[rvern]

Rather mostly China succeeded because it had a population larger than any other country. Production depends primarily on resources and human labor is one of the most valuable resources. It is no surprise that population count is strongly correlated with nominal GDP.

This should be completely obvious.

It also refutes the author’s argument. Why has a market economy directed by a Communist state become the world’s second-largest?! Would Friedman find it hard to explain why China, run by a Communist Party, has emerged as central to the global capitalist economy!? China has 19% of the world population but roughly 10% of the world GDP. It is 79th in GDP per capita at purchasing power parity. We should not evaluate a country’s economic policies by looking at its nominal GDP without also looking at its population—this is nothing Friedman would have difficulty explaining.

[jvm]

> Rather mostly China succeeded because it had a population larger than any other country

…is that also why India "succeeded"?

[rvern]

Yes, at least in the sense of succeeding the article talks about. India is the third country in the world by GDP at purchasing power parity, which is consistent with its population being second largest.