistic to not mention it.  Benjwong (talk) 06:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Present

message: "The Economy of Hong Kong is widely believed, and some argue incorrectly, to be the most economically free in the world. It has often been cited by economists such as Milton Friedman and the Cato Institute as an example of the benefits of laissez-faire capitalism. While the government, both under British and PRC rule, has occasionally intervened in the economy, the free market policy of Positive non-interventionism espoused by former financial secretary John James Cowperthwaite still largely drives economic policy today. It has ranked as the world's freest economy in the Index of Economic Freedom for 13 consecutive years, since the inception of the index in 1995[1][2]. It also places first in the Economic Freedom of the World Report.
However, critics of the view of Hong Kong as a laissez-faire capitalist state point out several flaws in this view of this region's economy. It is argued that the government has intervened to create economic institutions such as the Hong Kong Stock Market and has been involved in massive public works and extensive social welfare spending. All land in Hong Kong is owned by the government and leased to private users. By restricting the sale of land leases, the Hong Kong government keeps the price of land at what some would say are artifically high prices and this allows the government to support public spending with a low tax rate.[1]"
This doesn't really make any sense. Milton Friedman never said that Hong Kong was a perfect laissez-faire economy. He said it was the MOST laissez-faire. This simply means it is more laissez-faire than other comparable economies. This is an idea that is almost universally supported by mainstream economists(it was even mentioned in my undergraduate textbook). This whole section contradicts itself and doesn't really make a valid point either. Does anyone object to a rewrite of the intro? --Jayson Virissimo 19:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not say perfect laissez-faire economy in the article.  Are you reading an old revision? Benjwong 03:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem was that the second paragraph contained a straw-man because it claimed critics disagree with people who believe Hong Kong is a laissez-faire capitalist city. No one ever said it was completely laissez-faire, simply that it was the "most" laissez-faire. I went ahead and fixed the paragraph. If anyone doesn't like the new wording let me know on the talk page. Thanks. --Jayson Virissimo (talk) 09:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro Needs Work 

message: "The Economy of Hong Kong is widely believed, and some argue incorrectly, to be the most economically free in the world."
This seems extraordinarily POV on a subjective issue. Furthermore a number of respected sources argue it is precisely that... which sources suggest it isn't the most economically free in the world? It isn't perfect laissez faire capitalism and it would certainly be false to assert that, but I'm unsure as to which economy is more free. At any rate unless someone brings up a good argument against such an edit, I intend to change the line to, "The Economy of Hong Kong is widely believed to be the most economically free in the world" in the near future. This statement is objectively true and seems more in line with expert consensus than the current version.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.147.228 (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic Freedom 

message: I've updated some numbers. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious why we have "Unemployment Rate (high)," but not "Unemployment Rate (low)," and don't have similar data for any other indicators. I should also point out that the maximum annual unemployment rate was 7.9% (2003), not 9.0% (I've made the change) and that the maximum three-months unemployment rate (Hong Kong doesn't do monthly data) was 8.8% (May-July 2003 and again in June-August of that year). DOR (HK) (talk) 06:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to make more all the updates you like.  I just fixed those references you put in earlier.  Benjwong (talk) 03:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Other economic indicators

message: I removed an unreferenced reference to HK as a haven for pirates, pre-1841. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pirates

message: This entire section reads like a promo for Shanghai, or something. Open for discussion as to whether it should be deleted. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Economic Prospects

message: I just noticed that we have nothing about price changes. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prices 

message: "Taxation in Hong Kong raises revenues from the sale and taxation of land and taxes on the accumulative overall economic growth but not engaged directly in industry and commerce as well as individual(s) for its revenue of public finance due to its low tax policy."
Anyone else confused by that sentence? I'd rewrite it myself, but I'm not really sure what it's trying to say...
-Hatster301 (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Run-on sentence 

message: Which photo should be used, based on this change? I prefer the one with the myriad of advertising signs as an illustration emblematic of HK as a commercial place. The photo of HK at night is simply that—a photo of HK at night. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photographs 

message: I noticed that some sentences are "jammed" together that are kind of confusing, so I added commas to separate them. See my editingTinalei2014 (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cohesion 

message: Hello everyone, I am working for the International Trade Centre (ITC), a UN/WTO agency that aims to promote sustainable economic development through trade promotion. I would like to propose the addition of an external link (http://www.macmap.org/QuickSearch/FindTariff/FindTariff.aspx?subsite=open_access&country=SCC344|Hong+Kong&source=1|ITC) that leads directly to our online database of customs tariffs applied by Hong Kong. Visitors can easily look up market access information for Hong Kong by selecting the product and partner of their interest. I would like you to consider this link under the WP:ELYES #3 prescriptions. Moreover, the reliability and the pertinence of this link can be supported by the following facts 
1) ITC is part of the United Nations, and aims to share trade and market access data on by country and product as a global public good
2) No registration is required to access this information
3) Market access data (Tariffs and non-tariff measures) are regularly updated
Thank you,
Divoc (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: External link

