Talk:Economy of Hong Kong

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 25 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DanMattondo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Debate[edit]

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) Roadrunner 04:10, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

This is strongly POV-- "The Economy of Hong Kong is widely believed, and some argue incorrectly, to be the most economically free in the world." I am a professional economist based in HK for the past 23 years, and I can't think of a single reliable source that would argue the perception of economic freedom is incorrect. -- DOR (HK) Dec 14, 2007

Some grammer clean-up in the opening section

From this . . . The Economy of Hong Kong is has been claimed to be the most economically free in the world.

To this . . . The Economy of Hong Kong is said to be the most economically free in the world.

From this . . . Even though Hong Kong is said to be a good example of laissez-faire capitalism, there are still many ways in which the government is involved in the economy.

To this . . . Even though Hong Kong is sometimes thought to be an example of laissez-faire capitalism, there are still many ways in which the government is involved in the economy.

And, a more neutral term here: From this . . . The Far East is one of the most economically successful regions of the world -- and Hong Kong’s is a major part of that regional economy.

To this . . . East Asia is one of the most economically successful regions of the world -- and Hong Kong’s is a major part of that regional economy. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction[edit]

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)[reply]

Per capita GDP[edit]

GDP per capita seems way too high. Anyone have a source on this info? novacatz 01:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Macro-economic trend[edit]

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)[reply]

I propose rewriting the Macro-economic trend section as below. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong deliberately began collecting and regularly publishing economy-wide data much later than its East Asian peers. The earliest gross domestic product estimates (for 1961 and subsequent years) were only released in 1973 and other basic data such as for the balance of payments were not compiled until 1999.[1] The chart below shows the change in real and nominal GDP by decades from when data first began to be published.

Can someone please fix up the "Public debt" figure? It was previously "$1.159 trillion" which is 20 times Gov't revenues, contradicting the statement "almost no public debt". I wasn't sure if these figures are in HKD or USD but either way the figures seem orders of magnitude wrong when compared with gov't revenues and spending. Tcotco (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Year Real GDP Nominal Growth Change in deflator
1960s* 8.7% 12.7% 3.7%
1970s 8.9% 19.2% 9.5%
1980s 7.4% 16.9% 8.9%
1990s 3.5% 9.0% 5.3%
2000s ** 4.7% 2.8% -1.8%
  • 1962-69 **2000-07

At the end of 2007, GDP was HK$1,627.5 billion (US$208.7 billion) and GDP per capita was HK$235,134 (US$30,157).

- - - end - - -

OK, three months is long enough. Change made. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Goodstadt, Leo F., Profits, Politics and Panics: Hong Kong’s Banks and the Making of a Miracle Economy, 1935-1985, p. 11, Hong Kong University Press, 2007 ISBN 978-962-209-896-1. Mr Goodstadt confirms that the statistical void was deliberate on p. 24.

History[edit]

I omitted the reference to Taiwan and the cultural revolution as both irrelevant and inaccurate. We already point to the hands-off approach pre-GPCR in Hong Kong, and Taiwan certainly would not be considered in the same laissez-faire class. Footnote also adjusted.(deleted material: "This model was developed in Hong Kong and Taiwan as a response to analyzing the cultural revolution effect in China. The Maoist era forecasted the production of steel, and the inability to produce led to the immediate collapse of the economy[5].") -- DOR (HK) Dec 14, 2007

GDP data also updated, as per new Chained 2005 national accounts. http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hong_kong_statistics/statistical_tables/index.jsp?charsetID=1&subjectID=12&tableID=032 -- DOR (HK) Dec 14, 2007

Employment in Hong Kong[edit]

I have just flagged the Employment in Hong Kong article for copyright violation. It is an almost complete verbatim lift from [1]. 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)[reply]

CIA factbook[edit]

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


Transformation[edit]

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

|-

The following table demonstrates which periods in the past exhibited some of the largest growth margins[1].

