quote:

---

Raymond Y.C. Tse (1997) Housing Price, Land Supply and Revenue from Land Sales

---

quote:

---

Neng Lai, Ko Wang (1999) Land - Supply Restrictions, Developer Strategies and Housing Policies: The Case in Hong Kong


Conclusions
The public press in Hong Kong has speculated that high property appreciation rates (and volatile price movements) in Hong Kong could be due to the fact that land supply is limited (and is controlled by the government) and that only a few developers have dominated the housing supply in the past decades. High-level government officers in Hong Kong have also suggested that an increase in the land supply could solve the housing problem in Hong Kong. Our paper, which analyzes developers’ land bank and housing supply decisions in the past, indicates that it might not be the case. We find that developers’ housing supply is independent of the amount of land provided by the government. We also find evidence that developers will examine economic conditions in making their housing supply decisions.

Our findings indicate that it is important to examine the profit maximization motive of developers when one tries to enact a housing policy to regulate the housing market. In this particular case, since developers can always adjust their land banks to absorb the increase in land supplied by the government, an increase in land supply might have a minimal effect on developers’ construction decisions. (From the same argument, a decrease in land supply might not reduce developers’ building activities.) Developers will increase (or decrease) the level of their land banks as long as it is perceived to be a profit maximizing decision. Hence, in order to increase the housing supply, it might be necessary to create an environment in which the best course of action for developers is to develop the land, rather than to hold it. To do this, one must first understand the benefits and costs of holding a land inventory. We propose that the option theory developed in the finance field can be used to address this issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by imahuman

居然讓我Google出一些有趣的論文....這和小弟一向的認知有相當的差距...哪位前輩可以為小弟解惑?
(還是說一切都是地產商的陰謀??)

quote:

---

Raymond Y.C. Tse (1997) Housing Price, Land Supply and Revenue from Land Sales

---

quote:

---

Neng Lai, Ko Wang (1999) Land - Supply Restrictions, Developer Strategies and Housing Policies: The Case in Hong Kong


Conclusions
The public press in Hong Kong has speculated that high property appreciation rates (and volatile price movements) in Hong Kong could be due to the fact that land supply is limited (and is controlled by the government) and that only a few developers have dominated the housing supply in the past decades. High-level government officers in Hong Kong have also suggested that an increase in the land supply could solve the housing problem in Hong Kong. Our paper, which analyzes developers’ land bank and housing supply decisions in the past, indicates that it might not be the case. We find that developers’ housing supply is independent of the amount of land provided by the government. We also find evidence that developers will examine economic conditions in making their housing supply decisions.

Our findings indicate that it is important to examine the profit maximization motive of developers when one tries to enact a housing policy to regulate the housing market. In this particular case, since developers can always adjust their land banks to absorb the increase in land supplied by the government, an increase in land supply might have a minimal effect on developers’ construction decisions. (From the same argument, a decrease in land supply might not reduce developers’ building activities.) Developers will increase (or decrease) the level of their land banks as long as it is perceived to be a profit maximizing decision. Hence, in order to increase the housing supply, it might be necessary to create an environment in which the best course of action for developers is to develop the land, rather than to hold it. To do this, one must first understand the benefits and costs of holding a land inventory. We propose that the option theory developed in the finance field can be used to address this issue.

---

---

I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong.
--Bertrand Russell

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xk2008

1944年英国就签约归还一切租界，新界你主子老蒋就是拿不回来，南京条约有效论才是撒切尔和邓谈的，被邓给顶回去而已。

撒切尔摔跤怎么了？就是让人人都看出英国老底，以后再怎么如你这样给主子粉饰太平也无法掩盖英国吃了大亏不得不让步滚蛋的事实。

连英国割让敦刻尔克历史都不知道？回家好好看看历史书吧。

英国放弃的殖民地无数，但是都是容许殖民地独立而已，英国真正给别国割地就三次，敦刻尔克给法国，北美基地体系“租借”给美国，香港归还中国。

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xk2008


发达国家是经历从制造业为主向服务业升级的过程，但是这不等于放弃制造业，没有制造业，你的服务业服务给谁？香港总人口那么多，全靠服务业？如果这套能成，今天香港局面就不会是这个样子。

