Mao's Great Leap Forward 'killed 45 million in four years'

[doidoi2]

the per capita above is a cheat. you need to compare like with like, apple to apple. bring out the gdp per capita of comparable sizes of population from Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen ...then the comparison will explain something!

Excellent. You're arguing my case for me. Remember that we're talking about MAO's policies here. Let's take China's GDP in 1978 as an example:

China: 312 PPP $ 1978
Hong Kong: 4,789 PPP $ 1978
Korea, South: 2,141 PPP $ 1978
Japan: 7,292 PPP $ 1978

Data here:
GDP Per Capita, PPP current international $ statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

You think singling out Shanghai, Beijing etc will make a difference to how badly China fared in economics in 1978?

Now tell me Mao's Economic policies aren't idiotic. Proof's in the pudding. In contract, Deng's 100x better than Mao. I don't have to tell you the numbers after 1978 to tell you how much China improved WITHOUT Mao.

 

[shuttler]

Excellent. You're arguing my case for me. Remember that we're talking about MAO's policies here. Let's take China's GDP in 1978 as an example:

China: 312 PPP $ 1978
Hong Kong: 4,789 PPP $ 1978
Korea, South: 2,141 PPP $ 1978
Japan: 7,292 PPP $ 1978

Data here:
GDP Per Capita, PPP current international $ statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

Now tell me Mao's Economic policies aren't idiotic. Proof's in the pudding. In contract, Deng's 100x better than Mao. I don't have to tell you the numbers after 1978 to tell you how much China improved WITHOUT Mao.

you are shiting down the timeline towards 1978 and from there you quote a different set of figures and also avoid my argument stated in #60 about your fallacy on "per capita income" based on present day economic status!

 

[doidoi2]

you are shiting down the timeline towards 1978 and from there you quote a different set of figures and also avoid my argument stated in #60 about your fallacy on "per capita income" based on present day economic status!

Per capita income is a fallacy? hmm. Tell that to the IMF and the other powers who still track it for some odd reason. 1978 is chosen because we're comparing MAO's policies, not DENG's. It's a more apt comparison.

 

[BoXilai]

Mao and his wife, Jiang Qing. They're a great cupple for killing their compatriots. 恭喜两位!

 

[shuttler]

Per capita income is a fallacy? hmm. Tell that to the IMF and the other powers who still track it for some odd reason. 1978 is chosen because we're comparing MAO's policies, not DENG's. It's a more apt comparison.

are you lost in translation!?

not per capita income is a fallacy BUT the bases that the per Capita income of different territories which you based on contains faults. I repeat: you have to compare like with like, bring out the per capita data on BJ, SH, SZ, GZ .. to compare with HK, Twn, Sng, Jpn, RoK!

I am not arguing with you that Mao is a great reformist. He is not. Deng is!

 

[below_freezing]

nope. ROC was equally incompetent. Especially at retaining territory. ROC was corrupt, its people were idiotic. They didn't have the will of the people, that's why they lost. There is no golden age of ROC. China had a political battle between idiots and misguided peasants.

The fact of the matter is though... China's economy undoubtedly did worse than any other East Asian Economy. That part is not up for debate. You can come up with excuses all you want, it doesn't change the facts one bit.

Look at GDP numbers.

China ~$6k per capita
Japan ~40k
South Korea ~$20k
Singapore ~$40k

You can't argue with numbers.

Fail is fail. We should be glad that the PRC stopped failing. Remember, the PRC has much more resources at its disposal than any of the 3 countries. The failure of the economy is directly attributable to communist practices. The revival is directly attributable to turning away from a communist economic system.

Again, Mao's mixed. He's not a saint. If anything, Deng should be worshipped in Mao's place. He brought China out of becoming another North Korea.

No other Asian economy was devastated to the degree China was except South Korea. However, South Korea had big help. 70% of total investment in South Korea until 1972 was American, who pumped money into South Korea regardless of the military dictatorship and their command economy. Total resources don't matter. What matters is resources per capita, since you are comparing per capita GDP and not total GDP. If you were comparing total vs. total, then that'd be fine too, in which case we've already won. Please do not be intellectually dishonest and compare apples to oranges.

See, the fact is, China is one of the poorest nations on earth in resources per capita. We have 1/4 the water per capita of the world average, equal arable land to the US with 4x the population and per capita energy usage at around Latin American levels today. That is despite being the biggest electricity producer in the world. Per capita energy correlates strongly to per capita GDP.

The other fact is that China started from less than zero. In 1949, India had more railroads, more oil production, more steel production, more electricity production... etc than China did. Per capita, China was poorer than Africa in 1949.

 

[Zero_wing]

Wow Mao what a character killing his own country man that's your god wow monster much!!!

 

[Nan Yang]

45million only. Boy are they out of date. Its already 50 million. In a few more years it will be 100million.

 

[fly2012]

It was Deng Xiaopeng who brought stability in China but he too is involved in Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989 killing 5000 to 10000 people. Mao whole tenure only caused suffering for Chinese people.

LOL where did you get that number from? Were you there? There's no way it is even close to 10% of your number. It is amazing that so many people just spit out number on things that they have absolutely no idea about. And yes, I was in Tiananmen Square that night.

The same goes to this 45 million death, it started with 30 million and goes about 60 million and 80 million. 45 million was about 1/10 of then population, if that's the case, everyone must have family members or relatives starved to death. But over this many years very few people told me that he/she knew anyone starved to death. Even the original 30 million include "kids that should've been born but not", it is based on the projected population - actual population, not about number of people who get killed literally. People probably don't have energy for sex when they were starved. Nonetheless, It is no doubt a human tragedy from Mao's crazy policy, but making rediculous statement like this actually make people suspicious about the tragedy,

 

[Nan Yang]

Say that to the 45 million that were killed. Any country can become rich if their method of gaining wealth is simply kill off the poor. If India decided to kill off the poorest 10% of our country(including people living in slums), then we would be a pretty rich country ourselves. Same with Pakistan or any country really. Usually nations try to lift people out of poverty. Mao just killed the poor because they were too much of an embarrassment to the Chinese economy.

This is exactly what will happen in India if the Maoists/Naxalites gain power in India.

Mao was a true supportor of the peasant. He did all he could for the peasants. He distributed land to the poor, he started the barefoot doctors, he free the women. However some of his bad policies which was intended to help the poor backfired and resulted in death of 15million (Est by DXP) during a several years of drought and outside sanctions. In the end he died a poor man.

That is why Mao spirit is still very much alive all around the world and he is still the inspiration for the hopeless and the downtrodden.