⭐️Watch the bonus video: “How Corporations Vote in Hong Kong” on Nebula, which is just $15/year and includes CuriosityStream, here: curiositystream.com/polymatter
So, yes, Hong Kong is no longer an exemplar of free market enterprise. Because it no longer has free market enterprise. Regulations a free market do not make.
Time to talk about Afghanistan, bro. I know you like to talk about our neighbors, but you have tried two wrong neighbors at the very wrong time. -From Mainland China
"The privately-owned Jockey Club is granted a total monopoly on gambling, which, in exchange, sprayed charity around the city in a way only guilt can explain" too good
@@geoffreycharles6330 it means the gambling corp can earn as much profit then put those profit into city's charity based on their guilt. Literally mean, they donate because they feel like it
I was born and raised in Hong Kong. The monopoly/duopoly seem a completely normal thing in my life; and the laissez faire economy is something that is commonly taught in high school. It is through the critical lens from somebody not from Hong Kong, in that I can realise things that I grow up with or take as a simple fact may not be that simple at all. Thank you for encouraging me to be more critical towards what is happening in my home city and in the world.
Watching these videos, as well as paying close attention to Hong Kong's political crises of the past few years, has vastly improved my understanding as an HK-American, of what HK is, and what HK is not. When we learn more about our home, we can think of new ways to make it better.
@@metal_brrr_2005 What you mean wait? The 2019 riots were backed by the HK Corporatocracy against mainland regulations that affected them. They effectively weaponized the already present dormant unhappiness(ironically partly created by the Corporatocracy) against an easy big bad, the mainland. From my perspective, it was 2 bad guys fighting it out and using the civilians as fodder, many cynical adults saw through it, which is why they used the naïve kids for the extreme stuff.
How come Hong Kong had 98% of commercial banking concentrated in one institution in 2003? Compared to 78% in mainland China, it seems like it's more authoritarian and stratified.
The distinction between "corporatism" and "free-market capitalism" is one worth exploring. It's important to note that Milton Friedman and other expounders of ideological "free-market capitalism" strongly supported government intervention to prevent or break up technical monopolies.
@@SmallBeanImperialist I don't think you understood his comment. Milton Freidman and the dries (those who supported free market policies in the 70s) advocated for monopolies and oligopolies to be broken up by government, preventing wealth from being concentrated in the hands of few, and ensuring greater market competition. Which would also reduce prices. The common man wins if Milton ever had his way. (The dude I was replying to deleted his comment, so chill)
When there is government, Corporatism will always exist. The government interferes to ‘protect’ us (the consumer), but in reality there only do it because of lobbyists from large businesses bribing them. Why does Amazon now want regulation in their field of business? It’s because it keeps the start ups from expanding as it is more difficult for them. For this reason, I am an anarcho capitalist. If you’re worried about monopolies, why don’t you point your finger to your government? I believe in voluntarism, you should choose your life - the government has no authority over yourself.
Some of the staunchest of capitalists or free-market thinkers will basically say corporations can't exist in a free market, because corporations are legal entities assigned by government, not the market, and given protectionism.
NO! NO! NO! Many people say I am sick in the head. NOOOO!!!! I don't believe them. But there are so many people commenting this stuff on my videos, that I have 1% doubt. So I have to ask you right now: Do you think I am sick in the head? Thanks for helping, my dear aa
@@sinoroman all channels are biased, its only human. What sets channels apart is how well they cite their sources, and how willing they are to admit mistakes.
Mainlander moved to hong kong by the CCP or a true native? Security law. You have the freedom of speech. You have the right to address grievances to the government. You have the right to freedom of religion, even falun gong. Xinjiang province is not China. Tibet is not China. Taiwan is the rightful government of China.
Me too. It allows me to see how outsiders view Hong Kong and help me to recall stuff I learnt in Liberial Studies class. Even though I didn't like the subject, it did taught me something I wouldn't actively learn elsewhere. It's sad that the subject is being changed into a brainwashing propaganda.
@@dr.floridaman4805 "Mainlander moved to hong kong by the CCP or a true native?" No such thing as "true native". They all migrated there in the past 2 centuries
As someone from Hong Kong, it always surprised me when travelling overseas how cheap food is. You hear people complaining about how expensive food is in Sydney, Moscow, Amsterdam, Paris, London etc and when I go to supermarkets there, I am always shocked by how cheap food is in comparison. Took me until I was 20 to realise that it wasn't that food was cheap everywhere else, but that food was just expensive in Hong Kong.
How the fuck is food expensive in Hong Kong. Have you BEEN overseas??? Living the US for 14 years, unhealthy fastfood meals are around 12-16 USD. Lunch from local restaurants in Hong Kong is like HKD$40 -$120. In Europe a McD big Mac is like $10 euro. Wtf are you even talking about
@@nictse500 I am guessing he was a foreign expat in HK (his profile says South Africa), and not a Chinese HK'er. For all the crap people have to put up with on house prices and substandard living spaces, at least food is affordable in Cafe de Coral or any 茶餐廳. Foreign expats (unless they were Filipino/Thai/Indonesian maids) don't go to these places. People who live in Discovery Bay, send their kids to international schools (who can't speak a word of Cantonese even after growing up there), and shop at supermarkets selling organic food probably would find everything expensive.
@@hoco27 japan was more expensive back in the 90s. But their economy has been stagnant since the bubble popped. Their food prices remained relatively the same for the past 30 years.
This analysis whilst makes some good points misses probably the key reason for Hong Kong's success. Whilst deeply flawed the main reason for Hong Kong's growth is it mainly finances itself via corporate land leases, which allow it lower taxes on productivity. Most (edit not most but a large %) of the people are housed in public housing (admittedly inferior to Singapore's) , which also drives down worker costs. The high stamp duty also effectively nationalises a % of land/housing, as the liability of the tax comes off the capitalised price, though far less efficiently than an annual land tax would and their remaining private housing sector is still highly speculative. In short Hong Kong use land as a tax base (something Friedman did get right) as well as in part treat it a public good. Hong Kong is then perhaps best described as a quasi Georgist model but lacks the democratic and fully efficient tax system which would allow the people to prosper more equitably. Scrapping the remaining taxes on productivity and replacing leases, stamp duties etc with an annual land value tax and then sharing a portion of the revenues as a dividend al Alaska's permanent fund would allow the prosperity to not only grow further but be shared more equitably.
Interesting. Could you explain the Hong Kong: Ad Valorem Stamp Duty (AVD) for Residential Property vs. Non-Residential Property Special Stamp Duty (SSD) Buyer’s Stamp Duty (BSD) and double Stamp Duty? And the ongoing annual property tax rate? From the outside looking in, the Government ultimately, and perpetually owns all property - as there is no exclusive authority to determine how a resource is used by a citizen (What happens if a citizen can't pay their property taxes?). Thus, there are no real "property rights."
Only those who are lucky enough to making below a certain amount can apply for public housing and the waiting times are over a decade. I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.
@@ifeelverygood This is why I structured my comment as a QUESTION. I don't know and I wanted to learn more. It's also why my comment was in response to the statement made by _schumanhuman._ Your response is irrelevant, immaterial, and incompetent as it does not address the question(s) I posed at all.
I guess this explains why it is due to the failure of their public housing policy that led to the devastatingly bad living condition for a sizeable portion of the population. I always thought it was because of the government limit land supplies and thus choked the whole housing market, causing price to raise significantly. It sounds to me the intention is to leave the private housing market to the riches while public housing to the poor. It sounds good and it did provide affordable housing to what became the middle class (my family was one who benefited by it) at first. But, it relies heavily on the continuation of supply in public housing that the government simply couldn’t supply, forcing the middle class (and higher) who can no longer afford or just find it cheaper to go with public housing, to flood the public housing waiting list. My brother finally got his public housing after waiting for 10 years (he went back to town in 2007, tho), finally taking a huge financial burden off his shoulder. The rental market was just brutal that he wasn’t able to save any money at all, and we were all praying that he would get public housing as a relieve of his situation. This probably is the reality of a lot of people there too and also a bunch of ppl who were the original target population of such public housing policy are now being pushed to rent coffin-sized space within a flat to sleep/live… All in all, I guess the only thing the government can do is to significantly expand their public housing supply, magically.
It's also good to note that HK, a hilariously unequal place where conglomerates run everything and the government is *at best* ambivalent toward its peoples wellbeing. One of the few benefits publically provided is....a decently well-functioning public healthcare system and great public transportation infrastructure, would be good for policymakers and politicians in some other countries to take note...
@@mylim4020 the Transport Department is corrupt. They always cut services and raise fares for buses, then make the MTR more convenient. They cause damage to BravoBus(NWS) and KMB, and make the MTR better
as who born and living in Hong Kong, I can agree at 'great public transportation infrastructure', although the public transport, KMB, MTR is monopoly, and have some controversial pricing, you can reach almost everywhere in Hong Kong via public transports, MTR, KMB, minibus, etc. within 1-2hours I doubted that public healthcare system is healthy, while private healthcare are not as affordable to middleclass, public healthcare are usually in shortage. Booking for medical services are usually for months, or worse, 1-2 years. And now, Covid-19 is putting HK's public healthcare to it limit, and I doubt that the tension can last in the long run
“Non-permanent residents pay 30%, effectively blocking non-resident from own any homes.” Oh, I can hear the laugh of Shenzhen natives even here in Vancouver.
Corporatocracy sounds about right. In a city this small, the early successful entrepreneurs likely monopolized the daily commodities, thus the rich gets richer. Then makes the government impossible to not bend for them.
Only an authoritarian government would be able to break Hong Kong's monopolies, but we all know that's not gonna happen anytime soon. For all the sob stories of "oppression" from the protesters and rioters who are sore from getting the nightstick, Hong Kong is still a VERY laissez faire city, in fact, one of the leading examples as this video explains.
@@canto_v12 oh, it's coming soon. Hong Kong autonomy ends in 2049. Just 28 more years and the authoritarian communist party of China will be fully governing Hong Kong and will do as it pleases them
@@canto_v12 static I doubt, but China has a tradition of authoritarianism with no democracy since time immemorial. Even Taiwan, that boasts about being democratic, was a dictatorship for most of the period since WW2. And Hong Kong, c'mon, that's anything but democratic. Companies control the legislative process by their direct vote. It's anything but a democracy
@@ttuliorancao what are you talking about? China is one of the few places on Earth where popular revolt and opinions have mattered for millenia. Today it's a dictatorship but it has a long history of being way more democratic than any European country until the 20th century. One example is the first emperor of the Han Dynasty, who was originally a commoner and rose to prominence after a popular revolt. Compare that to western countries where revolutions always end up with the elites winning
People often bring up "monopolies" as a critique of free market capitalism. Yet, by definition, government-created monopolies mean that part of the economy isn't a free market. In a truly free market, monopolies can only exist if one company can somehow manage to provide a particular product at such high quality and/or low price that no one else is able to compete. That can be possible by creating more efficient production methods or business practices, in general. But, it can also be possible by a company selling at a loss for a time so as to get rid of competition that simply can't sell at that low a price. This predatory pricing, however, is inherently unsustainable. And, the moment they increase their prices that opens the door for competition to once again return.
Monopolies can and have existed in free-market economies and its not a rare occurrence either. A company does not need to have a better product, they just need to have more money & resources than everyone else. Monopolies are inherently a part of free-market capitalism and are one of the many reasons why it's a flawed economic system.
@@CrazyWeeMonkey Ok, can you go into more detail? Give some specific examples. How would a single company having a lot more money and resources lead to them becoming a monopoly? There are plenty of companies existing today that meet that criteria, yet are far from monopoly status. You claim monopolies are inherent to free-market capitalism. In what way is that the case? I fail to see that. The one main example I can think of here is Standard Oil. This company became a monopoly in the U.S. by making their production processes so efficient that few others even attempted to compete. Rockefeller cut every cost he could in order to offer customers the lowest price possible. This is exactly what free-market capitalism aims for. Yet, Standard Oil was broken up by the U.S. government for engaging in "unfair practices" like price-cutting that drove smaller competitors out of business. In other words, they broke up the company because it could offer customers lower prices than anyone else. In this way, I can see monopolies being an intentional result of a free-market. But, that is far from being inherent. More often, a free-market breeds numerous competitors offering very similar products at very similar prices to one another.
@@johnc1014 Monopolies can be created (and often have been) by buying out other companies or using your resources to purposely undercut competitors out of business. Without regulations in place, nothing stops companies from doing any of the things listed above, nor does it stop them from committing espionage against other companies. Standard Oil became a monopoly because it bought out it's competition.
@@CrazyWeeMonkey Sure, one company can buy others if they have the funds to do so. You say "buy out," which makes me think of a failed business with a large sum of debt being bought my a more successful business. There's nothing wrong with that. Of course, your fear would be the lack of competition leading to inflated prices and lower quality. But, a monopoly raising prices or lowering quality would open the door for new competitors to take away that monopoly status. In our present reality, government frequently creates monopolies and sets regulations that bar new competition. But, in a free market, there is no such government regulation. The only way a single company can maintain a monopoly is by continuing to provide adequately low prices and high quality for customers. No regulation is needed here. Now, you do bring up a good point about "espionage." Firstly, it's the duty of any individual or business to ensure their own security to some degree. You shouldn't just leave your door wide open for anyone to enter at will. That said, certain actions should absolutely be illegal and punishable through a justice system. If a business commits theft, fraud, espionage, or any other such crime, they should absolutely be held criminally liable. That isn't regulation prior to a crime, but rather criminal penalty imposed after the commission of a crime.
@@johnc1014bros writing way to much so I didn't read but you asked for an example of a monopoly. American Company, the famous MaBell. (proper name was Western Electric I think) it was a telecom company which owned all the telephone lines in America. You cannot just enter that business because it would require you to build an entirely separate network of wires across the country. This cost is far too high and as such nobody bothered trying to enter the market, additionally Bell would cut prices in areas where new company's somehow sprung up and then buy out the newly bankrupt company's increasing their market share. Why aren't they around now? Government intervention had to break them up, not the,"glorious hand of the free market"
This "corporatocracy" reminds me of the Venetian Republic (and Genoese etc... "Maritime republics" in general) and its focus on trade and commerce inevitably linked with the merchant oligarchy.
