how did china build its infrastructure ?

[no_name]

The time it takes for population to spread across the world is short compared to human evolution timeframe, so cultural influence most likely have a greater impact, and even then it might be over a long period.

 

[WAR-rior]

Forum members have expressed their dissatisfaction with my first four proposed reasons to explain the difference between China's and India's infrastructures. I believe that I have found the answer. Since China spends twice as much (as a percentage of GDP) on infrastructure than India, it is perfectly understandable that China's infrastructure is increasingly world-class.

China spends 11% of GDP on infrastructure, India 6%
"China spends 11% of GDP on infrastructure, India 6%
Geethanjali Nataraj
Posted: Thursday, Mar 04, 2010 at 2312 hrs IST"

Let's do the math.

China's GDP (i.e. $5 trillion) is four times larger than India's GDP (i.e. $1.2 trillion).

China's infrastructure budget is 11% of $5 trillion = $550 billion

India's infrastructure budget is 6% of $1.2 trillion = $72 billion

As we can see, China's infrastructure budget is 7.6 times larger than India's.

The last five years of infrastructure improvement in China will require 38 years in India. Hence, I have explained the difference in infrastructure levels between China and India.

i beg 2 disagree sire,

what u said is completely futile coz u have taken ur guestimates on basis of stagnant growth.....

in other words what india is today china was in 1998-99..... ie. 1.4 tr economy.

then came a plethora of heavy investments coz now they were able to do so......they had reasons to do so.....its a stage to stage journey and now indi is on da same stage where china was 11 yrs back.

so if u see till 2021, we will be exactly da same what china is now.....

reason : growth is same ie. 10% (app).

there is some reason why 1 tr is gonna be invested in next 5 yrs.......and u never know what will be da next 2 next 5 yr plan.

if china can why cant we......and infact we are walking exactly on same path as of china.......so why is da skepticism?

 

[baconlover]

Basically China - looking at other lands around it (and unlike India, there are MANY), from HK, Taiwan to Japan, Korea.........went like this "OMFG ! we better get our **** together !"

 

[baconlover]

not sure about canada but in US, the govt. does not own all the land.

stop paying property taxes and see what happens

 

[baconlover]

”旧的不去新的不来“
”New one won't come until the old go.“

hahah SMASH'EM UP!!!!

 

[below_freezing]

Basically China - looking at other lands around it (and unlike India, there are MANY), from HK, Taiwan to Japan, Korea.........went like this "OMFG ! we better get our **** together !"

disagree with korea. if you've seen what real korea is outside of the 1% downtown Seoul they make beautiful for "face", it's inferior to even cities in Qinghai.

 

[Martian2]

i beg 2 disagree sire,

what u said is completely futile coz u have taken ur guestimates on basis of stagnant growth.....

in other words what india is today china was in 1998-99..... ie. 1.4 tr economy.

then came a plethora of heavy investments coz now they were able to do so......they had reasons to do so.....its a stage to stage journey and now indi is on da same stage where china was 11 yrs back.

so if u see till 2021, we will be exactly da same what china is now.....

reason : growth is same ie. 10% (app).

there is some reason why 1 tr is gonna be invested in next 5 yrs.......and u never know what will be da next 2 next 5 yr plan.

if china can why cant we......and infact we are walking exactly on same path as of china.......so why is da skepticism?

Your point is legitimate and I am aware of it. However, to avoid overly-complicating the issue, I used the calculations to illustrate the point that India is decades away from China-level infrastructure.

I don't think that it will take 38 years, but it may require at least 20 years. However, it is also important to recognize that India faces unique problems that China did not encounter.

Firstly, India's population is growing rapidly and its government is struggling to provide basic services. China implemented a one-child policy to severely constrain her population growth.

Secondly, IT outsourcing employs a minuscule number of workers. Only manufacturing can provide the millions of jobs. However, China is occupying the manufacturing space and she has no intention of giving up her position.

