Dear tom - maybe we are not that far apart <G>. Obviously, Shanghai has great potentials to regain the luster of yesteryears. In fact, its natives have been traditionally a powerful force [cartel?] in HK. SAR is really a meaningless term. Or, shall we say, some SARs are more equal than others. Were the PRC treat the SAR of Tibet 1/100th like than of HK, the world would be a happier place. But enough digression. Maybe you miss my point. While China may want to relocate the energy center, sometimes it is beyond state control. There is traditional chinese saying, "[for a campaign to be successful,] it requires 1) environment, 2) position and 3) cooperation of the population." HK is the incument with great infrastructures and her population is bred to be capitalist [whether I like it or not <G>.]
More important, granted that 20 years can be a lot of water under the bridge, as Mao has said, "after 100 years, even you and I look ridiculous." However, there lies the problem of your argument. If I follow your previous argument right, you are saying HK is doomed now , not 20 years from now. Now, for academic purposes, you are shifting your argument far out into the future. Personally, unless Shanghai, or anything else for that matter, has the infrastructure like that of HK, and the foreigners, like the Citigroups of the world to buy in to it, China simply cannot will a shift of the financial center away from HK.
Just my 2c [hopefully not devaluated too soon <VBG>]
best, Bosco |