摧毁香港的制造业当然是在迫害香港，英国人故意通过各种法律，推高房价，完全不帮助扶植等手段把制造业彻底赶出香港，一个没有制造业的香港又被股市和房产泡沫推到极点，等于中国的大包袱，一败涂地输掉裤衩的英国人临走还能玩出这一手才真是高明。

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xk2008
1945年蒋介石就得不到这个（从国际法角度，新界是应该包括在归还租借的范围内的）。

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xk2008
美国的支持并不是根本，说到底美国会为了帮中国解放殖民地对英国开战？1944年美国也支持中国，1980年马岛出事后美国也搞中立想妥协，但是结果呢？自己没有实力和意志，一切都是虚的。

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xk2008
说的更白一点，这世界有几个国家有资格告诉英国，这里就是我的，没商量你必须滚蛋？西班牙不够资格，今天直布罗陀还挂着米字旗，阿根廷不够资格，今天马岛还挂着米字旗，今天英国人还在马岛搞那搞笑的公投呢，1980年代当时英国搞公投不能过关？中国不吃你这一套而已。

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xk2008
撒切尔在国内问题上争议很大，她的历史声誉说白了，主要是靠马岛支撑起啦的（毕竟这是苏伊士运河惨败后大英帝国第一次打赢，看看英国国葬突出的军事色彩，不正说明了这一点），但是她挟马岛胜利之威而来，在中国碰了大钉子不得不乖乖让步，如果她能趁马岛胜利之威让英国继续殖民香港，相信她对外评价肯定更上一层楼。

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by imahuman

居然讓我Google出一些有趣的論文....這和小弟一向的認知有相當的差距...哪位前輩可以為小弟解惑?
(還是說一切都是地產商的陰謀??)
............

---

quote:

---

Some research studies have examined LS restrictions and the adjustment process of the housing market. For example, Peng and Wheaton (1994) find that housing production is not just altered in reaction to supply restrictions. This is, they argue, because housing output can be changed through varying the density of development within the existing land inventory. A reduction in sales of new land would cause a smaller long-run supply of land only. This will eventually raise the rents that people pay for housing and land. In a rational market, the anticipated higher future rents are capitalized into higher current housing prices. Higher housing prices generate higher residual land prices, which in turn lead to capital land substitution in housing production. Therefore, in the adjustment mechanism, restrictions on LS do not reduce the production of housing units. But rather they increase housing prices in the short-run and increase density of development in the long-run. The adjustment process of LS restrictions leads to some fluctuations in the housing market.

In addition, researchers have adopted econometric models to measure the effects of LS on housing. Peng and Wheaton (1994) and Tse (1998) treat land sale (and tender) as the only variable to proxy LS in their modeling. However, Bramley (1993) and Hui et al. (2000) stipulate that there are other sources of supply that exert a significant impact on the housing market. One way, for example, is through lease modification and exchange. In particular, Bramley (1993) believes that market prices affect the flow of planning permissions as increases in prices encourage profit-seeking developers to apply for more permissions. This gives rise to more land release from their land banks. In effect, lease modification and exchange affects the housing market in two ways. First, it encourages developers to release land from their land banks for more house-building. Second, it creates land substitutes through a relaxation of the planning control imposed on the leases to increase housing production (Tse, 1998). In addition, land produced through improvement of infrastructure is another important, but indirect, source of supply. As Tse (1995) notes, not only does the capacity of existing roads restrains the amount of housing development in a particular area, development potential in rural areas is also severely constrained by the lack of infrastructure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GeorgeLeung

quote:

---

Originally posted by xk2008

quote:

---

Originally posted by Manfred

quote:

---

Originally posted by xk2008



说的英国人那么轻松？真这么轻松就不会先来南京条约有效率，又来主权换治权了。撒切尔摔了那一跤，再怎么粉饰太平，也无法掩盖其失败。这是英国自从割让敦刻尔克和把北美基地给美国后最大的割地（殖民地独立不是割地给别国）。

大陆洗脑功力是渣，不过这等于前主子治理有力：摧毁了香港制造业，大搞房地产和服务业，推高了股市，扶植起来足够的反对派，把泡沫堆到顶点变成定时炸弹后推给中国。英国人在退出殖民地方面布局确实高明。