Thirdly, China has a tradition of balanced federal budgets. In contrast, India has a tradition of federal deficits.

Fourthly, India moves at a very slow pace. Its bureaucracy and court system add years to any infrastructure project.

You claim that India is roughly 11 years behind China. Let's test the claim.

China exploded a thermonuclear weapon in 1967. It is now 2010. India is clearly not only 11 years behind China.

China sent a man into space in 2003. India is unlikely to send a man into space by 2014.

From one of my posts:

I'm not familiar with Russian history. However, I am familiar with American and Chinese histories. For anyone that's interested, I will answer your question regarding the first cryogenic engine for the United States and China.

To place the development of cryogenic rocket engines in its proper historical context, I thought you might want to know that NASA developed the world's first cryo engine in 1961 and China flight-tested her first cryo engine in 1984 (i.e. 26 years ago).

Cryogenic rocket engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The first operational cryogenic rocket engine was the 1961 NASA design the RL-10 LOX LH2 rocket engine, which was used in the Saturn 1 rocket employed in the early stages of the Apollo moon landing program."

YF-73 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The YF-73 is China's first successful, cryogenic, gimballed engine, using liquid hydrogen (LH2) fuel and liquid oxygen (LOX) oxidizer. It was developed in the early 1980s and first flight was in 1984."

India, even with Russian help, is still unable to successfully launch a rocket with an "indigenous" cryogenic engine. As you can see, in many areas, India is NOT 11 years behind China. I don't want to beat this point to death by discussing India's tenders for foreign howitzers and carbines.

In conclusion, despite the challenges facing India, I wish your country the best of luck.

 

[Speeder 2]

Martian 2, good posts!

Though I usually don't have too much patience with that block of rocks whom you have been refuting, allow me to add some points on your post just for the argument's sake:

I don't think that it will take 38 years, but it may require at least 20 years.

IMO, 40 -50 years gap at least infratructure, if India proves to be very lucky, and that's a big "if".

You claim that India is roughly 11 years behind China. Let's test the claim.

"The current Indian GDP is roughly euqivalent to CHina's at 1998-99" is an ignorant blunder; hence its conclusion of "11 years difference ( in both GDP and infrastructure, etc. ) " is laughable at best.

1. The key conditions that China took off further from 1999 till now were no longer exist today and mostly likely also for the next 11 years during which India "is supposed to catch up CHina's level of 2010 in 2021".

These conditions are multifacet, including prices of natural resources as a major issue to establish another "world manufaturer"( India?) and to build another "China-scale infrastructure", given that China will not be giving up her niche there and world's natural resource are limited ( e.g. Think: what's oil price in 1999, and what's it today and tomorrow).

The conditions further include stablility of worlds's economic, political and geopolitical environments of 1989-2010 and 2010-2021, with the former period being Internet(IT) driven and FED-led stable wordwide high growth period, while the latter likely not after this world financial crisis ( without a clear driver).

2. USD 1 of 1998 is not the same as USD 1 today due to accumulated inflation. Indeed there is a huge difference between the two. Any entrance-level bank loan clerk would have enough knowledge on why is that. Therefore, USD 1.4 trillion today is in fact a much smaller amount in 1998. Hence the so called "11 year difference" deducted from that is quite retarded, really. ( here we again assume that China's population of 1998 is the same as India's today).

3. The conditions of how China achieved at 1989 level ( futher lower prices of oil pre-1998, etc) were different from the conditions of how India achieved her current 2010 level. These conditions are no longer available today and likely tomorrow.

In fact India today, in 2010, hasn't even maginally achieved what China has already settled long before 1998 (fundamental policies such as agricutural reform, foreign trade and related legal/tax policy, etc., which greatly enabled the boom of the following period). And the general consensus that India won't be able to achieve that in the forseeable future further dimishes India's chance of quality high growth, by which I mean high growth rate with low inflation , not high growth rates with even higher inflations that India has expericend in recent years . Economically, that is a long-term suicide in fact– M. Singh knew that as an economist; yet he still keeps doing it . Only one explaination for that : he is well into his 80s, wtf he cares ?
...