As someone born and raised in hong kong, I honestly thought all of this was normal and was very much reasonable. But from what I see, if you are a lower class would suck as high rent and grocery cost etc., but your life as a middle class or higher citizen, your life is reasonably good here. Although yes, we don’t get to pick which companies we get our services from. But from what we see, most things are reasonably priced.
@@djinn666 HK has weaknesses that prevent it from reaching American levels of average income. Those include lacking America’s huge supply of illegal labour, small land size and closed borders stopping free migration of talent, an overrreliance on old, less innovative industries like shipping and business management, etc.
If people realize that monopolies make the market not-free anymore. When you lose choices, you pay more and get less. You work more and receive less. This is why Hong Kong citizens are not as well off as the citizens in other countries not dominated by monopolies to the same degree. This is also why the whole world is so afraid of FB, Twitter, Amazon etc monopolies.
@@GiantDude indeed. If you want to see the best and worst features of laissez-faire capitalism. Look no further than to Hong Kong. I guess even though I am generally for free-markets and capitalism, one should consider the great contributions of so-called "socialists" (I prefer to call them reformists) that allowed a means for us plebs to balance the scales between us and the global corporatocracy. For all its faults, the US model might be the most balanced in principle but sadly is eroded away as tech monopolies and their allies are getting stronger in overall influence to what is the "American Project".
It's just like the US system but they are more blatant about it. Limiting banking etc to one seat each might be better than having all of them potentially bought.
As visited one before, food trucks are only allowed to sell food in designated places, so what meant by “can’t move” is “can’t move and sell food”, but those trucks can pack everything and drive to another designated place to sell though.
This is really interesting and informative. There’s a lot of stuff in this which I didn’t know about before. Kudos to poly matter and keep up the great work👍👍
Free market capitalism in East Asia is so wildly different than what we in the West (specifically North America) think of as "free market" capitalism. It's almost always more paternalistic than we imagine; there is a respect for success and those who get big, stay big.
it comes from a place of "face". if you fail as a big company, you lost "face" so hence the incentive to success, and to be conservative even at government levels. and that includes the CCP.
It never was and no historian ever claims that it was. Probably a common misunderstanding and a poor assumption that a democratic Britain would rule over a democratic colony.........NOPE!
@@Croz89 Yep, when Britain got flatly denied their request to keep Hong Kong in 1984, they finally realised how bad they looked, never having given Hong Kong an elected governor. They had until 1997 and never did it.
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” Adam Smith, 1776
Giving a few counter examples doesn't rule out HK being the most capitalist place on Earth. If you did a video of counter examples of capitalism in the US the video could be 10 years long but it's still relatively capitalist compared to most other places.
Yeah I thought this would be the answer given. Australia and New Zealand are two countries that were higher up than the US in both lists, and they've got universal healthcare, strong labor protections, etc.
@@TheLastScoot I'd always like to argue the US have been more corporatist(which has nothing to do with corporations) than capitalist since FDR implemented the New Deal.
the video would only be more comprehensive if the major real estate developers such as Sun Hung Kei Prop, New World etc were mentioned. They are the monopolies in the real estate which enjoyed so many privileges in Hong Kong. The unbelievably high housing prices are also one major reason for the inequality here. On top of that, the video was contradicting the reality a bit when it talks about economic freedom. It is no longer guaranteed since 2020 after the national security law had been implemented. Anyway, it was lovely to see a lot of footage from the old Hong Kong. Our home has changed a lot for bad these years because of the government. Good to reminisce the old times. Thank you for making this on Hong Kong.
You could easily make a third video on the monstrous state of Hong Kong housing and property. There is a good reason why the city is currently the second most expensive place to live in the world.
I don't get where this is coming from, I lived there for a while and soon am moving back permanently yes house prices are ridiculous but if you move away from central and rent it gets very reasonable 2-bedroom apartment for, 10000hkd per month, thats the same size as my apartment currently in the uk
continuing with letting corporates have such a large say in legislature was a mistake for Hong Kong in hindsight, as China used that same system to appoint their own Chief Executive despite losing popular vote by the Hong Kong citizens.
@@luizcastro5246 they hit the roof when some democratic changes were made before handover. What was there until they realised that if it was vaguely possible to lose an election, they would lose was a system they designed themselves that they didn't think they could ever lose.
@@bobs_toys Those democratic changes were made BECAUSE of the handover. The British tried to negotiate a way to keep the territory. When the Chinese said no, they left them a little going away present. HK was never a democracy even under the British, so it's funny when people talk about it as if it was. Looks like the British once more succeeded in leaving a mess, as they have in so much else of the world.
@@ArawnOfAnnwn I do like how you ignore the CCP's threats to invade Hong Kong if the British ever changed its colonial status by doing things such as introducing democracy. As was highlighted in my first response, which you undoubtedly read but ignored. Why do you feel the need to be dishonest?
These are not "government maintained" in the sense that the corporations basically determine market regulation (or lack thereof). Capitalism at its finest. Take what you can and control who you can.
Because they exist due to the corporations being allowed complete control in the first place without ever breaking up monopolies. Corporatism is just the result of what happens when you allow unlimited freedom to the corpos and then they end up taking over the government.
It's interesting to note that monopolies can only exist with the help of the government...(exclusive license, ip,etc) without government intervention capitalism dose not give birth to monopolies
Monopolies thrive WITHOUT government intervention. But it’s always tricky either way. They broke up Bell and all the little babies reformed into megacorps a little while later.
Dear PolyMatter, Thank you once again for a well researched and developed piece. Milton Friedman argued that a company’s sole obligation to society is to make money without breaking the rules. “....There is one and only one social responsibility of business, “to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it . . . engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud...". This economic model is akin to a car engine on blocks in a garage. It is fed fuel and turns a fly wheel, as a result operates ( and pollutes ) easily and freely. This is because there is no "load" on the engine. As a living economic system, capitalism will create whatever environments are necessary to prevent any "load" from being applied to the engine, and prevent any restrictions of the flow fuel. However capitalism is not a society. A society is a collection of individuals who exist inside and outside of the capitalistic model. Individuals and corporations are not one in the same. What the needs are if a capitalist system, and corporations, and not always those of a society, and they often do not coincide. Friedman argued that social needs and capitalistic freedom were one and the same, however an engine turning over in a garage on blocks runs well, but performs no work. Taxes, Fees, and Regulations are the power train that allows the engine to perform effort. One of the predominate issues ( that you did point out ) representing Hong Kong's vast success was an seemingly endless supply of legal, and illegal, labor who earned very, very low wages. Much like the past English Industrial, and the current US Food Industries, an stream of low wage workers fueled all three economies.
7:18 not only 2 bus companies in Hong Kong Transport International owns KMB (Kowloon and NT) and LWB (NT to airport) Bravo Transport owns NWFB and Citybus (HK island, latter one does also airport - kowloon services) Lantau Island also has NLB, to make up the 5 franchised bus companies in Hong Kong, with numerous small non-franchised companies.
@@lu881 I’m a Hong konger and my family is not planning to move, here’s why: 1. My parents both have jobs here 2. I still need to finish secondary school 3. We have elderly grandparents that we must be there for and can’t adapt to a new place 4. All my friends and a lot of my family are here 5. I love the freedom of being able to go out whenever I want, wherever I want, without worrying about needing a car OR Covid. The fact of the matter is almost no places in the world have this. 5. Where would I even go? To me it’s nit worth sacrificing all these things above to start a new life in another country. OBVIOUSLY I understand why people are moving, and I wish them nothing but the best of luck. And OBVIOUSLY I am not happy with the encroachments on freedom we are facing. But until I finish school at least, I’m staying.
@@PatheticTV "And OBVIOUSLY I am not happy with the encroachments on freedom we are facing" What encroachments on freedom? You mean the freedom China gave you guys that the British didnt?
@@PatheticTV Your level of self-awareness is pretty impressive, considering that you're only in secondary. I hear what you're saying. Your reasons sound realistic.
I don't think saying Hong Kong's capitalism was a result of historical happenstance rather than intention really refutes Milton's theory. Hong Kong is extremely capitalist in most areas, except maybe freeing up land use for housing. The fact there are "monopolies" or duopolies makes sense. Corporations will consolidate until the most efficient economy of scale is achieved. This is especially true in sectors like electricity and transit.
That IS what eventually happens when capitalism and the free market are taken to its natural conclusion. Eventually, there will be one player who will conquer all the others, and then there will be a monopoly.
@@useless_name They sometimes do. There's a difference between a natural monopoly and an artificial one. The later is made through governmental coersion while the former is made through people just prefering their services and products to others (aside from some exceptions). An example is Google, people say it is a monopoly because it totally dominates the search engine market, and they are right, but that doesn't make it inneficient or bad for the consumer, to the contrary, it's precisely why it is a monopoly: people prefer it to their competitors. The biggest proof of this is that the n1 most searched for term in Bing (one of it's largest competitors) is Google... ¿If people just prefer the service or product that one company (or two) make, and this results in a "monopoly", is this really something bad or inefficient?
@@pineapplesareyummy6352 This. Wholeheartedly. As a fellow Konger I have witnessed too many cases like that happening right in front of my eyes. Unregulated free market ALWAYS results in monopoly or duo-poly eventually. Winners always win and winners take all.
well... in some ways it's hurting them, but by supporting the local smaller players as protest it works as a personal thing... human are funny... always making pits and drawing lines...
As a Hong Kong expat (born in 1981, therefore I've seen both the British era and after handover in 1997), I am surprised this is a fair and accurate video about the city, minus the usual condescending Western propaganda. Yes, it is true HK is a corporatocracy. It is neoliberalism on steroids that will make even Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher blush. Believe me, being ranked #1 "free-est economy in the world" by the Heritage Foundation is a DUBIOUS distinction you do not want. The only comment I have against your video is you didn't show the real estate situation. Namely, we are the most unaffordable housing market in the world. Poor people literally live in cages, while large numbers of people live in micro-flats of 200 sq. ft. I would not be able to afford an apartment if I ever returned to the city, for example. My aunts have an apartment of their own because my grandparents bought it 50 years ago. The entire system is designed to funnel money to the top. It used to be British tycoons; since handover, it is now ethnic Chinese (Hong Kong) tycoons at the top, but the effect is the same. This massive inequality (we have one of the highest GINI indices in the world) and unaffordability of living costs is the reason for the riots blowing up in 2019. I actually saw it coming. Every time I visit my relatives, I can tell from taxi drivers how difficult live has become. But where people get it so wrong is that HK is screwed not because of China but because of the system left behind by the British. At least your video has the courtesy to state the fact HK was never at any point a democracy - I am shocked that there are even young HKers who don't know this fact (maybe they are just too young and ignorant). As for me, I literally can't wait until 2047 comes. The Mainland is literally light years ahead of HK in competent governance. Shenzhen is now an economic success story which overtook HK a long time ago. Yet, because the CCP implements certain laws on property developers, and that the CCP does not rely on land sales to prop up an artificially low tax rate (which incentivises juicing up property prices), Shenzhen's property prices are still a fraction of HK's, and they are far better developed, happier, and a more balanced city. I don't plan to ever go back to HK. If I do return to China, I'll choose to live in a more spacious, better run, more affordable city on the Mainland.
@@cheesemccheese5780 It is the latter by far. Hong Kong is dense, but not without precedence in the rest of the world. Singapore is even denser than Hong Kong, and they don't have the real estate problem that HK has because Singapore's government runs public housing for Singaporeans, and they have regulations so foreign property speculators don't compete for the same stock of housing as locals.
@@cheesemccheese5780 I said being the free-est economy in the world is dubious because like all things, there must be BALANCE! Too much of the free market and not enough regulations, and not only do you end up with monopolies, there are also social question like economic inequality, degradation of the environment, etc., which are not normally quantified (or even considered) by the "free market". A society has to strive for a balanced approach which fosters social cohesion and social harmony. With a society like Hong Kong, the pendulum obviously swung too far in the direction of the "free market", and not enough attention paid to the actual lived experience of its people.
@@cheesemccheese5780 That's utter nonsense! Big businesses want LESS regulations, not more, for good reason. And it is also good reason for PEOPLE to want more regulations to protect the consumer, to protect the environment, etc. Excessive economic inequality is the precise reason why countries are falling apart, why governments have become dysfunctional, why societies is increasingly at war with itself. As the West reverts to the inequality level it last had in the 19th century, its politics has also become as toxic and dysfunctional as it were then. Africa's situation might be improving because they are starting to enforce their regulations against poaching. None of these have anything to do with the "free market".
@@cheesemccheese5780 Oh, and there is absolutely no evidence Afghanistan was ever second least unequal. I just looked up the GINI indices for various countries. Afghanistan doesn't even have a number, presumably due to lack of reliable data. The most unequal countries are concentrated in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa. And they are a mess for good reason.
hong kong sure may be a ultra capitalistic hellhole with a grossly corrupt and incompetent government and dominated by giant corps (I'm sure you're very familiar with this), and the people especially the upper middle class reek of this mindset too, but no way in hell is China or their megacities a better place to live in. everything from the building, food and product quality to the pollution to the lack of freedoms and total government infiltration and control to just the mindset and culture there these days. singapore is a better option.
