| Economic Progress - China vs India | |
|---|---|
| Mar 2, 2006 20:50 | #11   |
 | I see what you meant - the part about present govt being an extension of emperorship ? Here is my original edition which I had to concise : Case for China ========= It was a blessing that the Communist dynasty (instead of the Nationalists) took over from the weakened Qing. China has been traditionally ruled by a central power, the emperor, over the last 2000 yrs. Its culture, philosophies, people & lifestyle have been geared to this system since historical time. The present state of politcal govt is more or less emperorship (except that the absolute power is invested in a group of people rather than in an individual ) & is thus a continuation of system that has been there for over 2000 yrs. When a govt. order is decided/given, it can be put into action swiftly & singlle-mindedly. UNQUOTE Sorry if it gives you the impression that I am criticising the Chinese govt. No, no way - I admire them. I thought that my statement was clear enough for the ordinary readers. Forgot that you are not ... Hehehe !! |
| Mar 2, 2006 21:33 | #12 |
| China will lose to India from the year 2036. (26 years from today) This is because China has a declining birth rate whereas India's birth rate has remain constant at 2.8 children. China's birth rate is 1.2 children in the last 20 years. Moreover, many Chinese girls have married foreigners thus reducing the population further. On current situation, it is unlikely the trend will changed in the next 20 years. As it is, young are not getting married early. And if they do, they will not want to have children. Better economic situation does not mean that young couples can support more children. They would rather live a middle-income lifestyle without children. Besides, young couples find that the combined income could not support a child and elderly dependents. In the year 2036, 1 out of every 5 chinese will be over 60 years old. Now, that is a scary thought. |
| Mar 2, 2006 21:47 | #13 |
| Yes, that is the projection of population growth of India/China. But quantity is not the an indication of the population's quality. |
| Oct 4, 2007 00:01 | #14 |
| GUEST12294 | "This is because China has a declining birth rate whereas India's birth rate has remain constant at 2.8 children." - This is true. But it doesnt neccessarily mean that because china has a older population than India this is an immediate disadvantage. India will have the largest population in the world by approximately 2030 (when it overtakes China) and will continue rapidly increasing. While China will begin to feel the effect of a sub-replacement fertility rate (which it is undergoing right now) so its population will begin to decline. But by that time who knows the world situation, for all we know robots would've replaced humans as a more efficient form of labour (as seen in the automotive industry). And according to population control advocates the world is already overpopulated (the optimum figure being 4.5b people compared to todays 6b people). This means that if India's population continues to grow it will put strain on the worlds already scarce resources as evident of a current world water shortage from overextraction; which includes China and India. Taking into account also that the population density of India is similar to that of Japan right now; with more people this problem will dramatically worsen. Compared to China who has a population density similar to that of the Czech Republic and less than that of Britain (Britain is also said to be overpopulated). I think that China's population policy is a benefit to China rather than a disadvantage. In my oppinion it is better to have less and older people, and if need be the goverment can encourage people to have more children. Than having more and younger people who might lack education and the neccessities of life because the country they live in cannot provide for them; there is not many practical ways to solve this problem; and from a humane point of view it is irreversible. India already has 1.1b people and most of them are in poverty. If India can not support 1.1b people how can it support 1.6b people or more? China has acknowledge that it already can't support her population let alone future generations and India must do the same. India must (in my oppinion) bring its population under control. |
| Oct 4, 2007 02:10 | #15 |
| There is an interesting book "The Rise of the Elephant and Dragon", giving a detailed commentary. The above discussion between India and China is interesting. India has intelligent, hard working people (scientists, doctors, IT specialists, economists etc), spread all over world but not the political will and support to go ahead. Therefore, its activities are diffused with low outcome, & is no where comparable to that of China. KSC63 |
| Oct 4, 2007 16:52 | #16 |
| GUEST12496 | Well said charak. Sometimes the Indians boast about their democracy, but I see it as an impediment to growth (especially being the worlds largest democracy). Taiwan, Japan, S. Korea and Singapore all had very authoritarian forms of government during their rapid industrialization; similarly this is the case with China. If you look at the democracies of Great Britain and US; they took at least a hundred years to industrialize. I am not saying that India's industrialization process will take one hundred years (because of factors such as increased technology) but it will most likely be longer than that of China. During the 1950's the Chinese economy was actually below that of the Indian economy. By the 1970's it had overtook the Indians. This is a fact and illustrates that democracy may cause a greater time lag in the period of industrialization. That being said an authoritative government doesn't automatically mean a shorter period of industrialization (down to factors such as red tape). Economic growth is a game of Russian roulette; you're as likely as the other guy to be shot no matter how many times you've played the game. Its more down to luck although preparation and experience helps. |
| Oct 4, 2007 22:58 | #17 |
| A phoenix thread! If economic growth is dependent on population growth then the world is doomed. Somehow the narrow minded view of capitist economics that wellbeing is measured in purely economic terms, just has to change. I would like to think that a socialist economy might be able to lead the way in this. While I favour 'democracy', let's not assume that the way it is implemented in any one country is the correct or only way. We have also seen the problems in Africa where the departing colonial nations forced democracy on the young nations. China will evolve its democracy, just as China's government has said it will. How and when? We will have to wait and see! |
| Nov 5, 2007 00:00 | #18 |
| GUESTRICHIN | Both India and China have thier strengths and weaknesses; both would eventually evolve to play a much greater role; its not a zero sum game. However, I would bet on India, not only because I am an Indian but also because I strongly believe that the collective will of people, irrespective of it impeeding growth, influence et-all, would eventually lead to a more vibrant, stable and enduring socio-economic structure. |
| Jan 18, 2008 02:40 | #19 |
| GUEST01451 | I am from Mumbai. I am really sorry for the comment of our uneducated politician. My view is that Mumbai is enlaced with corrupt and poor vision politicians. Mumbai can not be like Shanghai in next 25 years. Indians are very intelligent people but honesty and sincerity of their political, judiciary and legal sysytem is always questionable. India needs extreme reforms in their political and legal system and less in their financial system. |
| Jan 18, 2008 21:17 | #20 |
| My company invests in both India and China. The company is more cautious in China fearing social & political instability. China and India will eventually take the #1 and #2 positions in the global economy - if only because of population. If corporations believe that China is as stable or more stable than India, China will be #1...if not China will be #2. English speakers are also an issue. More Indians speak English at an expert level than Chinese; however, I find our Indian employees more difficult to work with than our Chinese employees (that could entirely be my bias). Long story short...only time will tell. |
Post a Reply to: Economic Progress - China vs India
Copyright © 1998-2024 All rights reserved.