 

[Martian2]

I understand the aspirations of our fellow Indians. However, based on key facts, we want to make a prediction that conforms with reality.

1. There are major difference between the Chinese and Indian economies.

China's development as an export-led manufacturing economy was identical to the path traveled by Japan and Germany after World War II. This was also the model followed by the exporting "four Tigers" of East Asia (i.e. Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore).

India walked a different road. India chose to skip industrialization and jump directly to post-industrialization. India never developed a strong manufacturing sector. The services sector has been the dominant contributor to the Indian economy for two decades.

Since India chose to skip industrialization, India today needs to import a relatively simple howitzer and carbine because the indigenous industrial capability does not yet exist. Don't blame me. Blame the Indian government for pursuing a risky development model.

2. The East Asian miracles of the four Tigers were a one-time historic opportunity. The U.S. was locked in the Cold War with the Soviet Union and opened its markets to the Tigers without demanding reciprocity. Having a shielded home market, the Tigers worked hard and industrialized rapidly. The United States is in no mood today to open its markets to anyone without reciprocal access (e.g. look at U.S. opposition to U.S.-Korean FTA).

3. China is the world's largest manufacturer and exporter. It is almost inconceivable that India, in 11 years, can muscle its way into the world's top five exporting nations (i.e. China, Germany, United States, Japan, and France) from its current 18th position in the world. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports

4. If manufacturing is not the answer then India's future lies in IT outsourcing. However, there is a serious problem. Aside from the United States and Britain, the other major economies in the world don't speak English. The European Union countries outsource to Eastern Europe. It is unlikely that Germany and France will outsource to English-speaking India.

As the world's second-largest economy, China is unlikely to ever outsource to India. Indians don't speak Chinese. The Japanese and Koreans outsource to China, where Japanese- and Korean-speakers exist in Dalian, China.

The point is that the world-outsourcing market is limited because of the differences in languages. Outsourcing is a limited market.

5. This brings us back to manufacturing. To become the next China, India has to become an export manufacturing powerhouse. However, how does India displace the 17 countries that precede India as world manufacturing powers? Those countries have bigger R&D budgets than India and they hold a lot more patents.

6. It is virtually impossible for India to increase her electricity production/consumption by over six-fold in 11 years. That is simply not doable.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/economy/electricity_consumption_2009_0.html

China ...3,271,000,000,000 kWh

India........517,200,000,000 kWh

7. In 2005, China unveiled her indigenous Type 052C Aegis-class destroyer. Under the 11-year theory, we should expect to see an Indian indigenous Aegis-class destroyer around 2016. I just don't see that happening.

It is difficult to see how India in 2021 can achieve parity with today's China. Anyway, these are just some of my thoughts and I could be wrong. Perhaps India will find some way to achieve an Indian economic miracle. My mind says that it's unlikely, but my heart wishes a fellow Asian nation the best of fortune.

 

[WAR-rior]

thanks sire for ur useful post....but some of my concerns..please address em.

IMO, 40 -50 years gap at least infratructure, if India proves to be very lucky, and that's a big "if".

well thats too much of over estimating china or underestimating india. theres been drastic change in last decade as far as infrastructure is concerned and theres some reason for it.

"The current Indian GDP is roughly euqivalent to CHina's at 1998-99" is an ignorant blunder; hence its conclusion of "11 years difference ( in both GDP and infrastructure, etc. ) " is laughable at best.

as i say, my comparision was completely on basis of GDP and growth rate......how and why is irrelevant and china functions in different way and india has its own style of working. ultimately growth rate is something that matters rite ? regarding reforms, then thats function of time and have to take place as things progress.
For eg :- please care to find out how much govt revenue did PRC had 12 yrs back...... it was hardly 120-150 bn...india has a clear figure of 150(approx) GOI tax revenue.