It’s called Corporatism. The government looks after the big businesses for bribes from lobbyists. It helps both parties stay in power whilst the general population loose. Solution: get rid of the government and let competition thrive
Appreciate the cover of Hong Kong, but as a HongKonger this video completely missed one point. Even tho hk is definitely extremely corporatised and have a lot of monopoly. The actual free market is the option of price point we have for the same product. For example a simple head of broccoli, you can get it at a higher-end supermarket like Taste and Market Place for up to 30hkd per head. For mid-price supermarket like Wellcome and Parking it will price around 15hkd. For local wet market though, it can go as low as 5hkd. The situation of the same product sold in different price ranges based on what kind of business it’s place in is very common for us. “Oh I can get this for a cheaper price at ______” is quite ingrained in a lot of people when it comes to budgeting and price comparing. So I find this video to be quite misleading since you didn’t mention all of the small businesses most HongKonger shop at. Wet Market, 藥房（local drug store), mum and pap shop, etc
The purpose of a government in an ideal Capitalistic system is to break up monopolies as they inevitably form. Not doing this turns an otherwise free and entrepreneurial society into a Corporatist Oligarchy as evidenced by Hong Kong and arguably the US as well. Meanwhile pre-WW1 US would be evidence of how well a government, that does what it's supposed to, could foster the ideal Capitalistic society.
I feel like this video failed to distinguish between British Hong Kong and Chinese Hong Kong. Milton Friedman's praise was directed at Hong Kong during British rule. But the examples of corporatism given are from modern Chinese ruled Hong Kong. The video does not establish whether the economic situation under British rule was similar, or whether the modern corporatism is something that has developed since the beginning of Chinese rule.
Koala1203 I dont understand why people keep saying that? HK was the most capitalistic place on earth when they had ZERO democracy. What makes you think it still wont be in the future?
@@yerri5567 I get the impression that a lot of the people who comment on his videos tend be "hurr durr China bad" rather than being rational. There are even some comments claiming he is pro CCP propaganda, even though he put "Glory to Hong Kong" in one of his videos and mocked Xi and Carrie Lam in another.
I don’t think whoever wrote this knows what capitalism is. Hong Kong’s capitalism isn’t a “myth”, rather all the things mentioned are just natural byproducts of a capitalist mode of production. To say “Hong Kong isn’t capitalist because the way it’s organised is actually bad” is to say that “my definition of capitalism is what happens when an economy or country is good”, which is laughable.
Awesome videos as always. Could you please do a video on how Singapore manages to have some of the worlds best education, infrastructure, healthcare, etc while only spending 17% of their GDP whereas countries like the US and Germany need to spend 30-40% in order to compete?
Their GDP is much higher because it includes heavy amount of services and finance revenue that can scale a lot better for a tiny population. It can’t exactly be imitated on a country scale
Generally I think Singapore's gov't spends more on longer-term/supply side policies, with less populist pressure for shorter-term solutions e.g. unemployment benefits. Instead of pensions the gov't also forces workers to maintain saving accounts for retirement, with employers legally required to chip in too except for foreign staff (which has also led to reports of discrimination against locals as employers might thus find foreigners cheaper to hire). For education 1 thing I can think of is that Singapore has more economies of scale (EOS) due to its high population density, so it could serve its population with fewer bigger schools that'd then need less principals & other staff, each typically with close to 2000 students, & before 2016 some classrooms were shared with 2 classes, 1 with morning-only lessons & another with afternoon-only lessons. Once a school's population drops below ~500 I estimate, the gov't will close it down/merge it with another school due to loss of EOS (e.g. _Chai Chee_ Secondary had 3 classes for each of its 4-5 grades (Secondary 1-5; equivalent to 7-10th grade) (~20-40 students each) when it was merged with another school). Personal experience has been that there's quite a lot to be taught & teachers often don't have much time to clarify all students' questions (& I heard that they work pretty long hours too), so many also spend more on private tuition to make up for that. For healthcare I heard the gov't is quite selective on the range of medicines it subsidises, but unsubsidized ones I heard can get quite expensive. It also encourages more self-reliance by forcing citizens & PRs to maintain saving accounts for healthcare (MediSave) & get insurance (MediShield Life is the gov' one & you can add on with private insurance, though the gov't has controversially tightened its coverage to fight what it claims is a "buffet mentality"). Another controversy is that the range of doctors on insurers' panels (i.e. those whose treatments they're willing to insure) is more limited, with other doctors' coverage dropping significantly I heard. Subsidies can be quite selective too e.g. to qualify for them, you won't be allowed to choose which doctor to see in a public hospital, unless you're elderly, & you can't be referred to there by a private doctor (as opposed to one in a gov't polyclinic i.e. a supersized public GP/dispensary that works shorter hours), & dental procedures plus health checkups are often uninsurable & unsubsidizable. For infrastructure, the gov't can sometimes be more conservative e.g. a neighbourhood may exist for up to 30-40 years before it's served by a train station, while it also charges a 30% tax on water bills (which goes up to 45% if your consumption exceeds a certain amount, unless you're a commercial user). Think we might be 1 of the few countries worldwide to tax CNG too.
The reason hong kong was influenced by China so easily was because corporations have the right to vote, and the CCP has control over what the corporations want.
Zyansheep "The reason hong kong was influenced by China so easily was because corporations have the right to vote, and the CCP has control over what the corporations want" No. Its because theyre part of a country called China...so theyre influenced by the country called China...
I believe two things can be true at once. It is true that Hong Kong was relatively free to more restrictive business environments as pre 1980s UK. This laissez faire policy framework has been instrumental in its growth no matter the intentions behind the implant. You can easily make the distinction with poor countries that were on par with Hong Kong in the 1950s like Sri Lanka or even some parts of India. It can also be true it is adversely affected by the plutocratic nature of its government. Most of the duopolies you mentioned were really ‘technical’ monopolies which are only hypothetical. They are all government enforced licensing schemes. It is imperative that we view these ideologies in a more nuanced way than a heavily edited 90 minute documentary which generalizes a lot of things.
Food trucks not allow to move, but you can have their food. Cargo ships not allow to be on water, but you can store your cargos. passenger planes not allow to fly, but you can drive around the airport with it.
@5:24 contains one of the most important statements for people who are wary of Hong Kong's recent crises: "Contrary to what many believe, Hong Kong was *never* democratic." This video demonstrates how Hong Kong is the perfect example of separating capitalism from democracy.
@@Venusupreme It is undeniable that Hong Kong lost a few in terms of absolute quantity. However, IMO Hong Kong had freedoms that would never fly in many other countries, and now that those are being taken away, it is more on par with what other countries will tolerate. No modern, stable country would tolerate a unilateral attempt to secede, for example. Spain and Catalonia are the perfect example, and if you want to go back further in time, even the American Civil War is a great example. Also, having random unelected "pro-democracy figures" jet-set to a trade partner country, access its leadership and say "Hey, please sanction my country because they suck" is sort of unprecedented. Throughout the unrest of 2019, a common slogan on the internet and the streets was "death to all cops and their families." Living in California, I don't think a protest movement using this sort of slogan would last very long, and the fact that riot police didn't kill anybody in Hong Kong makes that slogan even more ridiculous. The fact that these unusual "freedoms" lasted for so long in Hong Kong is actually sort of incredible, and especially under the sovereignty of an authoritarian country like China.
Hong Kong and China are great examples of how bad we are at analyzing and teaching political systems. China being state capitalist country(with fascist tendencies) but being called communist contry and Hong Kong being regulated autocratic corporatocracy but being called laissez-faire capitalist country. It's almost like it's better to analyze system from perspective of distribution of social power and conflict between groups rather than 2 axis political analysis . Because when you start doing this, you will see that both system in Hong Kong and China are created for privileged class, just along different lines
Phantom Thief Irwin "HK USED to be the most capitalist place on earth. But nowadays idk" If it USED to be the most capitalist place on earth without ANY democracy, what makes it still wont be even with hypothetically absolutely zero democracy?
You’re combining history from before the British handover with history from after the British handover. You can’t say Hong Kong from these two time periods was the same. No where in the video did you explore business monopolies from before the British handover, the most important time period for your argument. Mixing facts from 1980’s and 2020’s to build a narrative, whether correct or not, is bad journalism.
That because for the big companies before and after the return doesn’t make much difference. The political change is huge, but business / financial regulation changes are almost negligible before and after the return. As the video is purely talking about business / financial regulation, there’s no point mixing politics in it.
Or just look up poor elderly people who live in cages. That's what happens when you let capitalism / corporatism / oligarchism run to its natural conclusion and all the wealth gets concentrated in only a few hands.
i just checked one source: the prices in Hong Kong arent THAT high as suggested. The "study" used was an "opinion article" that took 20 everyday item (for a westerner) and bought them in 4 different stores, one for each city. Guess where they went to shop in Hong Kong? MARKS&SPENCER FOOD. Why go to the most expensive shop, if u can go to much cheaper supermarkets????
NWFB is more like a "subsidiary" of CTB, since they mainly focus on CTB more and both are under a company called Bravo Bus. So the main players should be KMB and Bravo Bus or KMB and CTB+NWFB
6:47 your example of the “problems” with capitalism where created by the government. Regulation created monopolies. A true free-market has no government.
Companies don't need regulation to create and maintain monopolies. Economies of scale let them outcompete smaller businesses, they can drop prices to the point where they're losing money to make competitors lose all business, only to increase the prices once the competitor is dead. You may be more right in certain industries, but the actual physical realities of certain industries lend themselves to monopolies. Massive startup costs, long startup times, scale greatly reducing costs, and customers not being able to easily switch products are all non-government factors that can incline industries towards monopoly.
@@WanderTheNomad Murray Rothbard did. Albeit most economists were never convinced by it. But still, if you want an explanation of how it might work, read Rothbard. There's also an alternative model to be found in David Friedman's works.
@@TheLastScoot I don’t have the sources on me right now and I would encourage you to look into it but the price dropping practice doesn’t work. Otherwise yes there can be non government monopolies but those unlike government ones usually are to the benefit to the people.
Left to itself, a free-market will eventually create a monopoly. As long as the monopoly is not government-made or sponsored, a monopoly may be tolerated for the meantime. Let the free-market come up with the solution to the monopoly Actually the video is about government regulation of the free market. The free-market is a 'myth' because of government overreach. It's not the fault of the free-market itself.
Mr Bridge In what way is it still not? Back then they didnt have ANY democracy and was the most capitalist region. What makes you think it still wont be?
Capitalism was good at the beginning for Hong Kong but turned bad once China opened up its market to Hong Kong businesses. Now many of the best and smartest of Hong Kong people go to China to expand their business because of huge market and low labor costs. Hong Kong culture also left to China which is a shame since it was once captured the western worlds #1 international film market.
@@warnercheng5564 "Capitalistic at his best is basically the economy is totally free from government hands However HK is going to the opposite" Not exactly. Even China is arguably seen as the most capitalist country in the world. Yet its economy is not "free" from the government. Whatever that means...Every country as laws and regulations on businesses
You're all having those great business yt channels but not being able to see that having 2 products (nebula and curiosity stream) is hurting you. Merge and take solid positioning for god sake.
@@user-qs2nr3ee6l I sent this before finishing the video. Praising Milton Friedman or the Heritage Foundation is always a red flag for me and I thought it was gonna be a video about praising free market capitalism
@@anthonytruong1061 It is a big red flag. I am an expat HKer, and I will straight up say that being awarded "freest" in the world by the Heritage Foundation is a dubious "honour" most actual resident would wish we didn't have. HK is just Reagan/Thatcher on steroids. It's not even the worst example of what neoliberalism does. For that, you'll have to look at post-Soviet economies like Russia, Ukraine, etc. They swallowed neoliberalism hook, line and sinker. They implemented "shock therapy", which completely destroyed their industry, plunged the GDPs of Russia/Ukraine by two-thirds in the 1990s, resulted in mass homelessness, alcoholism, orphans, and all the problems for which Russia has been maligned since the end of the Cold War, and the Russians are so traumatised by their experience that the word "liberalism" is basically a swear word up north (and I don't blame them).
@@pineapplesareyummy6352 I didn't know that about Ukraine or Russia but that doesn't surprise me. I knew East Berlin had everything great (no homelessness or unemployment) and capitalists in the west wanted to do everything to overthrow it
It’s has to be said that the big corporations in the west have a wet dream that’s reality in Hong Kong. So many companies in the west would love to have 80% or more market share. But it’s for the better because competition is a good thing , it leads the market into a completely open market where the best price/quality/branding eventually takes their earned share of the market.
woah. you tried to show that monopolies were a result of the free market, but you also indirectly said that these were government made monopolies (regulations, licenses). Misleading
you didn't get it. watch the video again. Polymatter is arguing that Monopolies are not the result of the free market but of privileges and unfair advantages granted to the elite throughout its history. the central narrative of the video is that Hong Kong isn't really the prime example of capitalism the old scholars claimed it was.
There are several ways to explain this. One, the government didn't really "make" those monopolies. Monopoly is the ultimate goal of all capitalists. Think about it, if you ran a huge business you'd want to control the government and bend all the rules in your own favour. That's what happened to Hong Kong and it happened well before its return to China. That has not changed to this day. Also, the free market isn't as "free" as some economic theorists describe, and the video gave several examples to demonstrate that point.
@@canto_v12 I agree with everything but I want to say that corruption and monopolies aren't because of capitalism. It is because of the state being to naturally probe to corruption. Monopolies and corruption are features of socialism, not capitalism. Another thing I want to say is, that there is no free market in the world. There are only freer ones. Usually some are freer in one ways, others in another ways. Hong Kong might be pretty bad at corruption, monopolies and other gimmicks.
