Development level: first World, third World, second World? (gated, high income)
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.
A large national GDP means two things: A) A large country with many habitants and B) Normal sized country with LOUSY family planning and overpopulation. I don't want to add my 2c as to which applies to India.
Peru is quite underdeveloped (was there in 2013) and they have a high monetary reserve.... that is a good anti-cyclic fiscal policy applied in many countries in different development stages. So it's not really a measurement for being developed or not.
Here I have reason to believe that A) There is an old-fashioned culture of "show-off" midst all poverty to state, during weddings for example, that you are "worthy" somebody by buying expensive jewelry. This is true for many places around the globe. B) There is a slight conviction of possible foreseeable monetary depreciation and taking on gold instead.
I don't know what PMI stands for but a booming industry is a rare thing, there are only 5-6 countries growing with an average of 6% or so Like China, Peru, Chile etc. I don't recall India there, But I might be wrong. BOTTOM LINE: A market with a lot of ground to cover tends to be able to achieve higher growth rates than a mature industry. So this is actually a counter-argument as to where Indian industries are at.
I don't think I understand this... are you referring to a high R&D % of GDP?
Most countries have HUGE FTA's nowadays and this means nothing as far as development goes
A lot of countries have high FDI, this is not in any way associated with development, sorry.
This is actually something worth mentioning. Political stability is a necessity towards development, but so is corruption and transparency.
I don't know what this means for a country's development but if buying a lot of russian/soviet armament is "development" for you, than by all means
This is an example of what can be done with a large population. Developing countries like Brazil and China also have a diversified industry but are hardly "developed". Also please know that a Space Program is part of R&D like you mentioned earlier.
The key points you listed as your own anti-thesis are correct, thereby rendering your statements into tiny sparks lingering in the air before sparkling into nothingness on the vast void of underdevelopment.
I'm sure India will get there eventually though, but it's the human factor of the population I'm worried about, they are NOT ready to live in a developed nation. YET
We can simply invert your arguments to their contrapositions to see how they fail by reductio ad absurdum: Is a "developed" nation characterised by a low national GDP (in a downtrend), feeble, declining industry, low foreign investment, restricted trade networks and obsolete military? Is a high savings rate in the context of a large national GDP (in an identifiable uptrend) suggestive of unsophisticated fiscal policy?
In other words, your points are unsubstantive. They are mostly vague, simplistic allusions to exemplar that are:
1. Appealing to the individual non-exclusivity of the criteria I've listed (basically an appeal to truism) to ignore the cumulative profile they present of a nation that clearly cannot be considered "undeveloped". This is inductively weak.
2. Confounded by the fact that many OECD industrialised nations are currently in a state of protracted economic decline, muddying comparisons between what we would consider "developed" and "undeveloped".
The rest of your arguments are frivolous to the degree that I'm unsure if they're meant to be taken as jokes. A sophisticated space program is merely a direct index of population size? Right.
I fully appreciate how controversial my position is from the perspective of a westernised normalcy bias, given that I used to hold to similar views of an undeveloped India. Quite frankly though, I've heard far more convincing arguments in favour of my old views.
A key point of note: Gold imports carry significance as a measure of global wealth transfer. This has been the case historically, and is still the case now in the (now failing) fiat monetary systems of today, regardless of the circumstances or traditions that drive it.
Last edited by MissionIMPOSSIBRU; 07-13-2013 at 03:42 AM..
This is actually something worth mentioning. Political stability is a necessity towards development, but so is corruption and transparency.
Pretty moot point nowadays given that the good ole political scandal ridden US of A still sets the standard for transparency and political integrity.
India can't be said to be ' undeveloped ' nor can it be said to be ' fully developed '. What were probably seeing now is a country at the tipping point or transition at the edge of being developed.
We can simply invert your arguments to their contrapositions to see how they fail by reductio ad absurdum:
No need. You can use data to try to support your "case". Though it's impossible. India is a very poor country, ranking close to the bottom of the human development index ranking at 136:th place of 186...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU
Is a "developed" nation characterised by a low national GDP (in a downtrend), feeble, declining industry, low foreign investment, restricted trade networks and obsolete military? Is a high savings rate in the context of a large national GDP (in an identifiable uptrend) suggestive of unsophisticated fiscal policy?
I believe you are smarter than taking the national GDP into account to support your theory, so please don't. A country's development is measured by it's PER CAPITA... or to use your "red.ad.absurdum" logic, denmark is a VERY poor country for having a low national GDP... what about poor monte carlo??? LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU
In other words, your points are unsubstantive. They are mostly vague, simplistic allusions to exemplar that are:
It's your derogative... but you are trying to tell us that India, one of the poorest countries in Asia, is almost developed (or you might think it already is?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU
1. Appealing to the individual non-exclusivity of the criteria I've listed (basically an appeal to truism) to ignore the cumulative profile they present of a nation that clearly cannot be considered "undeveloped". This is inductively weak.
Please re-phrase, it wasn't as crisply put as it might have seemed inside your head
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU
2. Confounded by the fact that many OECD industrialised nations are currently in a state of protracted economic decline, muddying comparisons between what we would consider "developed" and "undeveloped".
What are you saying? Countries that are in the downside turn of the economic cycle are not so developed? What did you try to say? Furthermore, why didnt you clarify the questions I had in your previous post? Did you even read what I wrote?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU
The rest of your arguments are frivolous to the degree that I'm unsure if they're meant to be taken as jokes. A sophisticated space program is merely a direct index of population size? Right.
Your chauvinism is now clearly showing. What part of India are you from?
And yes, only larger countries have what you would call an "advanced space program". To be honest most countries with an "advanced space program" are in fact developning; India, Russia, China, Brazil (aerospace) etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU
I fully appreciate how controversial my position is from the perspective of a westernised normalcy bias.
Wth, it's not "normalcy bias"... it's just plain good old reference. India is not a poor country, but a VERY poor country hanging on at the bottom of the rankings...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU
A key point of note: Gold imports carry significance as a measure of global wealth transfer. This has been the case historically, and is still the case now in the (now failing) fiat monetary systems of today, regardless of the circumstances or traditions that drive it.
It's not a measure of wealth transfer, it's a lack of faith in local currencies, gold traders have spoken:
India can't be said to be ' undeveloped ' nor can it be said to be ' fully developed '. What were probably seeing now is a country at the tipping point or transition at the edge of being developed.
It's ranking 136 out of 186 countries in how far into development the country is. Have you even seen the 2013 HDR report?
This is basically an argument that hinges upon a restrictive semantics of "first world" that identifies it only with HDI. This is evidently weak, given that popular-level and specialty references consistently refer to much broader post-cold war definitions.
If you want to avoid answering the same arguments again, you need to explain why your own weighting of HDI is so low when considering development status.
If you want to avoid answering the same arguments again, you need to explain why your own weighting of HDI is so low when considering development status.
Because that ranking puts india close to the bottom
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.
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.
