[maxglute]

>building it's human capital. For a government that should be the primary "decent outcome

>Province in China with developmental indicators comparable to Ecuador, Cuba, and Peru

Disproportionate resources was concentrated to built Hefei, Anhui, new tier1 city with ~10 million people and per capita income of ~$20,000 build off 2600% growth in last 20 years because local gov focused on making it tech/innovation centre. The one elevated by Western Development Strategy, that built out industrial clusters and R&D hotspots like USTC to raise and retain human capital. The entire point is _UNEQUAL_ development so a few 100 millions of disproportionately affluent / educated urbanites with $20000+ income can buy high value goods that would have no market if everyone was elevated to 10000 per capita doing less advanced work, they already sell enough 老乡鸡. Still waiting on OLED panels from Ecuador, Cuba and Peru.

E:

And as I've responded in the past, you don't get to decide what I reply to. This is the internet, you are not the only audience in a conversation. I make effort to ignore you posts, and have, but when it needs to be called out on, I will. And again, my custom HN CSS doesn't even display screen names, but your identifiable writing pattern and questionable use of stats makes it obvious.

Questionable in this case, as in the past, you're using selective stats and omitting useful context to insinuate Anhui is somehow cuba tier shithole (no offense to fellow Cubans) who failed to develop / exploit human capita. An claim that can only be made by dancing around the development AND mere existence of Hefei, Anhui, one of PRC's innovation hubs that specifically and successfuly developed on the back of building human capital and high tech, which makes comparisons to Ecuador, Cuba and Peru even more perplexing. One simply doesn't drop stats about Anhui without knowing Hefei. You are not a stupid person. Your omissions in these arguments can only be interpreted as intentional by me, and while I try to avoid interacting with you (rather comments that reads like yours), I'm still going to call out bad analysis/arguments. I will edit original response for tone and stop relying here. But I encourage other readers to look up Hefei and how it grew in last 20 years, and understand that is the deliberate result of industrial policy (not just semi, but high tech).

[alephnerd]

Your tone is horrid.

I am having a discussion with GP, and while GP and I may disagree, we are still maintaining a civil tone with each other.

This has been a common behavior of yours. If there was block functionality or reporting functionality on HN, I would have done it in a heartbeat.

As I have told you before, stop replying to me. We do not agree and we have had heated conversations at multiple occasions.

----------

> This is a lot of words and numbers about Anhui to skirt around the existence of Hefei

A city with an urban population of 5 million people - so only 10% of Anhui's population.

What about the other 56 million who do not live in that urban core?

If I am to use your metric, then we should treat Turkiye, Brazil, Mexico, and Thailand as developed first world countries.

> The entire point is _UNEQUAL_ development so a few 100 millions of disproportionately affluent / educated urbanites with $20000+ income can buy high value goods that would have no market if everyone was elevated to 10000 per capita doing less advanced work

Yet the median disposable income per capita of urban households in all of Anhui is $6,500 a year [0].

> The entire point is _UNEQUAL_ development

This is completely contrary to Xi's policy of Common Prosperity (something which I agree with him about, but disagree about his implementation).

A first world or "developed" country is not only a country with skyscrapers or EVs. It is a country where the bottom 10% and the top 10% can drink tap water, have similar life expectancies, similar educational indicators, have private toilets, etc.

> This is a lot of words and numbers

You mean, I shouldn't make a thesis and argument based on quantitative as well as qualitative data?

I can make an argument based on vibes and still make it solid?

/s

[0] - https://www.ceicdata.com/en/china/disposable-income-per-capi...

[aspenmayer]

> Your tone is horrid.

> I am having a discussion with GP, and while GP and I may disagree, we are still maintaining a civil tone with each other.

> This has been a common behavior of yours. If there was block functionality or reporting functionality on HN, I would have done it in a heartbeat.

> As I have told you before, stop replying to me. We do not agree and we have had heated conversations at multiple occasions.

Your original post pre-edit had self-censored profanity. Your desire to not receive replies from a specific user seems entirely hostile to the HN guidelines and its assumption of continually exercising good faith, especially if you feel that replies to you lack it. If you have a problem with a user, notify HN mods directly. I don't see how you expect others to keep track of when you decree that they aren't worthy of your replies, or why you would subject the rest of HN to the degradation of public debate that such a block feature would result in on HN, but respectful replies should be the norm and the goal all the same in either case.

If you don't want to engage someone in conversation or debate, then don't reply to them. To seek to preemptively forestall debate before it even begins via blocking a two-way dialogue is contrary to entering into such debate by making your own first post to begin with. If the only winning move is not to play, why insist on having the first and/or last move/word?

[maxglute]

>do not live in that urban core

Like rest of rural PRC, they can wait for the trickle down common prosperity. When it comes.

>disposable income per capita

That's dispoable per capita, double more for household. Move up to top 1-2 quantiles, and you have reasonble market for high end goods. And you know it's dispoable income.

>Common Prosperity

It is, but it's also reality, i.e. Xi not aiming a welfare state. But that's also secondary to national security issues like hammering semi conductor even if it means some provinces gets burnt. Hence also CCDI kick doors and take.

Xi's timeline for developed country is like 2049+, even then it's fully developed / modestly prosperous. In mean tie still has to balance common prosperity with strategic autonomy, and if that means farmers and informal workers have to take a back seat like they did under previous admins then so be it. Best he can do is throw them a few more bones. But not at the expense of growing "comprehensive power". A strong country can build high end tech to compete with other strong countries, even if parts of it developed to be strong.

>tap water

Yes, yes and developed countries definitely wouldn't neglect places like flint or first nations communities. I guess not so 1st world after all. Which is getting off topic, the point is planners need to plan for plan, somethings gets prioritized over others things, i.e. this is a thread about semi industrial policy, not poverty alleviation. Yes resource is limited, pouring money in chips can come at expense of common prospertiy. But there's a geopolitical competition happening, and if the competitor is not selling you chips, you need to prioritize making your own, even if at expense of building a lot of water pipes, for hollowing non productive villages.