---

主权换治权也是承认主权在中国。法理上已经是放弃了主权。和你主子的努力有半毛关系吗？谢谢证明我的观点。撒切尔摔跤怎么了？赵紫阳还被软禁了N年，Shopping邓连回归都没看到就见了马克思。这能说明个P。除了让你流出一点蛋白质外有什么实质效果吗？割让敦刻尔克？敦刻尔克什么时候成了英国领土？英国放弃的领土不要太多，只有你这种井蛙才会以为英国只有割地给美国。
绝大多数的成熟经济体都经历从制造业为主向服务业升级的过程。中国大陆也想这么干，就是没那么简单。老土才以为造点东西有多牛B。自己滚去翻翻工业化国家的服务业占GDP的比例。原来摧毁香港的制造业是在迫害香港。哈哈哈！

---

发达国家是经历从制造业为主向服务业升级的过程，但是这不等于放弃制造业，没有制造业，你的服务业服务给谁？香港总人口那么多，全靠服务业？如果这套能成，今天香港局面就不会是这个样子。

摧毁香港的制造业当然是在迫害香港，英国人故意通过各种法律，推高房价，完全不帮助扶植等手段把制造业彻底赶出香港，一个没有制造业的香港又被股市和房产泡沫推到极点，等于中国的大包袱，一败涂地输掉裤衩的英国人临走还能玩出这一手才真是高明。

---

1. 摧毀香港制造業的是大陸的改革開放政策。大部份工廠都是因為大陸的低成本而轉移, 正如台灣一樣。
2. "故意通过各种法律"是對的, 不過不是英國而是大陸。在聯合聲明之後, 大陸怕英國會大量賣地, 所以每年賣地限於五十公頃。結果是由於求過於供，香港的地價上升了二十倍, 住宅平均呎價上升十倍。


3. "包袱"?你大可以問問朗朗,章子怡等等移民, 問他們覺得香港身份是不是個包袱?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SK2x2

quote:

---

Originally posted by xk2008
1945年蒋介石就得不到这个（从国际法角度，新界是应该包括在归还租借的范围内的）。

---

Simple, because the whole world is recovering and no one want China (ROC at that time) to ruin the peace.

quote:

---

Originally posted by xk2008
美国的支持并不是根本，说到底美国会为了帮中国解放殖民地对英国开战？1944年美国也支持中国，1980年马岛出事后美国也搞中立想妥协，但是结果呢？自己没有实力和意志，一切都是虚的。

---

Without the support of US, see how did the Brits end up in 1956, thanks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by xk2008
说的更白一点，这世界有几个国家有资格告诉英国，这里就是我的，没商量你必须滚蛋？西班牙不够资格，今天直布罗陀还挂着米字旗，阿根廷不够资格，今天马岛还挂着米字旗，今天英国人还在马岛搞那搞笑的公投呢，1980年代当时英国搞公投不能过关？中国不吃你这一套而已。

---

Spanish? They are both in European Communities and then European Union, every dispute inside it must pass through the Communities/Union, from fishing to sovereignty dispute.

Argentine is stupid enough to capture the piece of land at the very wrong time without some warm up, which you should learn quite a lot from military history, dude.

quote:

---

Originally posted by xk2008
撒切尔在国内问题上争议很大，她的历史声誉说白了，主要是靠马岛支撑起啦的（毕竟这是苏伊士运河惨败后大英帝国第一次打赢，看看英国国葬突出的军事色彩，不正说明了这一点），但是她挟马岛胜利之威而来，在中国碰了大钉子不得不乖乖让步，如果她能趁马岛胜利之威让英国继续殖民香港，相信她对外评价肯定更上一层楼。

---

Although the Falkland helped Thatcher to increase her reputation, her major success was to rebuild the UK economy into one of the most successful in Europe in recent years.

Please do try to read more foreign (in this case UK) articles and journals about this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Manfred

quote:

---

Originally posted by xk2008


发达国家是经历从制造业为主向服务业升级的过程，但是这不等于放弃制造业，没有制造业，你的服务业服务给谁？香港总人口那么多，全靠服务业？如果这套能成，今天香港局面就不会是这个样子。

摧毁香港的制造业当然是在迫害香港，英国人故意通过各种法律，推高房价，完全不帮助扶植等手段把制造业彻底赶出香港，一个没有制造业的香港又被股市和房产泡沫推到极点，等于中国的大包袱，一败涂地输掉裤衩的英国人临走还能玩出这一手才真是高明。