I think what Polymatter is trying to push forward here is not that "free market is bad as it will always lead to monopolies and corporatocracy" but rather "Hong Kong is corporatocracy disguising itself as free market", as real free markets will want to ensure fair competition through the lack of government favoritism (for example, the government in this case regulating the frequency of bus companies, or allowing only one company the right to import cattle goods) and cooperate subsidization from government, as government subsidization of companies only imbalances competition within the free market as corporations receiving government subsidization receive an additional funding from government, compared to other companies which only revenue is from the profit motive, only leading to more monopolies. Such example of a "true" free market may be Singapore, where government lobbying and cooperate subsidization is very low, but where government regulation is low as well. The thing about economic freedom indexes such as the ones from the Fraser Institute, The Heritage Foundation or the Cato-Institute, is that they only measure "freeness" to the extent of a lack of government regulation, government spending, taxes, property rights, rule of law, but not measure the amount of government favoritism in terms of corporate subsidization. Thus which is why I would argue that Singapore is more "free market" than Hong Kong, despite being slightly more regulatory according to the aforementioned indexes (in most of them, Singapore ranks 2nd behind Hong Kong), as it's government does not take sides in the free market through subsidization or corporate favoritism. The issue also comes to the meritocracy in the idea of civil society and free market. As Polymatter mentioned in the video, Hong Kong's meritocracy is flawed and favored the British historically, and zoning laws contributed to that idea, while at the same time being one of the main reasons of Hong Kong's insanely expensive rent prices. Singapore, on the other hand, through a lack of favoritism, the existence of school choice, and being built upon the idea of multiracialism/monoculturalism (monoculture in the sense of a mono-identity, but still being multitraditional), and the strong rejection of racial;y motivated based policies such as affirmative action, racial quotas and diversity standards, has achieved a more truer meritocracy.
Well , we need to know the economic phenomenon of Excessive duplication , in this phenomenon , the are many companies providing the same services, but , this services are too saturated of companies and the market results in few companies in a market , for example, if Hong Kong had a lot of electricity companies , it will by too complicated for people and for the city itself had a good service in a so saturated market
Gotta be honest, I'm confused about all the positive feedback on this video. It begins by claiming milton friedman may have been wrong about hong kong, then proceeds to provide nothing of his work. Most of the points are overgeneralizations without context and at times subjective. This is one of those examples where high quality production can mask over actual substance. I don't want to sound overly critical or have anything against this channel, but if you begin with a claim that someone might be wrong, you have to discuss that person's claims to derive any merit
I recently discovered this channel and I feel like it's a channel that is followed by bots or it's like some sort of propaganda outlet with a huge budget to back it up. None of the videos make sense, they make over-generic statements and the topics seem to range vastly, most youtubers have like at least some form of topic-core but this seems to be all over the place, covering politics, socio-economics, history and some times even tv programs or modern pop culture stuff. This channel feels really weird.
@@atermnus1286 You know what, your intuition rings true. This channel takes the artistic/presentation style of other big name channels that cover economics/politics/history but the actual content quality is nowhere close.
Great job. I'm from Malawi, which was shown at 2:49, though it's a bit jarring to see both Nyasaland and Malawi shown in the same frame as if they are two different countries since they are under two different rulers, but I admit that doesn't take away from the video. Pro tip, though: the "Nya-" in Nyasaland is one syllable, not two. Good attempt, though.
Corporations are actually socialistic since they are publicly, not privately, owned, and as this video shows, are giving a huge market advantage by the State.
Firstly, most of those monopolies exist because of the lack of anti-trust action in Hong Kong, a free market endeavour that even economists like Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell disagree with. The corporations themselves have legal and illegal political power to sway goverment decisions in their favour, thus they are able to provide pro-business and ultimately pro-monopoly decisions. Also, why exactly is the "corporations are always publicly (which I assume is government) owned" assumed?
@@Hotasianchick I suspect monopolies exist because they are given an advantage, often a big one, by the State. You're welcome to cite an example of one that was developed solely by a private entrepreneur. And one what isn't a corporate entity. And you assume wrong. Publicly owned in not the same as government owned. But they do get special treatment, at least more so than privately owned companies, don't they?
I noticed that in the video you list a few failures of government, and call them failures of free market capitalism. It is always a terrible thing when corporations get there hand on government via lobbying, and the problem with them having the right to vote is definitely hurting things.
Like what? Polymatter never claimed that Hong Kong's issues were due to free market capitalism. At the end of the video, he literally states that HK isn't actually against government intervention but preserving the status quo.
Im german and i dont understand what you're refering to. The german railway Deutsche Bahn is 100% owned by the government. Thats why its so inefficient and expensive. The same applies to our state owned Telekom. It can't be a coincidence that we lack behind in those fields.
If we than compare average income to costs of living Great Britain regains it’s greatness in comparison. So we see again that competition is more important for capitalism to work than tax breaks. edit: oh and they work way more huh
All government needs to do for capitalism to work is to create a fair environment companies can compete in. Most of the time, the government doesn't need to do anything for this to be fulfilled.
@Aidan Collins Free-market capitalism benefits the mutual exchange of goods and services for money between producers and consumers. The people involved in the production of goods and services are happy they can put in the work of producing something they can sell for more than the effort of producing it. The people who then buy these services or goods are happy because they, in turn, would rather have the service or good than the money they cost to produce. These two groups actually consist of the same people as everyone produces something in exchange for something else and vice versa. The people who really benefit are those who can produce something very valuable for little effort, but this is simply dictated by the nature of the market. The current technical revolution, for example, has allowed a small number of people to create a lot of useful things using smaller workforces, which has led to greater inequality where a smaller group produces more value. There isn't anything particularly special about free-market capitalism that incentivizes this, it's the nature of the market that dictates this, free-market capitalism simply incentivizes more effective ways of producing goods and services.
It's not. The CCP has no interest in destabilizing Hong Kong with new radical reforms, they would prefer to keep it just the way it is with the added stability and security of the NSL.
@The Professional have you been following the state of Hong kong and the crackdowns as well in the mainland? Sincerely asking... because the way things look i would get my company the fck outta china/hong kong/anything ccp related asap
If Hong Kong successfully transformed into a democracy in 2019 perhaps things may change for the better, but sadly it hasn't as Hong Kongers continues to be slaves to big corporations and the government, afaik many are already leaving as the government tightens their grasp on free speech and dissents.
@adeline rojas A lot can be done if the people have the power to shape their own government, the people need to be respected, but unfortunately, things change for the worse in HK, it is inevitably following China's footsteps into autocracy.
@@peterchang2310 There's no such thing as "the preople" owning their own government. Majoritarinanism is immoral and fails in even in concept, let alone execution. Voter's oppritunity cost, median voter theorom, gerrymandering, or plain apathy to name a few. All in all, a lynch mob is not moral and correct because there is only one dissenting vote.
Part of me feels like this is a straw man video. You started with early Hong Kong and then just cut into modern Hong Kong. What happened to the transition? I’ll read the sources though. The Kong Kong today is not the same as the totalitarian Hong Kong by the British from the early days.
They might be a model of growth, but I'd like to see how well their population would fare without their social welfare department, public hospitals and health services, government-funded higher education, etc.
@Aidan Collins BS. Deregulate health and education and the market will work. Government sets up barriers that protect cronies, stifle innovation, and put dead weight loss on the economy. That's aside from corruption. Charter schools do better than public for the students. Public schools work for the bureaucrats and unions, not the students. Of course, one corporation or any individual really would want to maximize profit. But guess what, get out of the way, and others who have better ideas and will do things for cheaper, will come in if people really want it enough to part with their own money, not of others.
The US has a few large dominant players in some industries, but they still have competitors. Maybe we're just further behind than Hong Kong because the corporate borg keeps assimilating into bigger and bigger conglomerates. It's only a matter of time.
Min 5:10... it is telling that the track record of "no deficit" is cut off in 1997, the year of the handover. If the food trucks are a regulatory mess in 2015... can it be from the influence of the new rulers since 97? ..... Min 7:39 It would be interesting to report when did the government grant all these monopolies...was it before/after 1997? ......The channel walks a very fine line to please Hong Kong's new masters and avoid being censored.
⭐️Watch the bonus video: “How Corporations Vote in Hong Kong” on Nebula, which is just $15/year and includes CuriosityStream, here: curiositystream.com/polymatter
Thanks for another awesome vid (* ^ ω ^)
So, yes, Hong Kong is no longer an exemplar of free market enterprise. Because it no longer has free market enterprise. Regulations a free market do not make.
Time to talk about Afghanistan, bro. I know you like to talk about our neighbors, but you have tried two wrong neighbors at the very wrong time.
-From Mainland China
I can’t afford nebula
Hi, the link you provide for sources in the description doesn't work, may I get a new link to sources for this video? Thanks!
The greatest thing I’ve learned from this video is that the richest Hong Konger literally has a ”ka-ching” in its name.
I heard it more like cash-in but yeah lol
It's Ka-Shing.
It's pronounced "Lay Gah Sing" but whatever
No? It's Lei Ga Shing. Jesus Christ people on the internet have such a shitty understanding of Chinese
@@apollo1694 it's a joke... Hold your horses
"The privately-owned Jockey Club is granted a total monopoly on gambling, which, in exchange, sprayed charity around the city in a way only guilt can explain" too good
I can't understand what exactly he meant but ok.
@@geoffreycharles6330 Study more ok?
@@geoffreycharles6330 it means the gambling corp can earn as much profit then put those profit into city's charity based on their guilt. Literally mean, they donate because they feel like it
@@cloudynguyen6527 I think the HKJC is registered as a charity, so any profit actually needs to be given away
@@darparniox ah, glad to know. That's actually cool
I was born and raised in Hong Kong. The monopoly/duopoly seem a completely normal thing in my life; and the laissez faire economy is something that is commonly taught in high school.
It is through the critical lens from somebody not from Hong Kong, in that I can realise things that I grow up with or take as a simple fact may not be that simple at all.
Thank you for encouraging me to be more critical towards what is happening in my home city and in the world.
Harris I am likely a good deal older than you, this is something that will happen throughout your life and often has disappointment attached to it. m
Give me your Hong Kong citizenship get me out of Latin America please .
@@fosahistorica2537 I don't mind if the system allows
Watching these videos, as well as paying close attention to Hong Kong's political crises of the past few years, has vastly improved my understanding as an HK-American, of what HK is, and what HK is not.
When we learn more about our home, we can think of new ways to make it better.
@@canto_v12 Yes, only if we can make a difference under's CCP control
Chaebols in South Korea: Finally a worthy opponent, our battle will be legendary.
Prewar Japanese Zaibatsus want their playbook back.
Cannot wait for the future corp wars lol
@@metal_brrr_2005 You mean that Ancapistan 3d cartoon lol
Can't wait for McNuke to discover the market in North Korea.
@@metal_brrr_2005 What you mean wait?
The 2019 riots were backed by the HK Corporatocracy against mainland regulations that affected them.
They effectively weaponized the already present dormant unhappiness(ironically partly created by the Corporatocracy) against an easy big bad, the mainland.
From my perspective, it was 2 bad guys fighting it out and using the civilians as fodder, many cynical adults saw through it, which is why they used the naïve kids for the extreme stuff.
@@dongster529 HK corporates supported by NED though.
“No, corporations legally cast ballots.”
**flashbacks to Functional Constituencies**
edit: mom im famous
Hey another HK bus fan like me :)
Yes, the functional constituencies are so dumb.
PS amazing pfp
and the fact that they get to vote for the chief executive, while citizens dont get to do so
@@PatheticTV thancc
:o
No you aren't
This is just so well done. Excellent video, Evan!
How come Hong Kong had 98% of commercial banking concentrated in one institution in 2003? Compared to 78% in mainland China, it seems like it's more authoritarian and stratified.
I seconded this.
It is an extremely good quality, just like your videos!
@@epicmatter3512 😊😢 why are people so amazing
Thanks
The distinction between "corporatism" and "free-market capitalism" is one worth exploring. It's important to note that Milton Friedman and other expounders of ideological "free-market capitalism" strongly supported government intervention to prevent or break up technical monopolies.
@@SmallBeanImperialist I don't think you understood his comment. Milton Freidman and the dries (those who supported free market policies in the 70s) advocated for monopolies and oligopolies to be broken up by government, preventing wealth from being concentrated in the hands of few, and ensuring greater market competition. Which would also reduce prices. The common man wins if Milton ever had his way.
(The dude I was replying to deleted his comment, so chill)
When there is government, Corporatism will always exist. The government interferes to ‘protect’ us (the consumer), but in reality there only do it because of lobbyists from large businesses bribing them. Why does Amazon now want regulation in their field of business? It’s because it keeps the start ups from expanding as it is more difficult for them. For this reason, I am an anarcho capitalist. If you’re worried about monopolies, why don’t you point your finger to your government? I believe in voluntarism, you should choose your life - the government has no authority over yourself.
@@ibrahimsiali2419 Milton Friedman made a living selling propaganda to the naive
@@MC_MMV Unless you're fourteen you're views might be a symptom of severe learning disabilities
Some of the staunchest of capitalists or free-market thinkers will basically say corporations can't exist in a free market, because corporations are legal entities assigned by government, not the market, and given protectionism.
Hong Kong seems like the most cyberpunk-ish place on earth.
It is.
Kowloon Walled City that once existed in Hong Kong was super cyberpunk-ish.
Shanghai and Shenzhen are strong contenders
@@tav5771 Chongqing looks cyberpunkish at night too
Shanghai was more cyberpunkish than HK before the war. Many SHers also fled to HK after communist takeover.
this channel is the definition of quality over quantity
So are many other educational channels...
This channel is a bit biased like R Life Lore
NO! NO! NO! Many people say I am sick in the head. NOOOO!!!! I don't believe them. But there are so many people commenting this stuff on my videos, that I have 1% doubt. So I have to ask you right now: Do you think I am sick in the head? Thanks for helping, my dear aa
He doesn’t do it for money, that’s the key to having a great channel, not relying on it for income.
@@sinoroman all channels are biased, its only human. What sets channels apart is how well they cite their sources, and how willing they are to admit mistakes.
I have to say, as a Hongkonger, I love all of these episodes about Hong Kong 👍🏻👍🏻
What are your thoughts on the recent security law
Mainlander moved to hong kong by the CCP or a true native?
Security law. You have the freedom of speech.
You have the right to address grievances to the government.
You have the right to freedom of religion, even falun gong.
Xinjiang province is not China.
Tibet is not China.
Taiwan is the rightful government of China.
@@dr.floridaman4805 fg member?
Me too. It allows me to see how outsiders view Hong Kong and help me to recall stuff I learnt in Liberial Studies class.
