The clock is ticking for USA....

[sunny001]

This is not a win or loss conversation. My point was that China has kept its inflation under a reasonable margin for its growth.

The answers I had given to you in my OP. It was added later, so you can look it again.

I gave you in my previous posts how it was able to keep a check on inflation. Like manufacturing nation,low imports, low tariff, fixed exchange rate etc. Also, When you measure Chinese economy in PPP, you multiply nominal GDP by a factor of 2, while you multiply indias GDP by a factor 4.5 to get it in PPP. So this also explains price differences.

China did extremely well over the last decade. We can only aspire to be like you. Unless you think it's wrong to do that as well. I don't see a reason why India can't do the same. All we need is efficient policies from center. Our private companies notoriously called 'India inc' would be able to achieve exactly what China had achieved. Dare I say, present Indian ministers are an amazing bunch people, highly educated, very knowledgeable, I have every confidence in them that they'll drive India to higher growth path. Unless you oppose all this too.

 

[chauism]

I gave you in my previous posts how it was able to keep a check on inflation. Like manufacturing nation,low imports, low tariff, fixed exchange rate etc. Also, When you measure Chinese economy in PPP, you multiply nominal GDP by a factor of 2, while you multiply indias GDP by a factor 4.5 to get it in PPP. So this also explains price differences.

China did extremely well over the last decade. We can only aspire to be like you. Unless you think it's wrong to do that as well. I don't see a reason why India can't do the same. All we need is efficient policies from center. Our private companies notoriously called 'India inc' would be able to achieve exactly what China had achieved. Dare I say, present Indian ministers are an amazing bunch people, highly educated, very knowledgeable, I have every confidence in them that they'll drive India to higher growth path. Unless you oppose all this too.

Yes, the right people is the key for any government if they want to succeed in what they intend to do. The problem I have with democracy is that leadership is not a popularity contest between the candidates as it is often the case with democratic election. Don't be surprised that how much popularity you can buy with money other days if you have the right publicist, and how much personal charisma can swing the mood of the voters if one has master the skill of public speaking. I am not saying China's system in this regard has no flaws, but so far it has been producing very competent people for central leadership for the last 30 years. So I guess something there must work right. I can get in the detail of it later.

 

[sunny001]

Yes, the right people is the key for any government if they want to succeed in what they intend to do. The problem I have with democracy is that leadership is not a popularity contest between the candidates as it is often the case with democratic election. Don't be surprised that how much popularity you can buy with money other days if you have the right publicist, and how much personal charisma can swing the mood of the voters if one has master the skill of public speaking. I am not saying China's system in this regard has no flaws, but so far it has been producing very competent people for central leadership for the last 30 years. So I guess something there must work right. I can get in the detail of it later.

Absolutely it is central to development. When we account our politicians performance with the development they show to the people, then all our problems are solved. Democracy could be just as effective as authoritarianism. And thankfully it is happening lately.

China is blessed with such competent leadership at the center. Also all of Chinese have similar culture, all speak more or less the same language and have similar or no religious affiliation. So, I would say they got it easy compared to an indian politician who has to deal with a new language and religion every gully he turns. Which is the reason why authoritarianism wouldn't have worked for India. Indians are too violent to abide to rules and they'll all look for religion,sect,caste in their leadership.

I think Indian politicians are trying hard to compare themselves with China. May not have succeeded in real economic terms but counted as one who is expected to match China's progress. I hope they'll deliver the results.

 

[Hafizzz]

do you realize how dangerous that makes the world. everyone with nuclear weapons ! strange opinion on that.

So why is India not giving up her nukes ???

 

[sunny001]

So why is India not giving up her nukes ???

Why not ask China to give up her nukes, we'll surely give up once they do.

 

[whocares]

So why is India not giving up her nukes ???

i am for stopping further nuclear proliferation at the very very least which is something both china and india are for and which is something pakistan has clearly violated once.

disarming existing nuke states can be done over time and might not even happen.

it is sometimes alleged that china caused proliferation too by handing over critical pieces to pak, but i have no evidence and am not sure myself. i don't take these claims seriously coz no one has the relevant evidence.

but paks own misadventures with aq khan are well documented. that alone is a huge shame on its irresponsible track record towards nuke proliferation.

 

[somebozo]

There is a difference between knowledge sharing and outright sale of nuclear WMD to rouge regimes otherwise the manhattan project was probably the biggest profiltration ever in nuclear history.

All countries at one point benefitted from profiltration.

Here is an intresting article to read.
Nuclear proliferation in South Asia: The power of nightmares | The Economist

China has given Pakistan lots of nuclear and missile help in the past. It even passed it a tested design of one of its own missile-mountable warheads. This was one of the most damaging proliferation acts of the nuclear age, since the same design was later passed by Pakistan to Libya and possibly Iran and others.

But after China joined the NPT in 1992 and the NSG in 2004, it reined in such help, at least officially (some Chinese firms are still involved in illicit nuclear trade with several states). But on joining the NSG, it argued that it had already promised to build the second of two nuclear reactors for Pakistan at Chasma in Punjab and would therefore go ahead. Some grumbled. But it seemed a price worth paying to have China inside, playing by the NSG’s rules rather than outside, undermining them. The latest sale blows a hole in that hope.

