Originally Posted by Private Dick
I wasn't accusing other people of not understanding history. I asked you if you had any idea about the histories of China and SE Asia, with particular regard to the dominant colonial presence of the British Empire there, i.e. - a very major reason why Hong Kong and Singapore are the major hubs that they are versus why Miami is not.
llamorama, brickell, and I have all provided valid reasons for your notion. If you don't accept them, fine. But that indicates that you are not accepting historical facts about the regions, and not understanding that Miami has only very recently become a stronger hub for Latin America.
Miami may very well in the future become that "HK of Latin America".
Though I'd be happy to listen to your thoughts on how the American regulatory environment and unfriendliness to dirty Latin American money have instead been the cause.
That HK is a hub in China today has very little to do with British trade in Asia in 1900. HK lucked out and remained British while the rest of China became communist. As such it was allowed to develop with clean, strong institutions, combined with a strong Chinese work ethic, and by the 1980s became a developed society. Starting in the early 1980s, communist China started opening up its economy, setting up a free trade zone near HK. HK business, sharing the same language and basic culture, started moving factories to that free trade zone. As China developed farther, and really started to take off in the mid to late 90s, HK, with it's British institutions, not to mention low low taxes and freely available work visas, was a natural place for Westerners to engage with China. And later for Chinese companies to list on a developed Western-style stock exchange, and for rich Chinese to invest some of their ill-gotten gains as a hedge against getting into trouble in the mainland. Is that too much detail? From my understanding, that's more or less what happened. HK's current engagement with China is a recent development. It had very little to do with the British in 1890 or 1930, except for the fact that they kept HK, gave it good institutions, and allowed it to escape communism.
Singapore has its own narrative, and its current economic situation has not that much to do with the 19th or early 20th centuries. Other than it was a majority Chinese city, in the heart of SE Asia, with a British educated governing class, when it was kicked out of Malaysia.
London has it's own narrative, some of it quite recent. Dubai as well.
I get that Miami is a new city. That's really your only point as far as I can tell. But it's been pretty important since the early 80s, it has had significant links to Latin America since the early 90s or sometime thereabouts, and that's long enough for it to have made more progress. Again, London's role as a financial center for continental Europe dates to the 1980s. HK's current role a hub for China dates to the early 80s. Not a heck of a lot longer than Miami was on the scene with Latin America.
I have a theory, not at all sure if it is right, that America is an enormous, domestically focused country compared to HK or Singapore or Dubai or even the UK. And so the American government focuses far less on its internationally oriented cities, like NY and Miami, than the HK government focuses on HK, or the UK government focuses on London. And so visas are much harder to get than in HK or Singapore, are more restrictive when obtained, the tax and legal infrastructure is far less friendly to wealthy foreigners, etc. That's a big reason why London is a more international financial center than NY. Why rich Russians and Indians and Arabs seem to prefer London to NY. And why Miami hasn't been able to live up to its potential. Its my theory, developed from stuff I read and from knowing foreigners trying to expand businesses in the US or apply for work visas or American and foreign friends moving to HK and Singapore.