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%
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)[reply]
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) DOR (HK) Jan 24, 2008.[reply]
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)[reply]
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) DOR (HK) Jan 31, 2008[reply]
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)[reply]

I proposed replacing the above table with the following:

The following table indicates real economic growth since comprehensive data first began to be published, and corresponding changes in prices.

Year Real GDP Inflation
1962 14.16% 1.99%
1963 15.71 3.77
1964 8.57 5.05
1965 14.49 2.52
1966 1.75 0.60
1967 1.69 6.56
1968 3.39 3.35
1969 11.29 5.59
1970 9.22 8.89
1971 7.16 7.65
1972 10.53 9.22
1973 12.31 14.28
1974 2.28 11.70
1975 0.41 4.66
1976 16.23 9.60
1977 11.80 3.73
1978 8.38 7.99
1979 11.62 17.64
1980 10.34 15.49
1981 9.39 10.26
1982 2.98 11.11
1983 5.92 10.00
1984 9.91 8.59
1985 0.72 3.49
1986 11.04 3.60
1987 13.41 5.64
1988 8.44 7.80
1989 2.22 10.29
1990 3.90 10.19
1991 5.69 11.29
1992 6.09 9.58
1993 6.04 8.74
1994 6.01 8.87
1995 2.29 9.01
1996 4.19 6.27
1997 5.06 5.90
1998 -6.03 2.83
1999 2.56 -3.96
2000 7.95 -3.76
2001 0.50 -1.58
2002 1.84 -3.12
2003 3.01 -2.54
2004 8.46 -0.40
2005 7.12 0.93
2006 6.75 2.02
2007 6.0 2.03

Source: Hong Kong SAR Government Census and Statistics Department (GDP: http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hong_kong_statistics/statistical_tables/index.jsp?charsetID=1&subjectID=12&tableID=032; Inflation: http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hong_kong_statistics/statistical_tables/index.jsp?charsetID=1&subjectID=10&tableID=052). Data for 2007 GDP are average rates for the first three quarters; full year data will be available on February 27, 2008. Pre-1981 inflation data are for GDP deflator.

DOR (HK) (talk) 06:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC) DOR (HK) Jan 28, 2008[reply]

Feel free. Benjwong (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks. I have now done so, and also made some revisions to other data following release of fourth quarter and full year economic data. Source: Census and Statistics Department; and Speech by the Financial Secretary , moving the Second Reading of the Appropriations Bill 2008 ‘Supplement and Appendices’, 27 February 2008.DOR (HK) (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Present[edit]

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)[reply]

Intro Needs Work[edit]

"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)[reply]

It does not say perfect laissez-faire economy in the article. Are you reading an old revision? Benjwong 03:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Economic Freedom[edit]

"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) No arguements, eill try to find the ref's for the quote. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Anyone notice that Hong Kong has been on top of the economic freedom tables for longer than Bill Gates was on top of the Forbe's billionaire list? DOR (HK) (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other economic indicators[edit]

I've updated some numbers. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)DOR (HK) Jan 22, 2008.[reply]

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) DOR (HK) Jan 27, 2008[reply]
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)[reply]

A new table, on price changes. Can anyone with more knowledge than I fix the formatting? Thanks. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates[edit]

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

Economic Prospects[edit]

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)[reply]

Opening paragraphs[edit]

I propose amending the rather disjointed opening as follows. Please discuss. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong's highly favorable geographical position and entrepot trading opportunities are wealth-generating assets. Hong Kong's real GDP grew an estimated 8.5% per annum in the 1960s, 9% p.a. in the 1970s, and 7% p.a. in the 1980s. It then slowed sharply, averaging just 3.8% a year in the 20 years to end-2009. In nominal US dollar terms, per capita GDP rose by 9.7% a year in 1970-2009, to US$30,087.[2]

Prior to becoming a British colony in 1841, Hong Kong was a major haven for pirates. Under British administration, it soon developed into a thriving trading port. By the late 20th century, Hong Kong was the seventh largest port in the world and second only to New York and Rotterdam in terms of container throughput. The Kwai Chung container complex was the largest in Asia; while Hong Kong shipping owners were second only to those of Greece in terms of total tonnage holdings, and Chep Lap Kok International Airport was the busiest international air cargo terminal in the world.

