Replies

Hong Kong existed as an independent national economy for decades. Now how can that be? Before it was a special administrative region for China, it was a British Dependent Territory, and before that it was a British colony.

The same way that Hong Kong is still an almost completely independent economy! Look, I understand, given that you're against free trade in principle that you may not want to answer my question. But the answer is obvious: that Hong Kong's free market policies at home and abroad constitute the main reasons why it's so prosperous. Remember, the thirteen colonies revolted becuase their own economic independence was threatened; distance and development created that space. P.J. O'Rourke wrote a great book a while back called "Eat the Rich" that mentioned this and he talks about Hong Kong here as well:

Hong Kong was also fortunate in having a colonial government which included some real British heroes, men who helped of these the place stay as good as it was for a s long as it did. The most heroic of these was John Cowperthwaite, a young colonial officer sent to Hong Kong in 1945 to oversee the colony's economic recovery. "Upon arrival, however," said a Far Eastern Economic Review article about Cowperthwaite, "he found it recovering quite nicely without him." Cowperthwaite took the lesson to heart, and while he was in charge, he strictly limited bureaucratic interference in the economy growth or the size of GDP. The Cubans wont let anyone get those figures, either. But Cowperthwaite forbade it for an opposite reason. He felt that these numbers were nobody's business and would only be misused by policy fools.

Cowperthwaite has said of his role in Hong Kong's astounding growth: "I did very little. All I did was to try to prevent some of the things that might undo it."

He served as the colony's financial secretary from 1961 to 1971.In the debate over the 1961 budget, he spoke words that should be engraved over the portals of every legislature worldwide; no, tattooed on the legislators' faces:

….in the long run the aggregate of decisions of individual businessmen, exercising individual judgment in a free economy, even if often mistaken, is less likely to do harm than the centralized decisions of a government; and, certainly the harm is likely to be counteracted faster.

Even Newsweek has been forced into admiration: "While Britain continued to build a welfare state, Cowperthwaite was saying 'no': no export subsidies, no tariffs. No personal taxes higher than 15 percent, red tape so thin a one-page form can launch a company."

During Cowperthwaite's "nothing doing" tenure, Hong Kong's exports grew by an average of 13.8 percent a year, industrial wages doubled, and the number of households in extreme poverty shrank from more than half to 16 percent.

"It would be hard to overestimate the debt Hong Kong owes to Cowperthwaite," said economist Milton Friedman. And it would be hard to overestimate the debt Hong Kong owes to the Chinese people who sanctioned and supported what Cowperthwaite was doing or, rather, doing not. Because Hong Kong did not get rich simply as a result of freedom and law. Economics is easier than economists claim, but its not as easy as that. Chinese culture was a factor in Hong Kong;s success. And yet, almost by definition, Chinese culture must have been a factor in mainland China's failure. Culture is complex. Complexities are fun to talk about, but, when it comes to action, simplicities are often more effective. John Cowperthwaite was a master of simplicities....Hong Kong does not have import or export duties, or restrictions on investments coming in, or limits on profits going out. There is no capital-gains tax, no interest tax, no sales tax, and no tax breaks for muddle-butt companies that can't make it on their own.

http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Document_Library/Reports_Publications/2004/2004_National_Trade_Estimate/2004_NTE_Report/asset_upload_file343_4771.pdf#search='Hong%20Kong%20independent%20economy'

I am against the internationalist "free trade system" that is destroying our domestic economy, yes.

Please understand this one point. Hong Kong is NOT a nation. It is a special region or was a territory
of Britain or China. It doesn't function under the same rules as a nation, because it isn't one.
You assert that its prosperity comes from its free market policies, but Hong Kong is just
a shopping mall. It doesn't provide for its own defense, it bases its government on the government
of the nation controlling it. The people there have no independence, they can only do what the country
which has jurisdiction over it says it can do. It really cannot be compared to the US or used as an example
for our own economy because its really just a shopping mall, not a nation!

Hong Kong existed as an independent national economy for decades. Now how can that be? Before it was a special administrative region for China, it was a British Dependent Territory, and before that it was a British colony.

The same way that Hong Kong is still an almost completely independent economy! Look, I understand that you're against free trade in principle that you may not want to answer my question. But the answer is obvious: that Hong Kong's free market policies at home and abroad constitute the main reasons why it's so prosperous. Remember, the thirteen colonies revolted because their own economic independence was threatened,; distance and development created that space.

But the report in question, clearly is not talking about an "independent" economy, but one that is completely intertwined and interdependent as the new "North American solution".

Building a North American Community, p.54:
Conclusion
The global challenges faced by North America cannot be met solely through unilateral or bilateral efforts or existing patterns of cooperation. They require deepened cooperation based on the principle, affirmed in the March 2005 joint statement by Canada, Mexico, and the United States, that "our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary."

Establishment by 2010 of a security and economic community for North America is an ambitious but achievable goal that is consistent with this principle and, more important, buttresses the goals and values of the citizens of North America, who share a desire for safe and secure societies, economic opportunity and prosperity, and strong democratic institutions.

I also note that you want to equate "free market" principles with the "free trade" policies of some of these international agreements. The two are simply not the same. Furthermore, the report is not solely about "trade". It includes recommendations on education (how and what our children should be taught), changes to international water treaties, new regulatory and advisory bodies, etc.

p.53:
A North American Advisory Council. To ensure a regular injection of creative energy into the various efforts related to North American integration, the three governments should appoint an independent body of advisers. This body should be composed of eminent persons from outside government, appointed to staggered multiyear terms to ensure their independence. Their mandate would be to engage in creative exploration of new ideas from a North American perspective and to provide a public voice for North America. A complementary approach would be to establish private bodies that would meet regularly or annually to buttress North American relationships, along the lines of the Bilderberg or Wehrkunde conferences, organized to support transatlantic relations.