message: The paragraph "Positive non-interventionism" is partly based on a geocities site, that calls itself "An Anarchist FAQ Webpage". This is hardly a neutral source and thus should, together with this text, be removed.
Doobdee (talk) 10:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputable Source 

message: In the first paragraph, it said "There is no central banking system in Hong Kong." That is incorrect. "A central bank", according the corresponding wikipedia article, "...is an institution that manages a state's currency, money supply, and interest rates." this function is carried out by Hong Kong Monetary Authority by checking the balance between local and foreign reserve, and by controlling exchange rate by injecting and extracting money to and from markets if needed. This organisation has the function of a central bank, only not in name. Therefore I suggest change the sentence to "Hong Kong Monetary Authority is the de facto central bank of Hong Kong."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowerlowerhk (talk • contribs) 06:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  A little correction to the first paragraph 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Economy of Hong Kong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130828000235/http://www.financialsecrecyindex.com/2011results.html to http://www.financialsecrecyindex.com/2011results.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Economy of Hong Kong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110406163335/http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hong_kong_statistics/statistics_by_subject/index.jsp?subjectID=2&charsetID=1&displayMode=T to http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hong_kong_statistics/statistics_by_subject/index.jsp?subjectID=2&charsetID=1&displayMode=T
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secC12.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100508010801/http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3532186.html to http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3532186.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070213192705/http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/schenk.HongKong to http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/schenk.HongKong
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The first of these two citations,  "Download Limit Exceeded". citeseerx.ist.psu.edu. Retrieved 30 March 2018. , is wildly out of date (early 2000s) for the subject of financial market development. The second,  "Trade and Investment" (PDF). unescap.org. , is far too general of a URL to be useful. Deleted. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electronic finance trading 

message: Proposing a section on homelessness. Benjamin (talk) 07:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  homelessness 

message: Is it Wiki policy to only use IMF data and forecasts, rather than to use national sources? I ask because the IMF, like all secondary sources, is always more out-of-date than national sources. DOR (HK) (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such blanket ban, but what specific sourced did you have in mind? Benjamin (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: National sources are official government data and forecasts. The annual Budget Speech contains the government's estimates and forecasts for GDP, inflation and the budget (for example, https://www.budget.gov.hk/2018/eng/budget08.html).  It will be coming up soon, but the other sources -- IMF, etc -- will takes months to be updated. More, the IMF and other forecasts have not proven to be very accurate over the years so we might as well use the official ones. DOR (HK) (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Governments are biased.  They have an interest in coming up with figures that enhance perceptions of their performance so their figures should be considered intrinsically suspect.  If 3rd party disinterested credible sources can be found, we should favour publishing them.  As for speed of updating, WP is not news, so some lag is acceptable here.  sirlanz 23:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Um, Governments are biased? Really? OK, I'll accept that. But, tell me, if the IMF gets their historic GDP or inflation data from the government, but only publish it several months later, what's the problem with using national sources to provide exactly the same data in a more timely manner? Because, when it comes to macroeconomic data, there are only a couple of places in the world where non-local sources are more credible (e.g., North Korea). DOR (HK) (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The answer to your question is, no problem, provided your "if" is correct.  Your "couple" is, with respect, a pretty good joke, though.  sirlanz 01:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  You may be forgetting corruption levels. Different levels of corruption in countries can affect governments' trustworthiness. E.g. Venezuela, China. KREOH (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  GDP (etc.) Sources and Forecasts 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: A recent edit, which I have refrained from removing prior to discussion, claims that Hong Kong's economic value to China has lessened. The first point is “hey, look at Shanghai,” which does not have a convertible currency nor free capital flows. The next point is that Hong Kong's economic size is not as large compared to China as it used to be, which is another way of saying China has been one of the fastest growing economies in the world for every year in the past 40.
My point, for discussion, is that these gross generalizations do not contribute to understanding how the Hong Kong and Mainland China markets interact. For example, Hong Kong provided 90% of the first US$500 billion in foreign direct investment (FDI) into China, which was arguably the kick-start that gave China its record growth. That investment was and remains highly export-oriented, and as 55-60% of China's exports are by foreign-invested enterprises, it is not a stretch to say that decisions made about the majority – over half – of China's exports are made in Hong Kong boardrooms. Finally, having provided the first half trillion dollars of seed capital, Hong Kong then facilitated an additional half trillion dollar inflow via IPOs. Further points might include the port, professional services, and management expertise. DOR (HK) (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  HK's economic value to China