Even though I didn't like the subject, it did taught me something I wouldn't actively learn elsewhere. It's sad that the subject is being changed into a brainwashing propaganda.
@@dr.floridaman4805 "Mainlander moved to hong kong by the CCP or a true native?"
No such thing as "true native". They all migrated there in the past 2 centuries
As someone from Hong Kong, it always surprised me when travelling overseas how cheap food is. You hear people complaining about how expensive food is in Sydney, Moscow, Amsterdam, Paris, London etc and when I go to supermarkets there, I am always shocked by how cheap food is in comparison. Took me until I was 20 to realise that it wasn't that food was cheap everywhere else, but that food was just expensive in Hong Kong.
How the fuck is food expensive in Hong Kong. Have you BEEN overseas??? Living the US for 14 years, unhealthy fastfood meals are around 12-16 USD. Lunch from local restaurants in Hong Kong is like HKD$40 -$120. In Europe a McD big Mac is like $10 euro. Wtf are you even talking about
for the longest time my Dad said Japan was more expensive than HK. Then we went and it was so much more affordable even compared to HK.
@@nictse500 I am guessing he was a foreign expat in HK (his profile says South Africa), and not a Chinese HK'er. For all the crap people have to put up with on house prices and substandard living spaces, at least food is affordable in Cafe de Coral or any 茶餐廳. Foreign expats (unless they were Filipino/Thai/Indonesian maids) don't go to these places. People who live in Discovery Bay, send their kids to international schools (who can't speak a word of Cantonese even after growing up there), and shop at supermarkets selling organic food probably would find everything expensive.
@@nictse500 Dinning out is is super cheap in HK. But for food in supermarket, meat and vegetable in London are like half price compare to HK.
@@hoco27 japan was more expensive back in the 90s. But their economy has been stagnant since the bubble popped. Their food prices remained relatively the same for the past 30 years.
This analysis whilst makes some good points misses probably the key reason for Hong Kong's success. Whilst deeply flawed the main reason for Hong Kong's growth is it mainly finances itself via corporate land leases, which allow it lower taxes on productivity. Most (edit not most but a large %) of the people are housed in public housing (admittedly inferior to Singapore's) , which also drives down worker costs.
The high stamp duty also effectively nationalises a % of land/housing, as the liability of the tax comes off the capitalised price, though far less efficiently than an annual land tax would and their remaining private housing sector is still highly speculative.
In short Hong Kong use land as a tax base (something Friedman did get right) as well as in part treat it a public good. Hong Kong is then perhaps best described as a quasi Georgist model but lacks the democratic and fully efficient tax system which would allow the people to prosper more equitably. Scrapping the remaining taxes on productivity and replacing leases, stamp duties etc with an annual land value tax and then sharing a portion of the revenues as a dividend al Alaska's permanent fund would allow the prosperity to not only grow further but be shared more equitably.
Agreeed
Interesting. Could you explain the Hong Kong:
Ad Valorem Stamp Duty (AVD) for Residential Property vs. Non-Residential Property
Special Stamp Duty (SSD)
Buyer’s Stamp Duty (BSD) and double Stamp Duty?
And the ongoing annual property tax rate?
From the outside looking in, the Government ultimately, and perpetually owns all property - as there is no exclusive authority to determine how a resource is used by a citizen (What happens if a citizen can't pay their property taxes?). Thus, there are no real "property rights."
Only those who are lucky enough to making below a certain amount can apply for public housing and the waiting times are over a decade. I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.
@@ifeelverygood This is why I structured my comment as a QUESTION. I don't know and I wanted to learn more. It's also why my comment was in response to the statement made by _schumanhuman._ Your response is irrelevant, immaterial, and incompetent as it does not address the question(s) I posed at all.
I guess this explains why it is due to the failure of their public housing policy that led to the devastatingly bad living condition for a sizeable portion of the population. I always thought it was because of the government limit land supplies and thus choked the whole housing market, causing price to raise significantly. It sounds to me the intention is to leave the private housing market to the riches while public housing to the poor. It sounds good and it did provide affordable housing to what became the middle class (my family was one who benefited by it) at first. But, it relies heavily on the continuation of supply in public housing that the government simply couldn’t supply, forcing the middle class (and higher) who can no longer afford or just find it cheaper to go with public housing, to flood the public housing waiting list. My brother finally got his public housing after waiting for 10 years (he went back to town in 2007, tho), finally taking a huge financial burden off his shoulder. The rental market was just brutal that he wasn’t able to save any money at all, and we were all praying that he would get public housing as a relieve of his situation. This probably is the reality of a lot of people there too and also a bunch of ppl who were the original target population of such public housing policy are now being pushed to rent coffin-sized space within a flat to sleep/live…
All in all, I guess the only thing the government can do is to significantly expand their public housing supply, magically.
It's also good to note that HK, a hilariously unequal place where conglomerates run everything and the government is *at best* ambivalent toward its peoples wellbeing. One of the few benefits publically provided is....a decently well-functioning public healthcare system and great public transportation infrastructure, would be good for policymakers and politicians in some other countries to take note...
While public transports service is very reliable compare to other cities, companies like MTR is part of the problems too.
@@mylim4020 the Transport Department is corrupt. They always cut services and raise fares for buses, then make the MTR more convenient. They cause damage to BravoBus(NWS) and KMB, and make the MTR better
@@PatheticTV So same with America, except here it's the car lobbyists screwing up public transportation so driving is the only real option.
as who born and living in Hong Kong,
I can agree at 'great public transportation infrastructure', although the public transport, KMB, MTR is monopoly, and have some controversial pricing, you can reach almost everywhere in Hong Kong via public transports, MTR, KMB, minibus, etc. within 1-2hours
I doubted that public healthcare system is healthy, while private healthcare are not as affordable to middleclass, public healthcare are usually in shortage. Booking for medical services are usually for months, or worse, 1-2 years. And now, Covid-19 is putting HK's public healthcare to it limit, and I doubt that the tension can last in the long run
Well-functioning public healthcare system? Our public medical system is continuously overwhelmed and on the brink of collapse. No offense.
"Some countries even describe corporations as legal "People""
America and Citizens united has left the room.
Well it’s asking 15 dollars a month to learn more from him so not much to talk about
Well, "legal people" is the direct translation of corporation from East Asian languages. Nothing to complain
I think they all pretty much do that, it is a core component of things like contracts and property ownership.
that's necessary for all sorts of important things. Corporate personhood is good if you like accountability.
All citizens United says is that corporations, unions, and other associations have the same free speech rights as everyone else.
“Non-permanent residents pay 30%, effectively blocking non-resident from own any homes.”
Oh, I can hear the laugh of Shenzhen natives even here in Vancouver.
Is there a tax in Shenzhen?
@@habibbialikafe339 Yes, but the hyperinflation is scarier than the taxes.
Oh, you mean Hongcouver?
@@jabba233hutt3 u think it will crash?
Doesn't Vancouver also have some policies to prevent foreign billionaires from buying multiple homes?
Corporatocracy sounds about right. In a city this small, the early successful entrepreneurs likely monopolized the daily commodities, thus the rich gets richer. Then makes the government impossible to not bend for them.
Only an authoritarian government would be able to break Hong Kong's monopolies, but we all know that's not gonna happen anytime soon. For all the sob stories of "oppression" from the protesters and rioters who are sore from getting the nightstick, Hong Kong is still a VERY laissez faire city, in fact, one of the leading examples as this video explains.
@@canto_v12 oh, it's coming soon. Hong Kong autonomy ends in 2049. Just 28 more years and the authoritarian communist party of China will be fully governing Hong Kong and will do as it pleases them
@@ttuliorancao China has changed so much in the past 20 years, would be folly to assume it will stay static for the next 30.
@@canto_v12 static I doubt, but China has a tradition of authoritarianism with no democracy since time immemorial. Even Taiwan, that boasts about being democratic, was a dictatorship for most of the period since WW2. And Hong Kong, c'mon, that's anything but democratic. Companies control the legislative process by their direct vote. It's anything but a democracy
@@ttuliorancao what are you talking about? China is one of the few places on Earth where popular revolt and opinions have mattered for millenia. Today it's a dictatorship but it has a long history of being way more democratic than any European country until the 20th century. One example is the first emperor of the Han Dynasty, who was originally a commoner and rose to prominence after a popular revolt. Compare that to western countries where revolutions always end up with the elites winning
People often bring up "monopolies" as a critique of free market capitalism.
Yet, by definition, government-created monopolies mean that part of the economy isn't a free market.
In a truly free market, monopolies can only exist if one company can somehow manage to provide a particular product at such high quality and/or low price that no one else is able to compete.
That can be possible by creating more efficient production methods or business practices, in general.
But, it can also be possible by a company selling at a loss for a time so as to get rid of competition that simply can't sell at that low a price. This predatory pricing, however, is inherently unsustainable. And, the moment they increase their prices that opens the door for competition to once again return.
Monopolies can and have existed in free-market economies and its not a rare occurrence either. A company does not need to have a better product, they just need to have more money & resources than everyone else. Monopolies are inherently a part of free-market capitalism and are one of the many reasons why it's a flawed economic system.
@@CrazyWeeMonkey Ok, can you go into more detail?
Give some specific examples.
How would a single company having a lot more money and resources lead to them becoming a monopoly?
There are plenty of companies existing today that meet that criteria, yet are far from monopoly status.
You claim monopolies are inherent to free-market capitalism. In what way is that the case? I fail to see that.
The one main example I can think of here is Standard Oil. This company became a monopoly in the U.S. by making their production processes so efficient that few others even attempted to compete. Rockefeller cut every cost he could in order to offer customers the lowest price possible.
This is exactly what free-market capitalism aims for.
Yet, Standard Oil was broken up by the U.S. government for engaging in "unfair practices" like price-cutting that drove smaller competitors out of business.
In other words, they broke up the company because it could offer customers lower prices than anyone else.
In this way, I can see monopolies being an intentional result of a free-market. But, that is far from being inherent. More often, a free-market breeds numerous competitors offering very similar products at very similar prices to one another.
@@johnc1014
Monopolies can be created (and often have been) by buying out other companies or using your resources to purposely undercut competitors out of business.
Without regulations in place, nothing stops companies from doing any of the things listed above, nor does it stop them from committing espionage against other companies.
Standard Oil became a monopoly because it bought out it's competition.
@@CrazyWeeMonkey Sure, one company can buy others if they have the funds to do so. You say "buy out," which makes me think of a failed business with a large sum of debt being bought my a more successful business.
There's nothing wrong with that.
Of course, your fear would be the lack of competition leading to inflated prices and lower quality. But, a monopoly raising prices or lowering quality would open the door for new competitors to take away that monopoly status.
In our present reality, government frequently creates monopolies and sets regulations that bar new competition. But, in a free market, there is no such government regulation.
The only way a single company can maintain a monopoly is by continuing to provide adequately low prices and high quality for customers. No regulation is needed here.
Now, you do bring up a good point about "espionage." Firstly, it's the duty of any individual or business to ensure their own security to some degree.
You shouldn't just leave your door wide open for anyone to enter at will.
That said, certain actions should absolutely be illegal and punishable through a justice system.
If a business commits theft, fraud, espionage, or any other such crime, they should absolutely be held criminally liable.
That isn't regulation prior to a crime, but rather criminal penalty imposed after the commission of a crime.
@@johnc1014bros writing way to much so I didn't read but you asked for an example of a monopoly. American Company, the famous MaBell. (proper name was Western Electric I think) it was a telecom company which owned all the telephone lines in America. You cannot just enter that business because it would require you to build an entirely separate network of wires across the country. This cost is far too high and as such nobody bothered trying to enter the market, additionally Bell would cut prices in areas where new company's somehow sprung up and then buy out the newly bankrupt company's increasing their market share. Why aren't they around now? Government intervention had to break them up, not the,"glorious hand of the free market"
This "corporatocracy" reminds me of the Venetian Republic (and Genoese etc... "Maritime republics" in general) and its focus on trade and commerce inevitably linked with the merchant oligarchy.
As a person born and living in Hong Kong right now this is pretty much true now that I'm thinking about it
As someone born and raised in hong kong, I honestly thought all of this was normal and was very much reasonable. But from what I see, if you are a lower class would suck as high rent and grocery cost etc., but your life as a middle class or higher citizen, your life is reasonably good here. Although yes, we don’t get to pick which companies we get our services from. But from what we see, most things are reasonably priced.
Median income in HK is quite a bit lower than places like the US after adjusting for purchasing power. Even worse if you also adjust for hours worked.
@@djinn666 HK has weaknesses that prevent it from reaching American levels of average income. Those include lacking America’s huge supply of illegal labour, small land size and closed borders stopping free migration of talent, an overrreliance on old, less innovative industries like shipping and business management, etc.
If people realize that monopolies make the market not-free anymore. When you lose choices, you pay more and get less. You work more and receive less. This is why Hong Kong citizens are not as well off as the citizens in other countries not dominated by monopolies to the same degree. This is also why the whole world is so afraid of FB, Twitter, Amazon etc monopolies.
@@GiantDude indeed. If you want to see the best and worst features of laissez-faire capitalism. Look no further than to Hong Kong. I guess even though I am generally for free-markets and capitalism, one should consider the great contributions of so-called "socialists" (I prefer to call them reformists) that allowed a means for us plebs to balance the scales between us and the global corporatocracy.
For all its faults, the US model might be the most balanced in principle but sadly is eroded away as tech monopolies and their allies are getting stronger in overall influence to what is the "American Project".
@@canto_v12 Agree with all except the illegal labour part, how does that let America have a higher median income?
Being anything but middle class or above must really suck in Hong Kong
But you do have choices to succeed. Many people still make it well if you have the will.
That's most places in the world sadly. Even in America.
Billionaires who "disappeared":
As opposed to where ?
When you give corporates permanent shares on the parliament.
