YAYYY!! America is making sense now!

[PlanetWarrior]

Yup. But the attitude in India is different. We would still spend the same on defence even after peace with china, simply because its a national pride thing and we have the cash to do both. Peace with china would just decrease our speed, not change our Aim.
Here is some data
World spending on Education:
Public spending on education, total (% of GDP) | Data | Table
World military expanditure:
Military expenditure (% of GDP) | Data | Table

for the four years in the table , Education spending alone is higher than military.
That means we are not cutting corners , at least significantly from Social development.
Note : the case is just the opposite for Pak eductaion is to the tune of 2%+ and military is to to tune of 3%+ while for india military is 2%+ and education is 3%+

So, in a nutshell, you really don't believe that a reduction of arms spending will help India develop the educational and social needs of its people ?

 

[VCheng]

Are we debating on spending or current position??
In terms of spending India is already spending more than Pak both in absolute terms (obvious) and % of GDP.
As far as current position is concerned, if even after 3 decades of double digit growth china is at 101 then for India , it is going to take a very long time and more spending will not solve the problem.
Again Pak has two advantages here :
a) Smaller : Thats means a sharp increase in spending will quickly help pakistan not India.
b) more homogeneous: that means its easier to make and go after projects and targets than India.
Also I noticed Pak is at .515 and india is at .554 but an advantage of .03 is very high in absolute terms considering india has to work on a 7x larger population.
My argument stands: this report considers what is pro Pak and wraps it up in feel good mantra of peace implies development to sell it to India/Indians/World/whomever .

We are discussing the deleterious effects of defense spending on human development in Pakistan and India, using the report as a starting point.

 

[AugenBlick]

So, in a nutshell, you really don't believe that a reduction of arms spending will help India develop the educational and social needs of its people ?

Again it is not a black and white problem .... Reduction in arms spending will not lead to social development of poor even if funds are increased. That because poverty is multi dimensional. Giving money to poor / Increasing money on social spending does not pull people out of poverty.
It also takes time for permanent increase in human development.
Read this scientific paper. Avoid shoddy journalism to understand what poverty is . It can not be solved by just throwing money ( although money is important to eliminate it.)

http://www.pep-net.org/fileadmin/medias/pdf/Multi-Dim-Pov-Doc.pdf

We are discussing the deleterious effects of defense spending on human development in Pakistan and India, using the report as a starting point.

OK. I hope this and the last post will clear up my position on the matter.

 

[VCheng]

Again it is not a black and white problem .... Reduction in arms spending will not lead to social development of poor even if funds are increased. That because poverty is multi dimensional. Giving money to poor / Increasing money on social spending does not pull people out of poverty.
It also takes time for permanent increase in human development.
Read this scientific paper. Avoid shoddy journalism to understand what poverty is . It can not be solved by just throwing money ( although money is important to eliminate it.)

http://www.pep-net.org/fileadmin/medias/pdf/Multi-Dim-Pov-Doc.pdf



OK. I hope this and the last post will clear up my position on the matter.

That is why I quoted the inequality-adjusted HDI figures above. The methodology for correction is detailed in the full UNDP Report. The point stands.