'India may have competitive edge over China'

[Chinese-Dragon]

lets see for how much time your govt shows you carrot of economy??After all,result is democracy

LOL, I don't have any problem with democracy. There are plenty of examples of successful democracies, like Canada and Switzerland.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Because democracies have longer self lives than other kind of political dispensations. No wonder, except China major economies are democracies

Hahaha, you do know that democracy is only a recent system of governance, and that most countries were ruled by Monarchies for thousands of years prior to that?

Anyway, China has had countless numbers of "revolutions" in our history. The essential character of China has always remained the same, regardless of the system of government.

Like most Chinese, I don't really care about political ideology. All I want is a system that works, regardless of the political label.

 

[Jade]

Hahaha, you do know that democracy is only a recent system of governance, and that most countries
were ruled by Monarchies for thousands of years prior to that?

Anyway, China has had countless numbers of "revolutions" in our history. The essential character of China has always remained the same, regardless of the system of government.

Like most Chinese, I don't really care about political ideology. All I want is a system that works, regardless of the political label.

Yes you are true that democracy is a recent system of governance. However, since the industrial revolution and advent of capitalism, democracies than other forms of political system have been stable

 

[Subramanian]

pure nonsense, authoritarian economy can only bring constrains to the economy development, look at Soviet Union, and all state planned economies, they all failed miserably..your next to nothing knowledge of chinese political system and basic economics lead you to this ludicrous assumption..the only thing China gained advantage is the exchange rate``yet again India has much lower exchange rate, yet its not even on top 10 exporters, so this fits the description of WEF annual reports that categorized it as factor driven economy, so your cheap labour wont gain any advantage for your economy.

another simpleton assumption.. yes China did start reform in 1979, however it only kicked off in early 90s when those massive infrastructures started to show up, and another fact that in 1990 China were at very same level of India in terms of GDP, electricity consumption, personal income, social development, manufacuring sector, shipping science and tech and etc...so your 14 years excuse is pathetic.

and why wouldn't cheap labour be not an advantage?It would always be an advantage.


please enlighten us with the india's indigenous automobile technology? do you know automobiles mostly are consumer goods..only those huge mining trucks and cargo trucks are considered as capital goods, and the reality is india is nowhere near to even assembly them let alone producing bits and parts`

India has automobile companies like Bajaj whose bikes have markets in Latin American countries and their technology is quite indigenous.Tata and Ashok Leyland make trucks and they are also indigenous.

whether whichever trucks are capital goods or consumer goods,whats the big deal?

It is still export and it earns you reserves.

Your political authoritarianism is not a constraint to the economy and dont compare it with USSR.USSR never exported goods or have contacts with the Capitalistic world.Your do manage to get cheaper labour relatively and dont compare the exchange rates directly,compare them relative to the cost of capital in each country.

And all those indicators you mentioned are nothing dude?The reform that started in 1991 actually materialised better only much later with the BJP rule with FDI allowed in various sectors and there is still issues.You guys had such great momentum and you rode the technology boom also very well.The american companies had a good idea about China and still skeptical about India and i dont have to talk about Infrastructure and Red Tape.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Yes you are true that democracy is a recent system of governance. However, since the industrial revolution and advent of capitalism, democracies than other forms of political system have been stable

Agreed.

Also, I think the "idea" of Democracy was invented in Ancient Greece, but it only became a proper system of governance in the last 200 years or so.

The current Chinese system is a hybrid one. And so far it has shown itself to work, which is the only criteria that interests me. Maybe that will change in the future, but who knows.

 

[below_freezing]

Yes you are true that democracy is a recent system of governance. However, since the industrial revolution and advent of capitalism, democracies than other forms of political system have been stable

China is already a democracy though.

Because of special interest groups and corruption, our democracy will soon become a colonial slave state of the US, as most democracies are destined to become.

 

[jbond197]

Out of the largest economies in the world, all of them are democracies... EXCEPT China.

So if anything, our political system puts us at a disadvantage. Yet we are still moving upwards, faster than any other major economy.

China is as capitalist as US as far as business is concerned and political ideologies of a nation takes a back seat when it starts serving the interest of rich and the business.. since you turned yourself from pure socialist economy to capitalist economy as time passed so you stand today with no disadvantage from business POV per se and so you are moving upwards.. Also do you seriously think any body will stop doing business with China because one party CCP rules it. no other reason can be more stupid then this..