It's just like the US system but they are more blatant about it. Limiting banking etc to one seat each might be better than having all of them potentially bought.
And corporations can vote on the chef executive while the citizens don't get a say
I checked last night to see if there was a new video I had missed in my notifications, been a fan so long that I have an internal Polymatter clock
"The food truck can't move." Kind of defeats the purpose of the word, truck, huh? Like, why bother with those wheel things?
It's for the aesthetic. It's not allowed to move, but it theoretically could.
As visited one before, food trucks are only allowed to sell food in designated places, so what meant by “can’t move” is “can’t move and sell food”, but those trucks can pack everything and drive to another designated place to sell though.
This is really interesting and informative. There’s a lot of stuff in this which I didn’t know about before. Kudos to poly matter and keep up the great work👍👍
Free market capitalism in East Asia is so wildly different than what we in the West (specifically North America) think of as "free market" capitalism. It's almost always more paternalistic than we imagine; there is a respect for success and those who get big, stay big.
it comes from a place of "face".
if you fail as a big company, you lost "face"
so hence the incentive to success, and to be conservative even at government levels. and that includes the CCP.
And those big corporation stay big not because of fair competition, but because of discrimination by the British
So if Hong Kong wasn't a democracy during the colonial era, when was it ever a democracy?
hey democracy is a core value of the CCP. It's democratic as part of China okay. Go review your 12 socialist core values on Xi's app please.
it wasnt a democracy but it did have a rule of law im pretty sure during the cold war era it was actually one of the strongest
I think from about 1985 there was a plan to gradually introduce representative democracy to HK. I don't know how corporate votes got involved.
It never was and no historian ever claims that it was. Probably a common misunderstanding and a poor assumption that a democratic Britain would rule over a democratic colony.........NOPE!
@@Croz89 Yep, when Britain got flatly denied their request to keep Hong Kong in 1984, they finally realised how bad they looked, never having given Hong Kong an elected governor. They had until 1997 and never did it.
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” Adam Smith, 1776
Giving a few counter examples doesn't rule out HK being the most capitalist place on Earth. If you did a video of counter examples of capitalism in the US the video could be 10 years long but it's still relatively capitalist compared to most other places.
@@irasingh2498 lol, not when you're spamming the same shit in multiple comment threads. And to make it even worse you're doing it in all caps.
Yeah I thought this would be the answer given. Australia and New Zealand are two countries that were higher up than the US in both lists, and they've got universal healthcare, strong labor protections, etc.
@@WanderTheNomad That's a bot. Ignore it.
@@ArawnOfAnnwn weird that the spam message is specific to this one channel. Usually they just make a message that they can spam anywhere.
@@TheLastScoot
I'd always like to argue the US have been more corporatist(which has nothing to do with corporations) than capitalist since FDR implemented the New Deal.
the video would only be more comprehensive if the major real estate developers such as Sun Hung Kei Prop, New World etc were mentioned. They are the monopolies in the real estate which enjoyed so many privileges in Hong Kong. The unbelievably high housing prices are also one major reason for the inequality here. On top of that, the video was contradicting the reality a bit when it talks about economic freedom. It is no longer guaranteed since 2020 after the national security law had been implemented. Anyway, it was lovely to see a lot of footage from the old Hong Kong. Our home has changed a lot for bad these years because of the government. Good to reminisce the old times. Thank you for making this on Hong Kong.
You could easily make a third video on the monstrous state of Hong Kong housing and property. There is a good reason why the city is currently the second most expensive place to live in the world.
I don't get where this is coming from, I lived there for a while and soon am moving back permanently
yes house prices are ridiculous but if you move away from central and rent it gets very reasonable
2-bedroom apartment for, 10000hkd per month, thats the same size as my apartment currently in the uk
continuing with letting corporates have such a large say in legislature was a mistake for Hong Kong in hindsight, as China used that same system to appoint their own Chief Executive despite losing popular vote by the Hong Kong citizens.
The CCP made it very clear that if a democratic system was introduced, they would invade.
So not really a mistake so much as a least bad option.
china agreed to hong kongs democracy system exactly because they could take power more easily, this is by design.
@@luizcastro5246 they hit the roof when some democratic changes were made before handover. What was there until they realised that if it was vaguely possible to lose an election, they would lose was a system they designed themselves that they didn't think they could ever lose.
@@bobs_toys Those democratic changes were made BECAUSE of the handover. The British tried to negotiate a way to keep the territory. When the Chinese said no, they left them a little going away present. HK was never a democracy even under the British, so it's funny when people talk about it as if it was. Looks like the British once more succeeded in leaving a mess, as they have in so much else of the world.
@@ArawnOfAnnwn I do like how you ignore the CCP's threats to invade Hong Kong if the British ever changed its colonial status by doing things such as introducing democracy.
As was highlighted in my first response, which you undoubtedly read but ignored.
Why do you feel the need to be dishonest?
Why are government maintained monopolies called flaws of capitalism when it's literally government regulation of the market?
These are not "government maintained" in the sense that the corporations basically determine market regulation (or lack thereof). Capitalism at its finest. Take what you can and control who you can.
Because they exist due to the corporations being allowed complete control in the first place without ever breaking up monopolies.
Corporatism is just the result of what happens when you allow unlimited freedom to the corpos and then they end up taking over the government.
@@Hotasianchick wrong, that is so vary wrong.
@@sebastienholmes548 then why does it inevitably occur under every capitalist system without Govt intervention i.e. trust busting
@@jokababy69 because they had government intervention.
It's interesting to note that monopolies can only exist with the help of the government...(exclusive license, ip,etc) without government intervention capitalism dose not give birth to monopolies
That's just not true
That's literally false, where did you get this strange notion from?
Monopolies thrive WITHOUT government intervention. But it’s always tricky either way. They broke up Bell and all the little babies reformed into megacorps a little while later.
Dear PolyMatter, Thank you once again for a well researched and developed piece. Milton Friedman argued that a company’s sole obligation to society is to make money without breaking the rules. “....There is one and only one social responsibility of business, “to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it . . . engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud...". This economic model is akin to a car engine on blocks in a garage. It is fed fuel and turns a fly wheel, as a result operates ( and pollutes ) easily and freely. This is because there is no "load" on the engine. As a living economic system, capitalism will create whatever environments are necessary to prevent any "load" from being applied to the engine, and prevent any restrictions of the flow fuel. However capitalism is not a society.
A society is a collection of individuals who exist inside and outside of the capitalistic model. Individuals and corporations are not one in the same. What the needs are if a capitalist system, and corporations, and not always those of a society, and they often do not coincide. Friedman argued that social needs and capitalistic freedom were one and the same, however an engine turning over in a garage on blocks runs well, but performs no work. Taxes, Fees, and Regulations are the power train that allows the engine to perform effort.
One of the predominate issues ( that you did point out ) representing Hong Kong's vast success was an seemingly endless supply of legal, and illegal, labor who earned very, very low wages. Much like the past English Industrial, and the current US Food Industries, an stream of low wage workers fueled all three economies.
7:18 not only 2 bus companies in Hong Kong
Transport International owns KMB (Kowloon and NT) and LWB (NT to airport)
Bravo Transport owns NWFB and Citybus (HK island, latter one does also airport - kowloon services)
Lantau Island also has NLB, to make up the 5 franchised bus companies in Hong Kong, with numerous small non-franchised companies.
Sometimes though, the same route is served by both KMB and CTB/NWFB, making them both compete for best service
For anyone who’s curious about this topic, I’m a hongkonger and this is literally the history before 2020
unfortunately....true
Are you planning on leaving HK in the future, or are you gonna take your chances when you eventually go back to your true owners on the mainland?
@@lu881 I’m a Hong konger and my family is not planning to move, here’s why:
1. My parents both have jobs here
2. I still need to finish secondary school
3. We have elderly grandparents that we must be there for and can’t adapt to a new place
4. All my friends and a lot of my family are here
5. I love the freedom of being able to go out whenever I want, wherever I want, without worrying about needing a car OR Covid. The fact of the matter is almost no places in the world have this.
5. Where would I even go? To me it’s nit worth sacrificing all these things above to start a new life in another country.
OBVIOUSLY I understand why people are moving, and I wish them nothing but the best of luck. And OBVIOUSLY I am not happy with the encroachments on freedom we are facing. But until I finish school at least, I’m staying.
@@PatheticTV "And OBVIOUSLY I am not happy with the encroachments on freedom we are facing"
What encroachments on freedom? You mean the freedom China gave you guys that the British didnt?
@@PatheticTV
Your level of self-awareness is pretty impressive, considering that you're only in secondary.
I hear what you're saying.
Your reasons sound realistic.
I don't think saying Hong Kong's capitalism was a result of historical happenstance rather than intention really refutes Milton's theory. Hong Kong is extremely capitalist in most areas, except maybe freeing up land use for housing. The fact there are "monopolies" or duopolies makes sense. Corporations will consolidate until the most efficient economy of scale is achieved. This is especially true in sectors like electricity and transit.
If yiu believe that large mono(or duo-)polies result in an efficient economy, you are clearly wrong.
That IS what eventually happens when capitalism and the free market are taken to its natural conclusion. Eventually, there will be one player who will conquer all the others, and then there will be a monopoly.
@@useless_name They sometimes do. There's a difference between a natural monopoly and an artificial one. The later is made through governmental coersion while the former is made through people just prefering their services and products to others (aside from some exceptions). An example is Google, people say it is a monopoly because it totally dominates the search engine market, and they are right, but that doesn't make it inneficient or bad for the consumer, to the contrary, it's precisely why it is a monopoly: people prefer it to their competitors. The biggest proof of this is that the n1 most searched for term in Bing (one of it's largest competitors) is Google... ¿If people just prefer the service or product that one company (or two) make, and this results in a "monopoly", is this really something bad or inefficient?
It isn't a free market if two companies dominate a market
@@pineapplesareyummy6352 This. Wholeheartedly.
As a fellow Konger I have witnessed too many cases like that happening right in front of my eyes. Unregulated free market ALWAYS results in monopoly or duo-poly eventually. Winners always win and winners take all.
Yay another video.
Also Goodluck trying to boycott a company there. You're funding them one way or the other.
well... in some ways it's hurting them, but by supporting the local smaller players as protest it works as a personal thing...
human are funny... always making pits and drawing lines...
Hmm left out the housing problem in hongkong ? People literally live in a box
A cage.
That's an insanely well researched video, there are things that I didn't even know as a Hong Kong citizen
As a Hong Kong expat (born in 1981, therefore I've seen both the British era and after handover in 1997), I am surprised this is a fair and accurate video about the city, minus the usual condescending Western propaganda. Yes, it is true HK is a corporatocracy. It is neoliberalism on steroids that will make even Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher blush. Believe me, being ranked #1 "free-est economy in the world" by the Heritage Foundation is a DUBIOUS distinction you do not want. The only comment I have against your video is you didn't show the real estate situation. Namely, we are the most unaffordable housing market in the world. Poor people literally live in cages, while large numbers of people live in micro-flats of 200 sq. ft. I would not be able to afford an apartment if I ever returned to the city, for example. My aunts have an apartment of their own because my grandparents bought it 50 years ago. The entire system is designed to funnel money to the top. It used to be British tycoons; since handover, it is now ethnic Chinese (Hong Kong) tycoons at the top, but the effect is the same. This massive inequality (we have one of the highest GINI indices in the world) and unaffordability of living costs is the reason for the riots blowing up in 2019. I actually saw it coming. Every time I visit my relatives, I can tell from taxi drivers how difficult live has become. But where people get it so wrong is that HK is screwed not because of China but because of the system left behind by the British. At least your video has the courtesy to state the fact HK was never at any point a democracy - I am shocked that there are even young HKers who don't know this fact (maybe they are just too young and ignorant). As for me, I literally can't wait until 2047 comes. The Mainland is literally light years ahead of HK in competent governance. Shenzhen is now an economic success story which overtook HK a long time ago. Yet, because the CCP implements certain laws on property developers, and that the CCP does not rely on land sales to prop up an artificially low tax rate (which incentivises juicing up property prices), Shenzhen's property prices are still a fraction of HK's, and they are far better developed, happier, and a more balanced city. I don't plan to ever go back to HK. If I do return to China, I'll choose to live in a more spacious, better run, more affordable city on the Mainland.
@@cheesemccheese5780 It is the latter by far. Hong Kong is dense, but not without precedence in the rest of the world. Singapore is even denser than Hong Kong, and they don't have the real estate problem that HK has because Singapore's government runs public housing for Singaporeans, and they have regulations so foreign property speculators don't compete for the same stock of housing as locals.
@@cheesemccheese5780 I said being the free-est economy in the world is dubious because like all things, there must be BALANCE! Too much of the free market and not enough regulations, and not only do you end up with monopolies, there are also social question like economic inequality, degradation of the environment, etc., which are not normally quantified (or even considered) by the "free market". A society has to strive for a balanced approach which fosters social cohesion and social harmony. With a society like Hong Kong, the pendulum obviously swung too far in the direction of the "free market", and not enough attention paid to the actual lived experience of its people.
@@cheesemccheese5780 That's utter nonsense! Big businesses want LESS regulations, not more, for good reason. And it is also good reason for PEOPLE to want more regulations to protect the consumer, to protect the environment, etc. Excessive economic inequality is the precise reason why countries are falling apart, why governments have become dysfunctional, why societies is increasingly at war with itself. As the West reverts to the inequality level it last had in the 19th century, its politics has also become as toxic and dysfunctional as it were then. Africa's situation might be improving because they are starting to enforce their regulations against poaching. None of these have anything to do with the "free market".
@@cheesemccheese5780 Oh, and there is absolutely no evidence Afghanistan was ever second least unequal. I just looked up the GINI indices for various countries. Afghanistan doesn't even have a number, presumably due to lack of reliable data. The most unequal countries are concentrated in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa. And they are a mess for good reason.
hong kong sure may be a ultra capitalistic hellhole with a grossly corrupt and incompetent government and dominated by giant corps (I'm sure you're very familiar with this), and the people especially the upper middle class reek of this mindset too, but no way in hell is China or their megacities a better place to live in. everything from the building, food and product quality to the pollution to the lack of freedoms and total government infiltration and control to just the mindset and culture there these days. singapore is a better option.
