U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Asia
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-30-2017, 08:13 PM
 
Location: Starting a walkabout
1,933 posts, read 936,482 times
Reputation: 2063

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by SWFL_Native View Post
India does not have the fertile grounds or natural resources that china has.

India has a 100's desperate cultures or tribes with varying languages traditions and religious beliefs. The official language may be Hindi but English is how the entire country communicates together (think about that).
Even though India is much smaller than China the arable land percentage is one of the highest in the world. It is between 52.8 and 60.3 % of total area, depending on the source.

From wikipedia

Quote:
India's arable land area of 159.7 million hectares (394.6 million acres) is the second largest in the world, after the United States. Its gross irrigated crop area of 82.6 million hectares (215.6 million acres) is the largest in the world.


Although China's agricultural output is the largest in the world, only about 15% of its total land area can be cultivated. China's arable land, which represents 10% of the total arable land in the world, supports over 20% of the world's population.
I agree with Ganges and the filth in it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-30-2017, 09:47 PM
 
180 posts, read 170,665 times
Reputation: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by txjl123 View Post
So, you think China 1996 = India 2016?

Here's a picture of Shanghai in 1996



Here's a picture Mumbai in 2016
Can not help laughing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2017, 11:25 PM
 
Location: Sandpoint, Idaho
2,897 posts, read 5,276,000 times
Reputation: 3073
Quote:
Originally Posted by willister View Post
I feel as though India when you compare it with China is underperforming. They were both about equal in the 60s, probably India was better in some aspects. Very similar countries - large land masses, populations, rich in history and culture and both suffered at the hands of colonialism in the early 20th century.


Yes, China has it's issues and big issues to boot, but they just seem at the moment, and at least on the surface an overall better country compared to India. Which poses the question, would India would have benefitted with an authoritarian dictatorship like South Korea and Taiwan's before slowly evolving to a multi party, vibrant democracy? Things just seem to go very slowly in India, and whilst it still has the basic British setup, they can't seem to be able to convert that materially.
India is addicted to comparing its pace of development to China to the level of addiction to crack cocaine.

It is an impossible question. India needs to focus on what it seeks for itself, according to its values, according to its landscape and according to its political and cultural reality. Such a task is already near-impossible. Leave China out of the question.

S.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2017, 05:48 AM
 
10,847 posts, read 11,250,780 times
Reputation: 7578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dangerous-Boy View Post
Democracy in the end builds stronger institutions. Authoritarians must rule through fear. When their mandate of heaven is gone, the nation divides and the people suffer even more.
there is no evidence for any of these.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2017, 05:50 AM
 
10,847 posts, read 11,250,780 times
Reputation: 7578
Quote:
Originally Posted by lily76 View Post
Can not help laughing.
I was in Shanghai in 1996. There were definitely NOT animals running on the streets. Nor dead bodies or human waste in the Huangpu River.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2017, 05:58 AM
 
6,128 posts, read 2,539,175 times
Reputation: 2243
Because China realized that Democracy is a luxury you cannot afford when you have over a billion hungry mouths to feed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2017, 06:33 AM
 
Location: Starting a walkabout
1,933 posts, read 936,482 times
Reputation: 2063
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandpointian View Post
It is an impossible question. India needs to focus on what it seeks for itself, according to its values, according to its landscape and according to its political and cultural reality. Such a task is already near-impossible. Leave China out of the question.
I agree. What China is and what it wants are different from what India is and what it wants. Here are the posters, almost all of us abroad in western countries, pontificating about what India should do and what China should or should not do. But the people there are OK with their lifestyle and don't want to change.
If India can root out corruption and slowly improve its infrastructure it would be better in the long run than polluting its land becoming the factory for the world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2017, 07:11 AM
 
10,847 posts, read 11,250,780 times
Reputation: 7578
Quote:
Originally Posted by kamban View Post
I agree. What China is and what it wants are different from what India is and what it wants. Here are the posters, almost all of us abroad in western countries, pontificating about what India should do and what China should or should not do. But the people there are OK with their lifestyle and don't want to change.

If India can root out corruption and slowly improve its infrastructure it would be better in the long run than polluting its land becoming the factory for the world.
aren't you making the same mistake though? You are not living under $2 a day, so it is easy for you to say "maybe there is no rush for India to grow".