 

[rcrmj]

^^^ Until now nobody has proved that economies cannot grow under authoritarian regimes. There are also economies that are democratic have failed. However, what is true is that command economies have lot of inefficiencies attached to them.

You may be a Chinese, but you cannot claim to know more about your country than others. This is the world of internet, MNC's, knowledge and media. People can get easy information.

As far as Chinese economy is concerned, nobody here is disputing that it grew phenomenally, however, what I think is that India being less developed and having younger demographics than China, would grow faster in future. moreover, in certain aspects India is already ahead of China.

if``i mean with big 'IF' people can learn other country's politics, economy and culture well and deep just by reading internet news, MNC and media there should be no stereotypes and ignorance arround the world, why people living in the so-called 'demoncratic' world are so simple yet people from the so-called 'information not free' country like Chinese careless about news from media and internet?

the bottom line is almost every single content on internet is the result of selective presentation, and people read what they want to read......so your assumption of not living in china people can have better understanding of China than those who live there is like saying a physics student knows areodynamics better than an areo engineer`!

 

[rcrmj]

India has automobile companies like Bajaj whose bikes have markets in Latin American countries and their technology is quite indigenous.Tata and Ashok Leyland make trucks and they are also indigenous.
whether whichever trucks are capital goods or consumer goods,whats the big deal?
.

i have already explain where is the big deal about capital goods (post 218 and 221) with aims to break your baseless claim of India has quality edge over China...you can not jump from stage1 primative economy to stage5 innovation driven economy as simple as that. there is no single country can be the top-end capital goods supplier which does not go through factor and quantitative stage of development, which i stated very clear India is still at stage 1...

p.s there isnt much about indigenous autmobile industry, most of the parts were already patended by others (U.S Germany, Italy, France, British and Japanese), and india has to buy engines from others, you cannot make it with your own`

 

[jdme]

This thread probably has outlived it's purpose.

 

[Star√ation]

Yes you are true that democracy is a recent system of governance. However, since the industrial revolution and advent of capitalism, democracies than other forms of political system have been stable

The ultimate goal of the government or the constitution was to lead its people to prosperity, happiness, live in a peaceful and stable condition. You've got thousand of ways to get to one same goal my friend. And everyone should have their own way, don't be fooled by the term "democracy" and stuck in a "democracy trap".

Furthermore, let's have a look, capitalism was introduced to humankind centuries ago, it could be considered old already.
And yet, everything on this Earth are subjected to change, constantly changing. People lived in the Middle Ages might think: feudalism is superior, so did the people lived in the Dark Ages.

From my point of view, Indian planners appear to have a wrong approach. Small country like S.Korea, Taiwan, Singapore could concentrate on their strong point, competitive edge (consumer electronics, high-tech manufacturing, trading, finance...) to make a break through. India, a country which is supposed to be a wanabe power seem to choose the same way, only concentrate on some particular areas, i.e IT technology.
Just look at it, you're creating one heaven and a hell right in the middle of Mumbai.

 

[rcrmj]

The ultimate goal of the government or the constitution was to lead its people to prosperity, happiness, live in a peaceful and stable condition. You've got thousand of ways to get to one same goal my friend. And everyone should have their own way, don't be fooled by the term "democracy" and stuck in a "democracy trap".

I agree

Furthermore, let's have a look, capitalism was introduced to humankind centuries ago, it could be considered old already.
And yet, everything on this Earth are subjected to change, constantly changing. People lived in the Middle Ages might think: feudalism is superior, so did the people lived in the Dark Ages.

From my point of view, Indian planners appear to have a wrong approach. Small country like S.Korea, Taiwan, Singapore could concentrate on their strong point, competitive edge (consumer electronics, high-tech manufacturing, trading, finance...) to make a break through. India, a country which is supposed to be a wanabe power seem to choose the same way, only concentrate on some particular areas, i.e IT technology.
Just look at it, you're creating one heaven and a hell right in the middle of Mumbai.

those countries and region you have listed their competitative advantages gained through healthy and scientific development of their respective industry. atm, S.Korean and japan are leading players in semi-conductor and electronic industry, but all of them came from low quality, quantitive garments and low-end consumer goods, with their government's carefull, pragmatic and scientific management pushed the country up to the top end of industry chain.

the problem with india is they putting too much focus on IT sector, while neglecting like 500 million cheap labour force, they made their industry like a building without a fundation, which comes back to constrain their further development of IT sector...after 20 years we do see strong presences of India It sector in world stage, however mostly in low-end, time consuming programming or out sourceing center for international big IT companies to off-set their labour cost.