I lived in a city near Hong Kong,I can clearly feel that part is complete socialism and part is complete capitalism.
A fellow Shenzhener? :-)
@@Noukz37 isnt youtube banned in china
@@grozaphy yeah but you can just use a vpn
It’s called Corporatism. The government looks after the big businesses for bribes from lobbyists. It helps both parties stay in power whilst the general population loose. Solution: get rid of the government and let competition thrive
@@Noukz37 Yup
The quality content from this channel is just amazing.
💯
🟦SERCH ADITYA RATHORE- HE ALSO MAKES INFORMATIVE CONTENT LIKE POLYMATTER
Appreciate the cover of Hong Kong, but as a HongKonger this video completely missed one point.
Even tho hk is definitely extremely corporatised and have a lot of monopoly. The actual free market is the option of price point we have for the same product. For example a simple head of broccoli, you can get it at a higher-end supermarket like Taste and Market Place for up to 30hkd per head. For mid-price supermarket like Wellcome and Parking it will price around 15hkd. For local wet market though, it can go as low as 5hkd.
The situation of the same product sold in different price ranges based on what kind of business it’s place in is very common for us.
“Oh I can get this for a cheaper price at ______” is quite ingrained in a lot of people when it comes to budgeting and price comparing.
So I find this video to be quite misleading since you didn’t mention all of the small businesses most HongKonger shop at. Wet Market, 藥房（local drug store), mum and pap shop, etc
The purpose of a government in an ideal Capitalistic system is to break up monopolies as they inevitably form. Not doing this turns an otherwise free and entrepreneurial society into a Corporatist Oligarchy as evidenced by Hong Kong and arguably the US as well. Meanwhile pre-WW1 US would be evidence of how well a government, that does what it's supposed to, could foster the ideal Capitalistic society.
7:42 Towngas's logo looks errr 'interesting'.
🔴SERCH ADITYA RATHORE- HE ALSO MAKES INFORMATIVE CONTENT LIKE POLYMATTER
As someone who has grown up in HK you have now ruined cooking with gas for me.
I see it now..
I'm from HK and I actually gained insight to my hometown watching this video! Very well done!
I saw the title and was confused. It all makes sense now. The pieces just fit, I don't know how I missed it.
I feel like this video failed to distinguish between British Hong Kong and Chinese Hong Kong. Milton Friedman's praise was directed at Hong Kong during British rule. But the examples of corporatism given are from modern Chinese ruled Hong Kong. The video does not establish whether the economic situation under British rule was similar, or whether the modern corporatism is something that has developed since the beginning of Chinese rule.
I visited Hong Kong for the first time few years ago. It is an awesome city. I would love to go back.
Hong Kong: The Most Capitalist Place on Earth?
China: "Not anymore."
So sad😞
Koala1203 I dont understand why people keep saying that? HK was the most capitalistic place on earth when they had ZERO democracy. What makes you think it still wont be in the future?
🟩SERCH ADITYA RATHORE- HE ALSO MAKES INFORMATIVE CONTENT LIKE POLYMATTER
After seeing this video now I am wondering what was the Democracy hongkongers we’re fighting for
@@yerri5567 I get the impression that a lot of the people who comment on his videos tend be "hurr durr China bad" rather than being rational.
There are even some comments claiming he is pro CCP propaganda, even though he put "Glory to Hong Kong" in one of his videos and mocked Xi and Carrie Lam in another.
I don’t think whoever wrote this knows what capitalism is. Hong Kong’s capitalism isn’t a “myth”, rather all the things mentioned are just natural byproducts of a capitalist mode of production. To say “Hong Kong isn’t capitalist because the way it’s organised is actually bad” is to say that “my definition of capitalism is what happens when an economy or country is good”, which is laughable.
^^^^^^
Awesome videos as always. Could you please do a video on how Singapore manages to have some of the worlds best education, infrastructure, healthcare, etc while only spending 17% of their GDP whereas countries like the US and Germany need to spend 30-40% in order to compete?
Their GDP is much higher because it includes heavy amount of services and finance revenue that can scale a lot better for a tiny population. It can’t exactly be imitated on a country scale
Generally I think Singapore's gov't spends more on longer-term/supply side policies, with less populist pressure for shorter-term solutions e.g. unemployment benefits. Instead of pensions the gov't also forces workers to maintain saving accounts for retirement, with employers legally required to chip in too except for foreign staff (which has also led to reports of discrimination against locals as employers might thus find foreigners cheaper to hire).
For education 1 thing I can think of is that Singapore has more economies of scale (EOS) due to its high population density, so it could serve its population with fewer bigger schools that'd then need less principals & other staff, each typically with close to 2000 students, & before 2016 some classrooms were shared with 2 classes, 1 with morning-only lessons & another with afternoon-only lessons. Once a school's population drops below ~500 I estimate, the gov't will close it down/merge it with another school due to loss of EOS (e.g. _Chai Chee_ Secondary had 3 classes for each of its 4-5 grades (Secondary 1-5; equivalent to 7-10th grade) (~20-40 students each) when it was merged with another school). Personal experience has been that there's quite a lot to be taught & teachers often don't have much time to clarify all students' questions (& I heard that they work pretty long hours too), so many also spend more on private tuition to make up for that.
For healthcare I heard the gov't is quite selective on the range of medicines it subsidises, but unsubsidized ones I heard can get quite expensive. It also encourages more self-reliance by forcing citizens & PRs to maintain saving accounts for healthcare (MediSave) & get insurance (MediShield Life is the gov' one & you can add on with private insurance, though the gov't has controversially tightened its coverage to fight what it claims is a "buffet mentality"). Another controversy is that the range of doctors on insurers' panels (i.e. those whose treatments they're willing to insure) is more limited, with other doctors' coverage dropping significantly I heard. Subsidies can be quite selective too e.g. to qualify for them, you won't be allowed to choose which doctor to see in a public hospital, unless you're elderly, & you can't be referred to there by a private doctor (as opposed to one in a gov't polyclinic i.e. a supersized public GP/dispensary that works shorter hours), & dental procedures plus health checkups are often uninsurable & unsubsidizable.
For infrastructure, the gov't can sometimes be more conservative e.g. a neighbourhood may exist for up to 30-40 years before it's served by a train station, while it also charges a 30% tax on water bills (which goes up to 45% if your consumption exceeds a certain amount, unless you're a commercial user). Think we might be 1 of the few countries worldwide to tax CNG too.
The map at @6:29 confused me so for longer than I'd care to admit. I saw the red as land first.
I thought hmm that sea looks like Indonesia then I realized
The reason hong kong was influenced by China so easily was because corporations have the right to vote, and the CCP has control over what the corporations want.
not so easily actually. That's why CCP used so much violence.
@@王萨戈耳 well, maybe not the people, but definitely the government
🏮SERCH ADITYA RATHORE- HE ALSO MAKES INFORMATIVE CONTENT LIKE POLYMATTER
Zyansheep "The reason hong kong was influenced by China so easily was because corporations have the right to vote, and the CCP has control over what the corporations want"
No. Its because theyre part of a country called China...so theyre influenced by the country called China...
@@yerri5567 technically they were supposed to be self-governing for another 50 years...
I clicked on this video thinking it was gonna be about monopoly
I believe two things can be true at once. It is true that Hong Kong was relatively free to more restrictive business environments as pre 1980s UK. This laissez faire policy framework has been instrumental in its growth no matter the intentions behind the implant. You can easily make the distinction with poor countries that were on par with Hong Kong in the 1950s like Sri Lanka or even some parts of India. It can also be true it is adversely affected by the plutocratic nature of its government. Most of the duopolies you mentioned were really ‘technical’ monopolies which are only hypothetical. They are all government enforced licensing schemes. It is imperative that we view these ideologies in a more nuanced way than a heavily edited 90 minute documentary which generalizes a lot of things.
Funny how people think that no goverment will solve their problems when it only solves problems of the rich people
Food trucks not allow to move, but you can have their food.
Cargo ships not allow to be on water, but you can store your cargos.
passenger planes not allow to fly, but you can drive around the airport with it.
@5:24 contains one of the most important statements for people who are wary of Hong Kong's recent crises: "Contrary to what many believe, Hong Kong was *never* democratic."
This video demonstrates how Hong Kong is the perfect example of separating capitalism from democracy.
Unfortunately, now HKers have even less freedom than they ever did before. :(
@@Venusupreme yes. Now, we have less freedom in our speech and expression
@@Venusupreme It is undeniable that Hong Kong lost a few in terms of absolute quantity. However, IMO Hong Kong had freedoms that would never fly in many other countries, and now that those are being taken away, it is more on par with what other countries will tolerate.
No modern, stable country would tolerate a unilateral attempt to secede, for example. Spain and Catalonia are the perfect example, and if you want to go back further in time, even the American Civil War is a great example. Also, having random unelected "pro-democracy figures" jet-set to a trade partner country, access its leadership and say "Hey, please sanction my country because they suck" is sort of unprecedented.
Throughout the unrest of 2019, a common slogan on the internet and the streets was "death to all cops and their families." Living in California, I don't think a protest movement using this sort of slogan would last very long, and the fact that riot police didn't kill anybody in Hong Kong makes that slogan even more ridiculous.
The fact that these unusual "freedoms" lasted for so long in Hong Kong is actually sort of incredible, and especially under the sovereignty of an authoritarian country like China.
Hong Kong and China are great examples of how bad we are at analyzing and teaching political systems. China being state capitalist country(with fascist tendencies) but being called communist contry and Hong Kong being regulated autocratic corporatocracy but being called laissez-faire capitalist country. It's almost like it's better to analyze system from perspective of distribution of social power and conflict between groups rather than 2 axis political analysis . Because when you start doing this, you will see that both system in Hong Kong and China are created for privileged class, just along different lines
China is not facist
Japan Germany Italy are fascism states.
HK USED to be the most capitalist place on earth. But nowadays idk.
Makes me think this channel accepted money from the CCP propaganda arm.
@@dr.floridaman4805 Ah yes, socialism with Chinese characteristics is surely about to cause chaos in this corporate-run region.
@@dr.floridaman4805 yeah…a channel accept CCP money would put “Glory to Hong Kong” at the end of one of his video
Phantom Thief Irwin "HK USED to be the most capitalist place on earth. But nowadays idk"
If it USED to be the most capitalist place on earth without ANY democracy, what makes it still wont be even with hypothetically absolutely zero democracy?
Looks like you didn't even watched the video
You’re combining history from before the British handover with history from after the British handover. You can’t say Hong Kong from these two time periods was the same. No where in the video did you explore business monopolies from before the British handover, the most important time period for your argument.
Mixing facts from 1980’s and 2020’s to build a narrative, whether correct or not, is bad journalism.
That because for the big companies before and after the return doesn’t make much difference. The political change is huge, but business / financial regulation changes are almost negligible before and after the return. As the video is purely talking about business / financial regulation, there’s no point mixing politics in it.
If this video disturbed you, search for Hong Kong coffin houses on UA-cam.
Or just look up poor elderly people who live in cages. That's what happens when you let capitalism / corporatism / oligarchism run to its natural conclusion and all the wealth gets concentrated in only a few hands.
i just checked one source: the prices in Hong Kong arent THAT high as suggested. The "study" used was an "opinion article" that took 20 everyday item (for a westerner) and bought them in 4 different stores, one for each city. Guess where they went to shop in Hong Kong? MARKS&SPENCER FOOD. Why go to the most expensive shop, if u can go to much cheaper supermarkets????
Ya eating healthy in Hong Kong is relatively CHEAP compared to Canada.
Me: How many videos will you make related to China?
Polymatter: YES
NWFB is more like a "subsidiary" of CTB, since they mainly focus on CTB more and both are under a company called Bravo Bus. So the main players should be KMB and Bravo Bus or KMB and CTB+NWFB
NWFB and CTB are sister companies. NWFB is technically the successor of CMB as it took over its remaining tenders.
@@PatheticTV yup
6:47 your example of the “problems” with capitalism where created by the government. Regulation created monopolies. A true free-market has no government.
You say that but you have no explanation for the "how" of it.
@@johh55 Because he hasn't
And I've never seen anyone else who says the exact same thing give an explanation either
Companies don't need regulation to create and maintain monopolies. Economies of scale let them outcompete smaller businesses, they can drop prices to the point where they're losing money to make competitors lose all business, only to increase the prices once the competitor is dead.
You may be more right in certain industries, but the actual physical realities of certain industries lend themselves to monopolies. Massive startup costs, long startup times, scale greatly reducing costs, and customers not being able to easily switch products are all non-government factors that can incline industries towards monopoly.
@@WanderTheNomad Murray Rothbard did. Albeit most economists were never convinced by it. But still, if you want an explanation of how it might work, read Rothbard. There's also an alternative model to be found in David Friedman's works.
@@TheLastScoot I don’t have the sources on me right now and I would encourage you to look into it but the price dropping practice doesn’t work. Otherwise yes there can be non government monopolies but those unlike government ones usually are to the benefit to the people.
Left to itself, a free-market will eventually create a monopoly.
As long as the monopoly is not government-made or sponsored, a monopoly may be tolerated for the meantime. Let the free-market come up with the solution to the monopoly
Actually the video is about government regulation of the free market.
The free-market is a 'myth' because of government overreach.
It's not the fault of the free-market itself.
Any system is good as long as people don't suffer. But cage homes in Hong Kong scare me.
But did all these monopolies exist when Milton Friedman was praising about it?
Hong Kong "was"the most capitalistic region/country.
Mr Bridge In what way is it still not? Back then they didnt have ANY democracy and was the most capitalist region. What makes you think it still wont be?