Yes, people may have different lifestyle choices, but nobody wants hunger, abject poverty without basic necessities such as clean water and heating.

China paid hefty environmental cost for the development, and lessons can be learned, but I am sure very few Chinese would say "I wish we were back to the 1980s when air was cleaner".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2017, 08:23 AM
 
Location: In the heights
22,102 posts, read 23,627,108 times
Reputation: 11599
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
you really think that if China had copied the US political system it would would have a per cpaital GDP of 30k?

Why are you guys so naive?? It works for the US, not won't work China. Completely two different countries with vastly different history and people. Why do people honestly believe it is the western democracy that made western countries wealthy, or that if poorer countries had the same system, they would be prosperous??

Just look at this thread. India copied a western style democracy, so did a lot of other countries. Where did it lead to?

If the UK didn't have all the colonies and enslaved people to provide itself with cheap/free raw material from India and the rest of the world, if it hadn't forged ahead at the cost of its colonies, it wouldn't have been completed the industrial revolution in the first place and the west wouldn't be so far ahead at all. Yet you guys keep pretending that it was the superior political system that is creating magic.

But I agree this is a competition. The rise of China and other countries will definitely make the once dominant west less rich. It is for sure as a result of competititon of resources, and the fact the west doesn't always get the world to work the way it wants to suits its needs any more. In the past 20 years for example, US middle class standard living barely budged, yet in China, millions of people rose from being happy with owning a bicycle than driving all sorts of automobiles everywhere. In 1997, most Shanghainese lived in cramped 300sf apartments without even a toilet and shared kitchen, now it is a different world. It is not a zero sum game for sure, but some lose and some gain nevertheless.
Agreed that simply trying to import a government structure on one level immediatelu, but not adapting for very different societal and economic underpinnings isn't going to work out so well. Japan was one country that did so successfully, but it was already a cohesive nation-state when it underwent a lot of structural reforms and it did so at a very steady rate for the most part.

It's a competition in some sense, but it's a competition that benefits from when all actors act rationally as it can be done with all parties in some sense attaining something better than they had originally. China started at a pretty low base so a lot of its changes were fairly low-hanging fruit which makes improvements much easier at a more rapid pace. The US also benefited from this, but the stagnation of the middle class was an internal issue (with really bad foreign consequences).

There's been a pretty straightforward trend for the US. The country as a whole got much wealthier, but the spread of that wealth was incredibly uneven where the increase in wealth was almost exclusively at very top brackets. With the opening of trade competition, the economic idea of how it was to benefit the US for the majority was supposed to be cheaper consumer goods (that did happen) and a restructuring of the labor pool to new economic sectors and jobs with greater value (this did not happen to a very large extent). Supposedly the additional revenue from new markets opening and the less expensive cost of production for US companies overseas could have been useful in creating better infrastructure to make the US more competitive as well as retraining workers for new economic sectors, but through a variety of tax cuts, that money actually just went to the top and stayed there. Meanwhile, the US also engaged in a disastrous, expensive (a trillion and a half in the present, six trillion when all is said and done not including externalities of destabilizing the Middle East and making the US a greater target for attacks), and completely unnecessary war in Iraq. So couple those massive tax cuts for the wealthy and the massive debt for the war and of course the US doesn't spend on infrastructure development and retraining and educating its citizens to anywhere near the extent as it would have been prudent.

As for India, I'll probably be pilloried for this, but I think the British left too rapidly as it wanted to wash its hands of the whole thing after the war. The transition could have been smoother, and India probably should have started off as a somewhat looser confederation with greater power within the states and with Pakistan and Bangladesh integrated. India in actuality has those large state level differences, but the government should have begun with that realistically. A large and powerful unitary governing body made more sense with China (whether it had been the KMT, the CCP or something else) because there is a single dominant culture comprising a large absolute majority within a pretty small expanse outside of Tibet and Xinjiang.

Last edited by OyCrumbler; 01-31-2017 at 08:54 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2017, 12:25 AM
 
Location: indore
1 posts, read 480 times
Reputation: 10
The Chinese always want to take mastery of any technology, while the Indians are happy just to buy it. Looking at their military industrial complex and it's pretty obvious one is destined to be a superpower, and the other might just be a regional power at best.

Last edited by sonamsolanki; 02-01-2017 at 12:41 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Asia
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top