1. The key conditions that China took off further from 1999 till now were no longer exist today and mostly likely also for the next 11 years during which India "is supposed to catch up CHina's level of 2010 in 2021".

exactly, so u never know what works for which country. dont u think that open support of developed world for india and strong investment frm all over da world will only make indian markets more nondiversified and strong. as u said sir, its a global world in todays date and things which worked decades back wont work now but the things that work are in indian favour......plz analyse.

These conditions are multifacet, including prices of natural resources as a major issue to establish another "world manufaturer"( India?) and to build another "China-scale infrastructure", given that China will not be giving up her niche there and world's natural resource are limited ( e.g. Think: what's oil price in 1999, and what's it today and tomorrow).

again bringing ur argument sir......we are focussing more on renewable sources just lyk china..... indian investment in solar power, wind energy and nuclear power is THE MAXIMUM. so u can contemplate, things are only in positive direction.

The conditions further include stablility of worlds's economic, political and geopolitical environments of 1989-2010 and 2010-2021, with the former period being Internet(IT) driven and FED-led stable wordwide high growth period, while the latter likely not after this world financial crisis ( without a clear driver).

CMon sir, there hasnt been a single decade where world didnt faced fiancial crisis.

1980 - Oil Shock

1993 - Sounth east asian recession

2001 - Y2K problem

2008 - Credit crisis

Only names are different, but problems were always there.

But if u see, India was never affected in its growth.....Yes u are right.....OUR ECONOMY IS INTERNAL CONSUMPTION DRIVEN and not export driven lyk china a decade back.

2. USD 1 of 1998 is not the same as USD 1 today due to accumulated inflation. Indeed there is a huge difference between the two. Any entrance-level bank loan clerk would have enough knowledge on why is that. Therefore, USD 1.4 trillion today is in fact a much smaller amount in 1998. Hence the so called "11 year difference" deducted from that is quite retarded, really. ( here we again assume that China's population of 1998 is the same as India's today).

same is the case with growth. and indians real GDP growth is 9% which is inclusive of effects of inflation. as u said a decade back 1.4 tr was much higher than 1.4 today..exactly, 5 tr today will be much lesser than 5 tr a decade hence.......but u can see the prices of commodities is also increasing, hence govt revenue will also be equivalent, ie. inclusive of inflation effect....... ITS NOT LIKE A BANANA WAS $1 a decade back and still its $1 today but inflation has been high without considering the price of basic commodities.today the price of banana is more than $1 depending on inflation.....Also, indian economy is internally driven unlike china. so food inflation is a natural process and hence inflation in india will consider all these factors. bottomline is indian inflation in every 5 yrs comes back to 2-3 % without effecting the growth achieved. its a gradual process, the more u invest, more is da inflation. but when that investment start riping fruits, the inflation becomes digestable. its all function of how much the population earn and can spend...... the problem is da GINI effect which i agree to u will be a problem....but again its a gradual process and will be contained, but not like after 40-50 yrs......

3. The conditions of how China achieved at 1989 level ( futher lower prices of oil pre-1998, etc) were different from the conditions of how India achieved her current 2010 level. These conditions are no longer available today and likely tomorrow.

As i said, things are not same but they wont be in coming times too..... its bout adaptability and indians are best in that.plus developed nations support will only help rather than otherwise.

In fact India today, in 2010, hasn't even maginally achieved what China has already settled long before 1998 (fundamental policies such as agricutural reform, foreign trade and related legal/tax policy, etc., which greatly enabled the boom of the following period). And the general consensus that India won't be able to achieve that in the forseeable future further dimishes India's chance of quality high growth, by which I mean high growth rate with low inflation , not high growth rates with even higher inflations that India has expericend in recent years . Economically, that is a long-term suicide in fact– M. Singh knew that as an economist; yet he still keeps doing it . Only one explaination for that : he is well into his 80s, wtf he cares ?
...

As u say sire......