@@yerri5567 Capitalistic at his best is basically the economy is totally free from government hands
However HK is going to the opposite
Capitalism was good at the beginning for Hong Kong but turned bad once China opened up its market to Hong Kong businesses. Now many of the best and smartest of Hong Kong people go to China to expand their business because of huge market and low labor costs. Hong Kong culture also left to China which is a shame since it was once captured the western worlds #1 international film market.
@@warnercheng5564 "Capitalistic at his best is basically the economy is totally free from government hands
However HK is going to the opposite"
Not exactly. Even China is arguably seen as the most capitalist country in the world. Yet its economy is not "free" from the government. Whatever that means...Every country as laws and regulations on businesses
🧱SERCH ADITYA RATHORE- HE ALSO MAKES INFORMATIVE CONTENT LIKE POLYMATTER
You're all having those great business yt channels but not being able to see that having 2 products (nebula and curiosity stream) is hurting you. Merge and take solid positioning for god sake.
The reason HK never really get a democracy is becoz CCP strongly against this proposal if British eventually will return HK to them.
"Li KA-CHING" is a fitting name for the richest man...
This video doesn't mention Friedman's influence over Chile, one of the greatest examples of neoliberalism. I wonder why
Because it’s a video about honk kong maybe
@@user-qs2nr3ee6l I sent this before finishing the video. Praising Milton Friedman or the Heritage Foundation is always a red flag for me and I thought it was gonna be a video about praising free market capitalism
@@anthonytruong1061 It is a big red flag. I am an expat HKer, and I will straight up say that being awarded "freest" in the world by the Heritage Foundation is a dubious "honour" most actual resident would wish we didn't have. HK is just Reagan/Thatcher on steroids. It's not even the worst example of what neoliberalism does. For that, you'll have to look at post-Soviet economies like Russia, Ukraine, etc. They swallowed neoliberalism hook, line and sinker. They implemented "shock therapy", which completely destroyed their industry, plunged the GDPs of Russia/Ukraine by two-thirds in the 1990s, resulted in mass homelessness, alcoholism, orphans, and all the problems for which Russia has been maligned since the end of the Cold War, and the Russians are so traumatised by their experience that the word "liberalism" is basically a swear word up north (and I don't blame them).
@@pineapplesareyummy6352 I didn't know that about Ukraine or Russia but that doesn't surprise me. I knew East Berlin had everything great (no homelessness or unemployment) and capitalists in the west wanted to do everything to overthrow it
It’s has to be said that the big corporations in the west have a wet dream that’s reality in Hong Kong. So many companies in the west would love to have 80% or more market share. But it’s for the better because competition is a good thing , it leads the market into a completely open market where the best price/quality/branding eventually takes their earned share of the market.
woah. you tried to show that monopolies were a result of the free market, but you also indirectly said that these were government made monopolies (regulations, licenses). Misleading
you didn't get it. watch the video again. Polymatter is arguing that Monopolies are not the result of the free market but of privileges and unfair advantages granted to the elite throughout its history. the central narrative of the video is that Hong Kong isn't really the prime example of capitalism the old scholars claimed it was.
@@MiloTheFirst1 i got a different vibe from the video. I got the feeling that 'capitalism= elites. corruption and monopolies'
There are several ways to explain this. One, the government didn't really "make" those monopolies. Monopoly is the ultimate goal of all capitalists. Think about it, if you ran a huge business you'd want to control the government and bend all the rules in your own favour. That's what happened to Hong Kong and it happened well before its return to China. That has not changed to this day.
Also, the free market isn't as "free" as some economic theorists describe, and the video gave several examples to demonstrate that point.
@@canto_v12 I agree with everything but I want to say that corruption and monopolies aren't because of capitalism. It is because of the state being to naturally probe to corruption. Monopolies and corruption are features of socialism, not capitalism.
Another thing I want to say is, that there is no free market in the world. There are only freer ones. Usually some are freer in one ways, others in another ways. Hong Kong might be pretty bad at corruption, monopolies and other gimmicks.
1:32 nah, it just exudes necessity, cause the lack of horizontal availability meant it had to be compensated with verticality.
I think what Polymatter is trying to push forward here is not that "free market is bad as it will always lead to monopolies and corporatocracy" but rather "Hong Kong is corporatocracy disguising itself as free market", as real free markets will want to ensure fair competition through the lack of government favoritism (for example, the government in this case regulating the frequency of bus companies, or allowing only one company the right to import cattle goods) and cooperate subsidization from government, as government subsidization of companies only imbalances competition within the free market as corporations receiving government subsidization receive an additional funding from government, compared to other companies which only revenue is from the profit motive, only leading to more monopolies. Such example of a "true" free market may be Singapore, where government lobbying and cooperate subsidization is very low, but where government regulation is low as well.
The thing about economic freedom indexes such as the ones from the Fraser Institute, The Heritage Foundation or the Cato-Institute, is that they only measure "freeness" to the extent of a lack of government regulation, government spending, taxes, property rights, rule of law, but not measure the amount of government favoritism in terms of corporate subsidization. Thus which is why I would argue that Singapore is more "free market" than Hong Kong, despite being slightly more regulatory according to the aforementioned indexes (in most of them, Singapore ranks 2nd behind Hong Kong), as it's government does not take sides in the free market through subsidization or corporate favoritism.
The issue also comes to the meritocracy in the idea of civil society and free market. As Polymatter mentioned in the video, Hong Kong's meritocracy is flawed and favored the British historically, and zoning laws contributed to that idea, while at the same time being one of the main reasons of Hong Kong's insanely expensive rent prices. Singapore, on the other hand, through a lack of favoritism, the existence of school choice, and being built upon the idea of multiracialism/monoculturalism (monoculture in the sense of a mono-identity, but still being multitraditional), and the strong rejection of racial;y motivated based policies such as affirmative action, racial quotas and diversity standards, has achieved a more truer meritocracy.
Well , we need to know the economic phenomenon of Excessive duplication , in this phenomenon , the are many companies providing the same services, but , this services are too saturated of companies and the market results in few companies in a market , for example, if Hong Kong had a lot of electricity companies , it will by too complicated for people and for the city itself had a good service in a so saturated market
Gotta be honest, I'm confused about all the positive feedback on this video.
It begins by claiming milton friedman may have been wrong about hong kong, then proceeds to provide nothing of his work. Most of the points are overgeneralizations without context and at times subjective. This is one of those examples where high quality production can mask over actual substance. I don't want to sound overly critical or have anything against this channel, but if you begin with a claim that someone might be wrong, you have to discuss that person's claims to derive any merit
I recently discovered this channel and I feel like it's a channel that is followed by bots or it's like some sort of propaganda outlet with a huge budget to back it up.
None of the videos make sense, they make over-generic statements and the topics seem to range vastly, most youtubers have like at least some form of topic-core but this seems to be all over the place, covering politics, socio-economics, history and some times even tv programs or modern pop culture stuff.
This channel feels really weird.
@@atermnus1286 You know what, your intuition rings true. This channel takes the artistic/presentation style of other big name channels that cover economics/politics/history but the actual content quality is nowhere close.
Amazing as usual
A rather unusual taste for a driver channel
Wow itsdanielmac itself
Fancy seeing you here!!
Great job. I'm from Malawi, which was shown at 2:49, though it's a bit jarring to see both Nyasaland and Malawi shown in the same frame as if they are two different countries since they are under two different rulers, but I admit that doesn't take away from the video.
Pro tip, though: the "Nya-" in Nyasaland is one syllable, not two. Good attempt, though.
Corporations are actually socialistic since they are publicly, not privately, owned, and as this video shows, are giving a huge market advantage by the State.
Firstly, most of those monopolies exist because of the lack of anti-trust action in Hong Kong, a free market endeavour that even economists like Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell disagree with.
The corporations themselves have legal and illegal political power to sway goverment decisions in their favour, thus they are able to provide pro-business and ultimately pro-monopoly decisions.
Also, why exactly is the "corporations are always publicly (which I assume is government) owned" assumed?
@@Hotasianchick I suspect monopolies exist because they are given an advantage, often a big one, by the State. You're welcome to cite an example of one that was developed solely by a private entrepreneur. And one what isn't a corporate entity. And you assume wrong. Publicly owned in not the same as government owned. But they do get special treatment, at least more so than privately owned companies, don't they?
I can't believe the richest man in Hong Kong's name is "ka ching" like a cash register.
As a singaporean when I found this out I burst into laughter
I noticed that in the video you list a few failures of government, and call them failures of free market capitalism.
It is always a terrible thing when corporations get there hand on government via lobbying, and the problem with them having the right to vote is definitely hurting things.
Like what? Polymatter never claimed that Hong Kong's issues were due to free market capitalism. At the end of the video, he literally states that HK isn't actually against government intervention but preserving the status quo.
@@billzhao1346 Essentially an oligarchy.
Amazing thumbnail, that’s little homage to “the fast moving SAR” 🙌🏽
@Great Cow God 🐮 You’re probably a Dalid too.
mmm so you are saying that orthodox capitalism leads to monopolies, oligopolies and corporatocracy?? I guess I'd never have guessed it
can't have a batter explanation of why free market/monopoly is bad for the society💀
If someone cares you could make a video about why german railway or hospital privatization is a failure/failing
Why is it failing?
Or make a video on how Japan's privatization of railways was a complete success.
I prefer privatization of hospitals and railways because I don’t want my tax dollars going towards things I don’t use.
Im german and i dont understand what you're refering to. The german railway Deutsche Bahn is 100% owned by the government. Thats why its so inefficient and expensive. The same applies to our state owned Telekom. It can't be a coincidence that we lack behind in those fields.
@Aidan Collins why? Like what leads to that in Germany? What is the series of events that makes it worse and more expensive?
If we than compare average income to costs of living Great Britain regains it’s greatness in comparison.
So we see again that competition is more important for capitalism to work than tax breaks.
edit: oh and they work way more huh
Actualy, no... HK's PPP per capita (i.e. accounting for costs of living) is considerably higher than the UK's... (they do work crazy hours tho)
All government needs to do for capitalism to work is to create a fair environment companies can compete in. Most of the time, the government doesn't need to do anything for this to be fulfilled.
ew Such a libertarian thing to say.
@@thelouster5815 yes
@Aidan Collins Free-market capitalism benefits the mutual exchange of goods and services for money between producers and consumers. The people involved in the production of goods and services are happy they can put in the work of producing something they can sell for more than the effort of producing it. The people who then buy these services or goods are happy because they, in turn, would rather have the service or good than the money they cost to produce.
These two groups actually consist of the same people as everyone produces something in exchange for something else and vice versa. The people who really benefit are those who can produce something very valuable for little effort, but this is simply dictated by the nature of the market. The current technical revolution, for example, has allowed a small number of people to create a lot of useful things using smaller workforces, which has led to greater inequality where a smaller group produces more value. There isn't anything particularly special about free-market capitalism that incentivizes this, it's the nature of the market that dictates this, free-market capitalism simply incentivizes more effective ways of producing goods and services.
My question is: how is this all changing now with the CCP's slow yet deliberate takeover of the city?
It's not. The CCP has no interest in destabilizing Hong Kong with new radical reforms, they would prefer to keep it just the way it is with the added stability and security of the NSL.
@@andro7862 what do u mean??? For one thing the NSL is a new radical reform...
@The Professional have you been following the state of Hong kong and the crackdowns as well in the mainland? Sincerely asking... because the way things look i would get my company the fck outta china/hong kong/anything ccp related asap
@polymatter ... Great and interesting video! This is one of my favorite channels and a major reason I signed up for Nebula.
If Hong Kong successfully transformed into a democracy in 2019 perhaps things may change for the better, but sadly it hasn't as Hong Kongers continues to be slaves to big corporations and the government, afaik many are already leaving as the government tightens their grasp on free speech and dissents.
@adeline rojas A lot can be done if the people have the power to shape their own government, the people need to be respected, but unfortunately, things change for the worse in HK, it is inevitably following China's footsteps into autocracy.
@@peterchang2310 There's no such thing as "the preople" owning their own government. Majoritarinanism is immoral and fails in even in concept, let alone execution. Voter's oppritunity cost, median voter theorom, gerrymandering, or plain apathy to name a few.
All in all, a lynch mob is not moral and correct because there is only one dissenting vote.
Part of me feels like this is a straw man video. You started with early Hong Kong and then just cut into modern Hong Kong. What happened to the transition? I’ll read the sources though. The Kong Kong today is not the same as the totalitarian Hong Kong by the British from the early days.
They might be a model of growth, but I'd like to see how well their population would fare without their social welfare department, public hospitals and health services, government-funded higher education, etc.
As long as the government doesn't get in the way like they do with the food trucks, it'll be fine.
If the government doesn't get in the way, private competition can easily fulfill.
@Aidan Collins BS. Deregulate health and education and the market will work. Government sets up barriers that protect cronies, stifle innovation, and put dead weight loss on the economy. That's aside from corruption. Charter schools do better than public for the students. Public schools work for the bureaucrats and unions, not the students.
Of course, one corporation or any individual really would want to maximize profit. But guess what, get out of the way, and others who have better ideas and will do things for cheaper, will come in if people really want it enough to part with their own money, not of others.
@Aidan Collins then why do private schools blow public education out of the water?
Umm, that's most countries. Very few countries operate without publicly funded services, mostly in places of anarchy.
But isn't USA also a "Corporotocracy" then?
Yep
Yes, large corporations lobby for regulation and subsidies.
The US has a few large dominant players in some industries, but they still have competitors. Maybe we're just further behind than Hong Kong because the corporate borg keeps assimilating into bigger and bigger conglomerates. It's only a matter of time.
Min 5:10... it is telling that the track record of "no deficit" is cut off in 1997, the year of the handover. If the food trucks are a regulatory mess in 2015... can it be from the influence of the new rulers since 97? ..... Min 7:39 It would be interesting to report when did the government grant all these monopolies...was it before/after 1997? ......The channel walks a very fine line to please Hong Kong's new masters and avoid being censored.