China vs. India or Dictatorship vs. Democracy? - Page 2

Kidicious · June 21, 2003, 13:40

Quote:

Originally posted by C0ckney
indeed. likewise you seem unable to gauge the suffering of people in china because of their government.

No I don't. I compare the two sufferings together. Are people unhappy about their govt, yes. Are the ones who don't live in poverty glad, yes immeasurably more than they are angry about their govt.

C0ckney · June 21, 2003, 13:48

yes i'm sure you can be a few pennies better off in china than india, if you aren't unthinking enough to want to have more than 1 child, aren't silly enough to publically disagree with the government, aren't selfish enough to want to look at information the government considers 'unsuitable' and don't have the audacity to belong to an unfavoured minority group...

Ecthy · June 21, 2003, 13:50

Kid, why not call it a mess that thinks it's a democracy. As said above, the right to vote doesn't make for one.

Kidicious · June 21, 2003, 14:12

Quote:

Originally posted by C0ckney
yes i'm sure you can be a few pennies better off in china than india, if you aren't unthinking enough to want to have more than 1 child, aren't silly enough to publically disagree with the government, aren't selfish enough to want to look at information the government considers 'unsuitable' and don't have the audacity to belong to an unfavoured minority group...

If you read the article I think you will find that the standard of living in China is increasing much faster than the standard of living in India. That's the whole point of the article.

Kidicious · June 21, 2003, 14:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Ecthelion
Kid, why not call it a mess that thinks it's a democracy. As said above, the right to vote doesn't make for one.

If you ask me democracy is a mess everywhere. I'm not saying that it's not better that dictatorship in some places. I'm just wondering if it isn't the best thing for India.

C0ckney · June 21, 2003, 14:15

i did read the article, which also states that china cooks its books as a matter of course...

like i said you might be a few pennies better off in china but the price you pay is terms of freedom and basic human rights is far higher.

Kidicious · June 21, 2003, 14:19

Quote:

Originally posted by C0ckney
i did read the article, which also states that china cooks its books as a matter of course...

like i said you might be a few pennies better off in china but the price you pay is terms of freedom and basic human rights is far higher.

They do cook the books, but the article also says that it's obvious that China is doing much better economically than India.

Lord Merciless · June 21, 2003, 14:35

India's caste system is probably far more oppressive on the individuals than the Chinese government.

Ecthy · June 21, 2003, 14:46

I don't know about freedom and human rights for the members of the lower castes in India...

DanS · June 21, 2003, 14:52

India's problem isn't democracy, as such. Rather, it's the policies that the democracy has brought about. Democracies carry out the will of the people, more or less.

The will of the Indian people has for decades been for a statist and planned economy. Just look at their tarrifs for evidence. But this is changing slowly. It won't be a one-way street to open markets and there will be setbacks. They are planning on privatizing several industries in the next couple of years, so there's hope.

Where India overcomes these obstacles, and has a clear competitive advantageï¿½as in software and other information-technology servicesï¿½it can be a huge success.

This is the important thing to keep in mind. If India can overcome these obstacles, remove these obstacles, and cease to put up more obstacles to itself, it should be quite successful.

I'm very sanguine, if India can keep its eye on the ball. They put out some very sharp people--light years ahead of China (and often ahead of the people the US puts out). The US poaches a small portion of these every year, but it doesn't seem like there's a shortage afterward.

Dr Strangelove · June 21, 2003, 15:01

I think you also have to take into consideration that China has more resources than India. While both lack oil China has greater reserves of coal, iron and alloy minerals. Also important is the geographic position. China has naturally easier access to Japan, whose industries use her cheap labor and to the US, the most importing country in the world. India is farily distant from Japan and the US. India's closer to Europe, but evidently doesn't derive much benefit from this.

Colon™ · June 21, 2003, 15:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Ecthelion
Lesson: if China properly opens its systems now, India is doomed?

I don't believe so. The impetus to reform would only come from popular pressure instead of international ambition. A democratic China would be a stabilising factor in the region IMO.

Colon™ · June 21, 2003, 15:58

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
The will of the Indian people has for decades been for a statist and planned economy. Just look at their tarrifs for evidence. But this is changing slowly. It won't be a one-way street to open markets and there will be setbacks. They are planning on privatizing several industries in the next couple of years, so there's hope.

A moot point but I think it had more to do with the convictions of the Congress Party than with the will of the people. (Nehru was a Fabian socialist for instance) The people basically desire peace and prosperity, the means are secundary.

DanS · June 21, 2003, 16:03

Most people desire peace and prosperity. That's the easy part. But the politicians make up platforms that voters either choose among, or, in a one-party situation, choose to accept or reject.

The upshot is that the people of India chose a restrictive form of socialism. They chose poorly. Democracy doesn't guarantee that people make the right decisions. Rather, it ensures, by and large, that the people's wishes are carried out.

Colon™ · June 21, 2003, 16:10

I think the Congress Party's platform was and is Gandhi.

(the dynasty found by Nehru, not the original one)

Dr Strangelove · June 21, 2003, 18:55

What troubles me about India is that there is a growing movement to remove (Mahatma) Ghandi's birthday from the calender as a national holiday, and replace it with that of Bose, the nationalist leader who fled British prison and took asylum in Nazi Germany. He eventually went to Japan and formed the Indian National Army, a relatively small unit which fought alongside the Japanese in Burma and Assam. As the Japanese Army in the area crumbled he retreated to Vietnam, where he went missing. It is presumed that some of Ho Chi Minh's boys executed him, or shot down a plane he might have been taking to Japan.