 

[Speeder 2]

...

as i say, my comparision was completely on basis of GDP and growth rate......how and why is irrelevant ...

but didn't I say that how-and-why is a key?

ultimately growth rate is something that matters rite

err... nope.

exactly, so u never know what works for which country. dont u think that open support of developed world for india and strong investment frm all over da world will only make indian markets more nondiversified and strong.

err... you've lost yourself there...

as u said sir, its a global world in todays date and things which worked decades back wont work now but the things that work are in indian favour......plz analyse.

as I said, that's probably why "how-and-why" matters?

again bringing ur argument sir......we are focussing more on renewable sources just lyk china..... indian investment in solar power, wind energy and nuclear power is THE MAXIMUM. so u can contemplate, things are only in positive direction. :

"maixmum" in related to who and what...? or per cap?

"positive" is good. Again, in relation to what it's "positive"? I know a gut who scored C in his class. that's pretty positive, as almost everyone else were below C.

CMon sir, there hasnt been a single decade where world didnt faced fiancial crisis.
...

But if u see, India was never affected in its growth....

never heard of "Hundu growth rates" before?

OUR ECONOMY IS INTERNAL CONSUMPTION DRIVEN and not export driven lyk china a decade back.

a model (pure comsumption) that is in free-fall as we speak...

same is the case with growth. and indians real GDP growth is 9% which is inclusive of effects of inflation. as u said a decade back 1.4 tr was much higher than 1.4 today..exactly, 5 tr today will be much lesser than 5 tr a decade hence.......but u can see the prices of commodities is also increasing, hence govt revenue will also be equivalent, ie. inclusive of inflation effect....... ITS NOT LIKE A BANANA WAS $1 a decade back and still its $1 today but inflation has been high without considering the price of basic commodities.today the price of banana is more than $1 depending on inflation.....Also, indian economy is internally driven unlike china. so food inflation is a natural process and hence inflation in india will consider all these factors. bottomline is indian inflation in every 5 yrs comes back to 2-3 % without effecting the growth achieved. its a gradual process, the more u invest, more is da inflation. but when that investment start riping fruits, the inflation becomes digestable. its all function of how much the population earn and can spend...... the problem is da GINI effect which i agree to u will be a problem....but again its a gradual process and will be contained, but not like after 40-50 yrs......

^^^ Sorry, but with that you've managed this time around to have lost both you, and I .

As i said, things are not same but they wont be in coming times too..... its bout adaptability and indians are best in that.plus developed nations support will only help rather than otherwise.

ahh, "adaptability" - I love how you put it!

I suggest you look through previous pages to have a feel on the implied relationship between "adaptability" and "IQ". And, do take your time.

As u say sire......

sire? err.... be mindful that it's Dr , Dr. Speeder, my young padawan.

 

[WAR-rior]

well if that still leaves miles to even slightly convince you then i assume, its not my cup of tea.

my analysis purely on what and how india went thru and did in last 1 decade.

chinese model was a need of time during the 80s coz that was how things worked.

indian model is more of todays.

china developed its factories coz world needed products and chinese capitalized on the cheap labour and cheap products thing.

indians cud have done the same thing then but thanks to anti-open market sentiment.


but today if we need to grow, then what do u think shud we do?

do u think aping the chinese model will be fruitful ? do u think building factories for export wud work in indian democracy?

no it wont when competed with china coz indian goods cant be cheaper than chinese. reason being simple, indians cant make labour to work for below par salaries like in china. here u cant enforce things like in PRC. trade unions with help of free media will pull the **** out of factory masters. the cost price is for any reason has to be more than the chinese.......so dont u think its smart to choose another unexplored field rather than copying an already successful field !

hence indians resorted to entreprenuership.

we have a completely different model of growth. we decided to create a mark in qualitative field rather than quantitative.

we started to explore in services sector......and in just 10 yrs we have reached where we are in services sector..... and without decreasing the growth rate of this sector.

and dont u think its natural.....we are a english speaking population unlike chinese. we can provide services to most countries of the world as international language is english.

but now we are also getting into manufacturing sector.....not to compete with china....but to satisfy growing internal demand of the fastest growing middleclass in da world after u guyz.

so it wud be foolish if we even think that only particular model works for a desired growth.....its subjective my friend !

