>Chris, the news is a little more adverse to your ideas about structural
reforms
>than you are conceding.
Yes, that is the question I wanted posed. I think it is an interesting way to test ideas to make a prediction and to see how well it stands up to unfolding events.
Obviously I am not arguing that the main merits of structural reforms to us are that they enable a capitalist statelet to withstand currency fluctuations. I have been arguing that Hong Kong has been more resilient than expected and that this resilience comes from the government taking surplus directly from land, from having no national debt, and from a currency board system that does not fight global capitalism but tries to insulate the economy from the adverse effects of it.
These semi-socialised measures are possible even in a capitalist economy. If they are possible they could be used by other economies to reduce the chaotic effects of capitalism and socialise the financial and land systems.
About this present challenge it sounds as if the Hong Kong administration is claiming it was facing an especially concentrated and ingenious challenge probably by Soros, and they punished him. I have little idea whether that means they are more or less likely to face a similar attack, in a slightly altered form in the next couple of weeks.
Obviously if we are looking for structural reforms it is unlikely that any we find are going to be magic answers to everything. That would be most implausible. I would suggest the case I have made is credible.
Chris Burford