---

没有制造业，有你这种傻缺给我造啊。我拿现成品就是了。香港总人口才多少？大陆的马仔有多少啊？美国现在的钢产量大概大陆的1/5到1/10左右。这不算放弃什么叫放弃啊？难道真的要不炼1吨钢才叫放弃？
操，英国人通过法律抬高房价？？我怎么记得回归前的移民潮造成香港楼市大跌啊？金融服务类城市房价上涨是合理现象，上海的房价10年里涨了差不多10倍，原来是吃S的中共通过各类法律的结果是吧？现在上海也基本没制造业，又被股市房产泡沫推到极点所以你主子在迫害上海是吧？话说找你这种货来写贴你主子要衰成什么样子啊？

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Manfred

quote:

---

Originally posted by xk2008

1944年英国就签约归还一切租界，新界你主子老蒋就是拿不回来，南京条约有效论才是撒切尔和邓谈的，被邓给顶回去而已。

撒切尔摔跤怎么了？就是让人人都看出英国老底，以后再怎么如你这样给主子粉饰太平也无法掩盖英国吃了大亏不得不让步滚蛋的事实。

连英国割让敦刻尔克历史都不知道？回家好好看看历史书吧。

英国放弃的殖民地无数，但是都是容许殖民地独立而已，英国真正给别国割地就三次，敦刻尔克给法国，北美基地体系“租借”给美国，香港归还中国。

---

摔跤能看出老底？恩，所以看肥江那一肚子肥肉能知道中国的老底是吧？
吃亏？也不知道哪个缩货49年解放后称推翻一切不平等条约还就要等到别人条约到期才收回。英国人不过履行条约规定的义务，以及顺带放弃一个在技术不可能持有的海外领地而已。
那本历史书告诉你英国割让敦刻尔克？又是那本书说是英国领土的？你懂历史啊？
允许殖民地独立？NewFounderland独立了？这算是打脸吗？

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xk2008
1、因此蒋介石就为了世界和平光荣的缩了。1980年代好像没有人希望破坏世界和平吧？英国就被迫同意滚蛋了。

2、你的意思是哪怕中国不作为，80年代里根会为了帮助香港回归中国而和1956年一样？

3、英国加入欧盟是那一年？直布罗陀被英国占领是那一年？

4、撒切尔内政问题才是贬多余褒吧，那些高叫老巫婆死了的人可不是为了撒切尔割地或者打赢战争，如果说撒切尔自己的决断起了决定性作用而且基本是英国国内各派都不反对的，那就是马岛战争了（打赢了而且代价不大的战争人民总是喜欢的。）。如果撒切尔能让中国承认南京条约继续有效（如果英国有足够的国力或者中国够软并非不可能），或者弄个主权换治权，那撒切尔在对外方面可以说就是完美无缺了。

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xk2008


无赖就够受的了，居然还无知，只有傻瓜才会以为拥有世界第二大制造业的美国现在放弃了制造业。

香港人口才多少？新加坡人口才多少？四小龙经济状况基本可以以制造业竞争力作为一个标杆，放弃最彻底的经济最差，这一定是没关系的。

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xk2008


你家老蒋44年就宣布收回一切租借地了，然后……

繁华大都市的香港比直布罗陀或者马岛技术上更不可能持有，了解了。

那本历史书上都写着查理二世把英国最后一个大陆领地割让给了法国。

好吧，查理二世是心甘情愿的把敦刻尔克卖给法国的，正如北美那批基地是丘吉尔心甘情愿的租借给美国的。当然，香港更不是割让给中国的，而是顺带放弃一个在技术不可能持有的海外领地。

我不懂历史，你懂。奴才替主子辩护就是有一套。

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SK2x2

quote:

---

Originally posted by xk2008
1、因此蒋介石就为了世界和平光荣的缩了。1980年代好像没有人希望破坏世界和平吧？英国就被迫同意滚蛋了。

2、你的意思是哪怕中国不作为，80年代里根会为了帮助香港回归中国而和1956年一样？

3、英国加入欧盟是那一年？直布罗陀被英国占领是那一年？

4、撒切尔内政问题才是贬多余褒吧，那些高叫老巫婆死了的人可不是为了撒切尔割地或者打赢战争，如果说撒切尔自己的决断起了决定性作用而且基本是英国国内各派都不反对的，那就是马岛战争了（打赢了而且代价不大的战争人民总是喜欢的。）。如果撒切尔能让中国承认南京条约继续有效（如果英国有足够的国力或者中国够软并非不可能），或者弄个主权换治权，那撒切尔在对外方面可以说就是完美无缺了。

