I think the usual argument is that Hong Kong is much more attractive as a meeting place for foreign and domestic businesses than other cities (in no small part due to the Great Firewall getting in the way of corporate communications). It might represent a small fraction of China's GDP (or whatever other measure we're using for economic significance, since IIRC attempting to calculate China's GDP is a pretty wonky affair), but if it stops being that place where domestic and foreign businesses meet (and other cities fail to take up the slack), it could make things a lot harder for operations in other cities to continue.

That is: HK's value is less about its own numbers and more about the numbers it enables other Chinese cities to achieve.

not very convincing. The lack of CCP-imposed restrictions is hardly an inimitable differentiator. The unfortunate truth is that HK's cultural and economic importance is so diminished that the government is not that afraid of the current situation.

Never said it was convincing. Just the usual argument here on HN.

It sounds reasonable to me, though. If I'm gonna go to China to meet up with some manufacturer, then I'd rather do it in a place where I can send/receive emails without having to figure out which VPN providers the Party hasn't blocked yet. If I'm gonna stick around there as a full-time job, I'd definitely rather do so in a place where I'm not restricted in what I do online.

Measuring Hong Kong's importance for China by its GDP is as useful as measuring your eyes' importance to you by their weight.

>Measuring Hong Kong's importance for China by its GDP is as useful as measuring your eyes' importance to you by their weight.

Interesting. How does Hong Kong function as China's "eyes" in your analogy?

From news reports, HK was around 27% of China's GDP in 1993 prior to handover back to China in 1997. Today, HK is less than 3% of China's GDP.