its not india does not want (they have the brain and money) to move up of the chain, is because of their industrial capacity as a whole. the Irony is China started as low-end manufacturing base, but now, it produces, exports and consums like 10 times more IT products and services than India, and some of the Chinese IT companies are the worlds premium players.

everyone knows supply and demand. China's domestic IT industry is like 7 times of India's, this is huge incentive to any IT entities, domestic or foreign, therefore there is a real need for companies especially domestic ones to invest time, brain and money to establish strong market stance. but 80% of India's IT products and services are for foreign markets. any internal policy wont affact much any of those foregin markets, therefore there is no initiative plus more uncertainty, hence much less incentives to move up to the ladder.

 

[conworldus]

The biggest problem with IT is that it is not some high tech industry as you might want to believe. IT really is more like management science that's computerized. The ability to write some computer code for a website or database is not exactly cutting edge knowledge. IT should always be a value add-on to certain industry, not as the core. Companies like Microsoft, Oracle can make products that assist technological research of something else.

On the other hand, hardware industry that make computer chips, high performance machines, etc is a whole different category.

 

[Jade]

The ultimate goal of the government or the constitution was to lead its people to prosperity, happiness, live in a peaceful and stable condition. You've got thousand of ways to get to one same goal my friend. And everyone should have their own way, don't be fooled by the term "democracy" and stuck in a "democracy trap".

Furthermore, let's have a look, capitalism was introduced to humankind centuries ago, it could be considered old already.
And yet, everything on this Earth are subjected to change, constantly changing. People lived in the Middle Ages might think: feudalism is superior, so did the people lived in the Dark Ages.

From my point of view, Indian planners appear to have a wrong approach. Small country like S.Korea, Taiwan, Singapore could concentrate on their strong point, competitive edge (consumer electronics, high-tech manufacturing, trading, finance...) to make a break through. India, a country which is supposed to be a wanabe power seem to choose the same way, only concentrate on some particular areas, i.e IT technology.
Just look at it, you're creating one heaven and a hell right in the middle of Mumbai.

Goal of government is governance and not leading people to prosperity or happiness. Some governments wants to cling to power, some wants to concentrate on building arms, some wants project power and some wants economic growth, and the form of governance is less of a relevance; however, history bears a testimony that most democracies have been responsive towards people.

If you think a $ 1.7 trillion economy growing at a rate of 8% year on year is only dependent on IT than I cannot argue. Please remember you are talking about one of the world's biggest economy that is studied in depth by various universities and institutions around the world, and looked upon in admiration. This cannot be a fluke, as your post suggests. Yes, IT has been a face of economic development in India, but India is much larger and deeper than that, moreover, the function of the government is to create conducive atmosphere for business, and not concentrate on which sector the country has to enter. That is the domain of private sector

 

[Speeder 2]

...

If you think a $ 1.7 trillion economy growing at a rate of 8% year on year is only dependent on IT than I cannot argue.

8% on how many years till now? mind you Angola has had more than 20% p.a. growth in the mean time.

"solely dependent on IT 'was already very generously put.

What IT? Doh! you really meant call centres, didn't you?

Please remember you are talking about one of the world's biggest economy that is studied in depth by various universities and institutions around the world, and looked upon in admiration.

"in admiration"?

you are a funny guy, but give me 1.5 billion Nigerians, I'll make them a 1.7 trillion enonomy overnight;

or 50 billion zebras could also do, by exporting meat alone, I tell ya!

This cannot be a fluke, as your post suggests.

then what is a fluke then? your posts?

Yes, IT has been a face of economic development in India, but India is much larger and deeper than that,

if you mean by Indian's universal open sewage system ( far less than half actually, the rest is even less than an organised one I suupose?) we have an agreement here.

moreover, the function of the government is to create conducive atmosphere for business, and not concentrate on which sector the country has to enter. That is the domain of private sector

by the yardstick of aforementioned universal sewage system, just for an example, surely you agree that both the govenment and the private sector of India don't exist at all, don't you?


Then the question is what the heck you are doing exactly in that blackbox to make for that supposed "1.7 trillion economy" and "8%" growth, bearing in mind that consuming 2 spoons of curry instead of 1.5 already making 30% annual growth on that item alone !







Oh yes, 081, you can thank me now.


,