---

1. That prove you can't read lol
In the late 40s the whole world is recovering from the WWII, and the Allies will not let RoC to ruin their own peace

2. That is quite mixed. It didn't mean that US would support the decolonization even if China didn't request, but US was giving this opportunity as a friendly gesture to China, upon China's request

3. Please have a look at the following
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_state_of_the_European_Union
State: United Kingdom Date Joined: 1973-01-01
We are talking about the 80s right? How come you misguide us to the old ages?

4. Please, do read more news about Thatcher not from China.
In UK, comments on her was mixed, with praise mainly from the South (raise of the commerce) and the blame mainly from the North (death of the industries). Continuing a tiny colony that doesn't provide much money or job would help nothing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Manfred

quote:

---

Originally posted by xk2008


无赖就够受的了，居然还无知，只有傻瓜才会以为拥有世界第二大制造业的美国现在放弃了制造业。

香港人口才多少？新加坡人口才多少？四小龙经济状况基本可以以制造业竞争力作为一个标杆，放弃最彻底的经济最差，这一定是没关系的。

---

美国不曾经是世界第一制造业大国吗？怎么着？钢产量的比例选择性无视是吧？制造业？现在轮制造业大概南韩在四小龙里能造的东西最多。轮你最喜欢的人均GDP的话貌似是最低的那个。

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xk2008
1、80年代美国也不希望和平被毁中英开战，也不希望英国和反共盟友阿根廷开战，但是结果呢？一个是米字旗滚蛋了，一个是米字旗今天还在飘扬。

2、历史事实是马岛美国针对友好反共盟友阿根廷没对英国用1956年的办法，所以你也不能说如果中国自己不够强，美国就会在香港针对英国用1956年的办法。

3、我知道英国是70年代加入欧盟，按你的说法，西班牙是因为和英国同样是欧盟成员国才不要直布罗陀是错的。50-70年代这两家可还不是欧盟成员呢，当然你说都是北约成员也可以，但是说到底，如果西班牙和英国力量对比是1980年中英对比，那你认为西班牙会不要直布罗陀？

4、关于撒切尔我读的西方新闻和论坛讨论都有，还是那句话，众说纷纭吧。

最近看到的两篇如果的文章：

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/debate/article-2308332/Cuba-sunshine.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/15/opinion/thatcher-what-if/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SK2x2

quote:

---

Originally posted by xk2008
1、80年代美国也不希望和平被毁中英开战，也不希望英国和反共盟友阿根廷开战，但是结果呢？一个是米字旗滚蛋了，一个是米字旗今天还在飘扬。

2、历史事实是马岛美国针对友好反共盟友阿根廷没对英国用1956年的办法，所以你也不能说如果中国自己不够强，美国就会在香港针对英国用1956年的办法。

3、我知道英国是70年代加入欧盟，按你的说法，西班牙是因为和英国同样是欧盟成员国才不要直布罗陀是错的。50-70年代这两家可还不是欧盟成员呢，当然你说都是北约成员也可以，但是说到底，如果西班牙和英国力量对比是1980年中英对比，那你认为西班牙会不要直布罗陀？

4、关于撒切尔我读的西方新闻和论坛讨论都有，还是那句话，众说纷纭吧。

最近看到的两篇如果的文章：

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/debate/article-2308332/Cuba-sunshine.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/15/opinion/thatcher-what-if/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

---

1. How did you pass your history lol. In the Falkland War, the Americans were keeping neutral on the table, but giving a huge helping hand to the Brits under the table. This is a well known history.

2. The point is at that time, US wants to have a warm relationship with China, so at the expense of the Brit Colony, their connection became more tight (US-China). If China didn't request, why bother

3. I didn't say that the Spain didn't want Gibraltar, please don't put your words into my mouth.

Even though Spain armed force can easily eaten the Brits, that doesn't mean that they will resort everything by force. They have been trying to resolve the dispute through various talks and legal processes, all within International Law, UN & EU Regulations.