 

[whocares]

There is a difference between knowledge sharing and outright sale of nuclear WMD to rouge regimes otherwise the manhattan project was probably the biggest profiltration ever in nuclear history.

All countries at one point benefitted from profiltration.

Here is an intresting article to read.
Nuclear proliferation in South Asia: The power of nightmares | The Economist

these things are controversial , but if there is truth in that table china and russia have been clear offenders in making the world unsafe. apart from the aq khan expose, the other allegations are shrouded in controversy isn't it. Or is chinese help towards pakistan's nukes openly acknowledged?

i don't claim to know a lot about this topic. its not something i've read a lot about.

 

[sunny001]

There is a difference between knowledge sharing and outright sale of nuclear WMD to rouge regimes otherwise the manhattan project was probably the biggest profiltration ever in nuclear history.

All countries at one point benefitted from profiltration.

Here is an intresting article to read.
Nuclear proliferation in South Asia: The power of nightmares | The Economist

All I see, India got plutonium from canadian reactor in India. It's not as if it proliferated. It just took advantage of naive canadians for national security.

But in the case of Pakistan, they proliferated nuclear technology for money. It's only after Libya came out saying pakistan's disgraced nuclear scientist AQ Khan was selling them the nuclear know how that world got to know about proliferation. Before that, China and Russia were doing the same clandestinely.

Pakistan was Knowledge sharing for money secretly to the countries that were signatories of NPT. That's proliferation for you.

 

[gambit]

You have no clue what you are talking about.

The treaty is banning anyone other than US, Russia, France, UK and China to have nuclear weapon. I believe China is more than happy to see Pakistan get rid of its nuclear weapon if India can get rid of its nuclear at the same time. A nuclear free South Asia is to the best interest of China too, it will cause less problem for China and Pakistan has to depend more on China for conventional military assistance.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No...YOU are wrong about the NPT. The treaty itself does not have enforcement ability over nonsignatories. In effect, the NPT cannot and does not 'ban' anyone from becoming a nuclear WEAPONS state. What the NPT does is to state clearly that beside the established nuclear weapons states, any member, meaning anyone WILLINGLY agreed to the treaty's terms, wishes to become nuclear states with assistance from the established nuclear powers, said member must abandon any plans to achieve nuclear weapons state status. There is a clear difference between being a nuclear state and a nuclear weapons state.

If you read the second article VI carefully, the language is anything but vague. NWS are not obligated to disarm themselves. Rather, it only requires them "to negotiate in good faith."

Of course not. But the goal remains desirable, that the world is without nuclear weapons.

It is idiotic to think that those 5 NWS will willingly give up its nuclear power status at all.

Of course it is silly. Nuclear technology and its benefits are obvious. And we are willing to share.

So the treaty itself is just for proliferation of nuclear weapon to other countries as it was intended and written in its name.

What is wrong with that?

The disarmament clause in it was just written to comfort those who don't have the weapons, and it was written intentionally to be vague. That is why I said you have no clue about NPT.

It had to be vague because of the obviously competing ideological and political differences between those powers. Unfortunately, the competition can escalate to military means.

 

[gambit]

I live in the USA, democracy is overrated

Buddy...You do not have the courage to live anywhere else.

 

[Time Assassin]

Within 10 years i say China will become a Super-Power.

 

[sunny001]

Within 10 years i say China will become a Super-Power.

It might become super power economically. There is more to super power than economics. It also involves soft power like coca cola, Microsoft, apple, Ford generates for US.

Also who knows about what happens in China, but we all know when the highly anticipated hollywood movie is releasing. So super power or no, China wouldn't have the same clout as US. And chinese are not even trying for it. So there you go.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

And chinese are not even trying for it. So there you go.

You're right, trying to re-emerge as a "superpower" is not the main priority for China.

The main priority is the welfare of the Chinese people, which essentially means sustained economic growth. Hundreds of millions of people have already been lifted out of poverty, after Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms.

When all the Chinese people in the mainland have a similar GDP per capita to the one in my home city of Hong Kong, then the job will be done. That will take a long time of course.

Being an Economic superpower is just a "side-effect" of this economic growth... China has no interest in being the world policeman, and never will.

 

[sunny001]

You're right, trying to re-emerge as a "superpower" is not the main priority for China.

The main priority is the welfare of the Chinese people, which essentially means sustained economic growth. Hundreds of millions of people have already been lifted out of poverty, after Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms.

When all the Chinese people in the mainland have a similar GDP per capita to the one in my home city of Hong Kong, then the job will be done. That will take a long time of course.

Being an Economic superpower is just a "side-effect" of this economic growth... China has no interest in being the world policeman, and never will.

China should be an inspiration to all other asian countries. Although I may not agree with the political system, but the unnerved dedication showed by its leadership to lift their country from poverty to a country which is rivaling with best in providing welfare to its people.

I hope India aspire to be like China. We can no longer be callous or insensitive to our poor. They must be empowered to demand their rights.