In addition to geographical position, another major natural industrial-commercial asset of Hong Kong has been human resources. The population of the territory, now seven million, benefits from close integration with China’s thriving Pearl River Delta manufacturing hub, most of which developed with the assistance of Hong Kong investment. In Hong Kong itself, a skilled, adaptable, and hard-working labour force coupled with the adoption of modern British/Western business methods and technology ensured that opportunities for external trade, investment, and recruitment were maximised.

Since the 1970s, the economy of Hong Kong has been governed both under British and Chinese rule under an economic policy dubbed Positive non-interventionism espoused by former financial secretary John James Cowperthwaite.

Traditionally, the Hong Kong government has raised revenue from taxes on salaries and corporate profits and via the sale and taxation of land. From its revenues, the government has built roads, schools, hospitals, and other public infrastructure facilities and services. Education and healthcare are free to those who cannot afford to pay (very modest) fees, and heavily subsidized for all other residents. Partly because of a very modest social welfare system (and no spending on foreign affairs or defense), the government has run operating surpluses in all but eight of the past 30 years, accumulating in the process an estimated $500 billion in fiscal reserves.[3] Prior to the late 2000s, there was relatively little popular pressure for higher government spending, but since then pressure groups have demanded more funding for poorer people and neighborhoods.

(next: stock market section, unchanged by me)

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Yu was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department (http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hong_kong_statistics/statistical_tables/index.jsp?charsetID=1&subjectID=12)
  3. ^ budget.gov.hk

Prices[edit]

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

First paragraph rewrite[edit]

A modest suggestion. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong is one of the world's leading international financial centres. The economy is characterised by low taxation, mild regulation and near-free trade. Its currency, the Hong Kong dollar, is among the top ten most actively traded in the world.[1] An example of the preference for minimal government involvement in the economy is the issuance of bank notes: aside from the lowest denomination (HK$10, less than US$1.30), currency is legally issued by three major international commercial banks.[2]
Done, together with other monetary issues.DOR (HK) (talk) 06:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Triennial Central Bank Survey of Foreign Exchange and Derivatives Market Activity in April 2007" (PDF). Triennial Central Bank Survey 2007. Bank for International Settlements: 7. September 2007. Retrieved 5 September 2010.
  2. ^ http://www.legislation.gov.hk/blis_pdf.nsf/CurAllEngDoc/8850FA52388F223C482575EE0036B8BB/$FILE/CAP_65_e_b5.pdf

Run-on sentence[edit]

"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)[reply]

Photographs[edit]

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)[reply]

Cohesion[edit]

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)[reply]

External link[edit]

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%7CHong+Kong&source=1%7CITC) 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)[reply]

Disputable Source[edit]

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)[reply]

A little correction to the first paragraph[edit]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic finance trading[edit]

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)[reply]

homelessness[edit]

Proposing a section on homelessness. Benjamin (talk) 07:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GDP (etc.) Sources and Forecasts[edit]

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)[reply]

There is no such blanket ban, but what specific sourced did you have in mind? Benjamin (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

In all good faith, please consider the source. The IMF gets almost all of its primary data from national governments; it simply doesn't have the resources -- or the authority! -- to go into each member country and conduct a thorough economic survey. In those cases where local authorities do not define a category the same way as the internationally accepted method (e.g., retail sales in China include government purchases), the IMF 'may' adjust the figures. Much, much more likely is a footnote explaining that some data may not be comprable across international boundaries. So, back to the original point: why-oh-why do we use old, out-of-date IMF published data rather than hot-off-the-presses national data 'in the majority of the cases' ? My particular pet peeve is "2019 GDP $X.xx billion," when we've only just started the year. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are these here for?[edit]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

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)[reply]

HK's economic value to China[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Economy_of_Hong_Kong&oldid=1196378849"