4. There are many what if for the Milk Snatcher, but there is no what if for history.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xk2008



现在制造业根本数据是钢产量？美国历年制造业产值自己找去，又是一个不看数字的。

韩国是四小龙人均GDP最低的一个？

很遗憾，最低的是台湾，当然我们都知道，台湾制造业比韩国差一些：

http://quejh97nju.blog.163.com/blog/static/1685196322013119156813/

2012年，台湾人年均名义GDP为603289新台币，折合20374美元；名义GNP为144618.08亿新台币，折合4884.17亿美元，人均621639新台币，折合20995美元。

http://quejh97nju.blog.163.com/blog/static/1685196322013226102247680/

2012年韩国GDP初值12724595亿韩元(11292.78亿美元)，同比增长2.0%，人均22582美元。


香港作为城市经济体应该和新加坡比，还是很遗憾，放弃制造业的香港哪怕有大陆输血也比大力发展高端制造业的新加坡差的很远：

http://quejh97nju.blog.163.com/blog/static/168519632201312710530399/

2012年香港地区生产总值20401.04亿港元(2630.58亿美元)，同比增长1.4%，人均285146港元(36768美元)。

http://quejh97nju.blog.163.com/blog/static/16851963220131229141398/

2012年新加坡GDP初值3455.61亿新元(2765.15亿美元)，同比增长1.3%，人均52051美元。


新加坡的人口和土地都比香港要少，但是新加坡制造业比香港好太多，这就是结果。至于连起码的人均GDP都不知道的阁下，还是回家多读两年书再来胡说八道吧，对了赌约我还记得呢，希望到时候阁下不要耍无赖。

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SK2x2

Sigh, I hope that you can really read English...

Decolonization of Hong Kong was due to multiple factors, not just the "power" of China but also US stance of keeping China as NATO's Eastern Member in the early 80s. The UN resolution of picking out Hong Kong and Macau from the list of colonies help to legalize the action of China, which was supported by US.

Afterall, it was China which suggest Hong Kong and Macau are NOT colonies but land being taken away by unfair treaties, so please note the difference.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Manfred

quote:

---

Originally posted by xk2008



现在制造业根本数据是钢产量？美国历年制造业产值自己找去，又是一个不看数字的。

韩国是四小龙人均GDP最低的一个？

很遗憾，最低的是台湾，当然我们都知道，台湾制造业比韩国差一些：

http://quejh97nju.blog.163.com/blog/static/1685196322013119156813/

2012年，台湾人年均名义GDP为603289新台币，折合20374美元；名义GNP为144618.08亿新台币，折合4884.17亿美元，人均621639新台币，折合20995美元。

http://quejh97nju.blog.163.com/blog/static/1685196322013226102247680/

2012年韩国GDP初值12724595亿韩元(11292.78亿美元)，同比增长2.0%，人均22582美元。


香港作为城市经济体应该和新加坡比，还是很遗憾，放弃制造业的香港哪怕有大陆输血也比大力发展高端制造业的新加坡差的很远：

http://quejh97nju.blog.163.com/blog/static/168519632201312710530399/

2012年香港地区生产总值20401.04亿港元(2630.58亿美元)，同比增长1.4%，人均285146港元(36768美元)。

http://quejh97nju.blog.163.com/blog/static/16851963220131229141398/

2012年新加坡GDP初值3455.61亿新元(2765.15亿美元)，同比增长1.3%，人均52051美元。


新加坡的人口和土地都比香港要少，但是新加坡制造业比香港好太多，这就是结果。至于连起码的人均GDP都不知道的阁下，还是回家多读两年书再来胡说八道吧，对了赌约我还记得呢，希望到时候阁下不要耍无赖。

---

啥意思？钢铁不是制造业中重要的一环？美国历年制造业产值我知道啊，前面哪个货跟我说现在美帝第二啦？别人有没有第一过啊？制造业这么有利可图别人怎么放弃啦？
台湾的人均GDP最低？放你的狗P。拿着什么垃圾的博克来找死。滚到下面的链接里去看仔细了。无论国际货币基金组织，CIA还是宾州大学的数字ROC都比ROK高的多的多。

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_ PPP _per_capita

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SK2x2

1. Do you know the difference of colonies, (self-governed) overseas territories and (non-self-governed) overseas territories under the UN? It's hard to talk with you about all these if you no knowledge on this

2. China will still take Hong Kong, but the US support encouraged this action.

---