I've had heated arguements with Indians that I know about this. Many feel that Ghandi's nonviolent resistance tactics didn't really matter in the long run and that by accepting compromise with the British and Pakistanis Ghandi betrayed the nation. They claim that Bose personally repudiated the philosophy of the German and Japanese fascists. When you point out how the Japanese used then brutally shoved aside similar movements in China, the Phillipines and Indonesia in order to pillage their conquered territories the argument falls on deaf ears. It's really weird, when no other Asian outsdide of Japan has anything good to say about the Japanese "Co-Prosperity Sphere" to find Inidans defending it.

Ted Striker · June 21, 2003, 19:00

Now that is some serious information Doc that I've never heard of before. Thanks for the history lesson.

Oerdin · June 21, 2003, 20:10

India is deeply mired in Socialism and this has dramatically retarded economic growth. Did you know that upon Independence India was tops in Asia (minus Japan) in just about every field. Per capita income, miles of roads & rails, lowest illiteracy, highest exports, and so on and so forth. Today it is at best middle of the pack (though often below the average) on everything but literacy.

Why the fall from Grace? India has developed a socialist style system which discourages business and crushes growth. Thus while other countries like Korea , Taiwan, Malasia, & Singapore were bending over backwards to kick start a business friendly market economy India was busy trying to figure out how to even out incomes and redistribute wealth. The results speak for themselves and that is why they are not going to regain the position they once had.

Imran Siddiqui · June 21, 2003, 20:18

Oerdin, yeah. I was amazed at how far India went with socialist central planning when I took my 'Economics of India' class (from someone from India). I can now understand why the US backed Pakistan so much over India during the Cold War.

I mean, five-year plans that failed horribly, massive projects that didn't go anywhere, and just a stranglehold on any semblance of a market.

Oerdin · June 21, 2003, 21:43

To be fair the Chinese were once far, far worse but fortunately thaty've turned around so I'm hopeful India will one day be able to turn itself around but that would probably take something dramatic.

The Vagabond · June 21, 2003, 22:25

Another factor in favor of the Chinese is that they seem to be very hard-working and enduring. As for the Indians, they don't seem to distinguish themselves in this respect from other nationalities.

Kidicious · June 21, 2003, 22:28

Strange that The Economist didn't blame India's problems on central planning. I wonder why, they are fairly right wing. How long ago was India using central planning?

Kidicious · June 21, 2003, 22:41

Quote:

In the late 1970s the government began to reduce state control of the economy, making slow progress toward this goal. By 1991, however, the government still regulated or ran many industries, including mining and quarrying, banking and insurance, transportation and communications, and manufacturing and construction. Economic growth improved during this period, at least partially as a result of development projects funded by foreign loans.

A financial crisis in 1991 stimulated India to institute major economic reforms. After the Persian Gulf conflict of 1990 to 1991 caused a sharp rise in oil prices, India faced a serious balance of payments problem (its foreign expenditures exceeded its foreign income). To obtain emergency loans from international economic organizations, India agreed to adopt reforms aimed at liberalizing its economy. These economic reforms removed many government regulations on investment, including foreign investment, and eliminated a quota and tariff system that had kept trade at a low level. Also, reform deregulated many industries and privatized many public enterprises. These reforms continued through the mid-1990s, although at a slower rate because of political changes in India’s government. In 1993 India permitted Indian-owned private banks to be established along with a minority of foreign banks.

Encarta

DanS · June 21, 2003, 23:45

Really, I find it amazing that India's democracy didn't implode during all of that economic mismanagement.

But there seems to be a substantial number of people in India now who want at least somewhat freer markets. I'm sanguine.

Dr Strangelove · June 21, 2003, 23:53

Quote:

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Another factor in favor of the Chinese is that they seem to be very hard-working and enduring. As for the Indians, they don't seem to distinguish themselves in this respect from other nationalities.

Sheeeesh.....You don't know many Indians personally or have very many in your country do you? I've never known an Indian who I could even remotely classify as a slacker.

Q Classic · June 21, 2003, 23:53

go china!

well, not really. but they're a good market for korean products.

chequita guevara · June 22, 2003, 00:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious
Strange that The Economist didn't blame India's problems on central planning. I wonder why, they are fairly right wing.

You think the Economist is right wing? I've never gotten that impression. I've always considered them rather liberal, especially when compared with Business Week, Forbes, and The Wall Street Journal.

Ecthy · June 22, 2003, 03:41

Blaming central planning wuld be shooting own foot since they compare India to China, which, despite central planning, is far ahead the former.

Urban Ranger · June 22, 2003, 03:44

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You think the Economist is right wing? I've never gotten that impression. I've always considered them rather liberal, especially when compared with Business Week, Forbes, and The Wall Street Journal.

It is liberal in the European sense, or, in other words, Libertarian.

Urban Ranger · June 22, 2003, 03:53

Quote:

Where India overcomes these obstacles, and has a clear competitive advantage—as in software and other information-technology services—it can be a huge success.

Ah, but they will be crushed as well.

Consider that Indian IT companies have compete worldwide, but Chinese ones don't, because there's a 1.2 billion persons market place for Chinese software. Japanese and Korean companies have similar but smaller advantages.