 

[Martian2]

Unfortunately, my Indian friends will never elect me as Prime Minister of India. If they did, I would cut defense spending by half from $36 billion a year to $18 billion.

With the extra $18 billion per year, I would invest in R&D and subsidize companies in light manufacturing. I would not cede the lower-end of manufacturing to China. Everybody has to start somewhere.

After 10 years, I would try to compete with China in some medium-tech manufacturing products. After 10 years, by reducing defense spending, I would have invested $180 billion dollars into making Indian companies more competitive.

After 20 years, I would try to compete with China in some heavy manufacturing sectors. After 20 years, the total investment would have been an additional $360 billion.

After I establish India as a credible manufacturing power, I would slowly increase the Indian defense budget. Actually, I borrowed this plan from China's economic development.

Anyway, the British have seen the light and they are cutting their defense spending to save their economy.

Britain Drastically Cuts Defense Spending | The Atlantic Wire

"Britain Drastically Cuts Defense Spending
By Heather Horn | October 20, 2010 12:56pm

On Tuesday and Wednesday the British government revealed the full extent of defense spending cuts in new austerity measures. The cuts were announced as part of a "Strategic Defence and Security Review." They come amid huge, widespread budget reductions to bring the country "back from the brink," as the British Finance Minister said this week."

 

[Speeder 2]

Unfortunately, my Indian friends will never elect me as Prime Minister of India. If they did, I would start from the fundamentals, say some mass scale IQ engineering for instance.

 

[Martian2]

Seriously, India has to do something about the anti-Chinese bias. If Sonia Gandhi isn't making sufficient progress then it might be time to elect an overseas Chinese. I'm willing to volunteer.

Anyway, with the extra $18 billion dollars to invest per year, India can build a $1 billion dollar plant every three weeks. My first move is to challenge China in textiles. To match Chinese efficiency, I will spend the $1 billion on the same modern equipment that the Chinese are using.

Indian labor costs are 1/4 of China's. Sooner or later, I expect to grab some market share from the Chinese.

Fountain Relocates $1 billion dollar Manufacturing Plant to Yangtze River Delta

Fountain Set is the world’s-largest circular-knitted fabric manufacturer.

Fountain Relocates Manufacturing Plant to Yangtze River Delta - Business China | Finance, Economics, Business and Industry news from China

"Fountain Relocates Manufacturing Plant to Yangtze River Delta
30 Jul 2010

July 30, Fountain Set (Holdings) Ltd. (Fountain, 00420.HK), the world's largest circular knitted fabrics manufacturer, plans to gradually relocate its manufacturing plant from the Pearl River Delta to the Yangtze River Delta, which has lower labor costs and looser environmental protection regulations, China Business News reported Friday.

The company’s $1 billion dollar manufacturing plant in Yancheng, Jiangsu province will start trial production in the near future, the report said.

Monthly production capacity at the plant will reach two million pounds by the end of this year, and is expected to rise to 10 million tons per month in the near future, the report said.

“(The) labor market in the Yangtze River Delta is more stable compared to Guangdong province. Meanwhile, our new plant is around four hours drive from Shanghai. The sophisticated transport system in the province gives us a natural advantage in our logistics operations,” Zheng Hui Xian, the company’s media manager, was quoted as saying in the report.

Zheng told the paper the support of the local government was the key reason behind the move.

“The Yancheng Municipal government has offered various preferential policies to us. As a textile-dyeing manufacturer, water and power supplies are crucial to our operations. And of course, the government gave us preferential policies on water sewage quotas,” Zheng said.

In recent years, Guangdong-based manufacturers have begun relocating to inner-China to avoid stricter environmental regulations imposed by the local government."

[Note: Thank you to "ANR" for the post.]