India will beat China – all in its own good time

[Geromix]

The article is nothing but a hilarious propaganda!

Why can’t democracy be the hare? Democratic Japan’s development was once faster than or equal to anytime of authoritarian China.

Only those inane “democracy” apologists who find no way to excuse their impotency would use such kind of pathetically fallacious pretext to cover-up their embarrassment.

Unfortunately, there is a vast array of people with underdeveloped capability of critical thinking whole-heartedly accepting the fallacy … to bury themselves in a delightful fantasy.

I think what you said in the last line is true and is applicable to you.

You are talking of Japan where the Liberal Democratic Party has governed Japan almost always.
Japan was a case of de facto single party system which provided the stability for economic growth.

India has shown the world that democracy and economic growth can co-exist.

For a democracy to succeed with economic liberty,what is needed is stability at the top with good leadership.Nothing else.

You obviously have little knowledge of Indian democracy and how it actually is changing the lives of minorities and lower castes in India.
It is only through democracy that got a voice.I am an Indian Christian and for the first time in my life i would be able to voting this coming elections,the Chinese can hardly imagine the power of one vote for a minority or an oppressed section of the society.

A hypothetical situation-
Imagine if India was like China but instead of China's CPC we had Hindu Fundamentalist party ruling India without any democracy that would have been the death knell for minorities who are not upper caste Hindu Indians which would have been about close to half of India's population.[I wouldn't have been here writing this!](Minorities+Lower castes would have been crushed)

India took the right path after 1947,in a diverse society like ours only democracy could have allowed creation of a just India.

Yes things are slow here but they development takes place after the people are consulted and mostly decisions in a democracy are "durable" in the words of Dr.Manmohan Singh.
He said that we were slow to liberalize,having done it only more than a decade after China in 1991 but surprisingly or not surprisingly successive governments DID not reverse policies even when the Left parties came to power.
Reforms continue to take place sometimes fast or sometimes slowly.

This is one of the greatest strengths of democracy and democracy is India's greatest strength without which we would have been in pieces with many sovereign states instead of one nation.

I cannot speak for China,China is less diverse when compared to India and therefore things are different there.
Though it is my hope that things change there and people adopt democracy in China,democracy is almost inevitable.

In economic terms it will take a long time to catch up with China but yes as far as political freedom is concerned they have got to catch up with India!!

It will be interesting to see when India will be BOTH economically prosperous and also be politically free.

PS-There are many blots of Indian democracy like Emergency period but no point in bringing them up here because they are exceptions and not the norm!

 

[ever4244]

I think what you said in the last line is true and is applicable to you.

You are talking of Japan where the Liberal Democratic Party has governed Japan almost always.
Japan was a case of de facto single party system which provided the stability for economic growth.

Agree with you on the Japan part--the result of vote was decided before it began in Japan``````their congress was just a rubber stamp dutyfully replay the undertable exchange between the zaibatsu and various interests groups.
No wonder a single party can sit on the throne for 50 years despite of a 'democratic' constitution.

But this fact along with many others--like korea-- also proved that in so far, no third world country with significant size have actually industrialized under modern democracy(without slavery, colonization etc``````) So tell me why india's long term success is guaranteed by democracy?

 

[ever4244]

I think what you said in the last line is true and is applicable to you.


You obviously have little knowledge of Indian democracy and how it actually is changing the lives of minorities and lower castes in India.
It is only through democracy that got a voice.I am an Indian Christian and for the first time in my life i would be able to voting this coming elections,the Chinese can hardly imagine the power of one vote for a minority or an oppressed section of the society.

A hypothetical situation-
Imagine if India was like China but instead of China's CPC we had Hindu Fundamentalist party ruling India without any democracy that would have been the death knell for minorities who are not upper caste Hindu Indians which would have been about close to half of India's population.[I wouldn't have been here writing this!](Minorities+Lower castes would have been crushed)

India took the right path after 1947,in a diverse society like ours only democracy could have allowed creation of a just India.

Have to point out another mistake

communist party can never be like the 'fundamentalist party' anywhere. communism is high on the ideology evolution tree (at par with modern liberal democracy and fascism) , not some pirmary barstard by feudulism and nationalism. It is progressive and advocates social engineering.

If you got a extreme bloody communist (say early CCP ), your caste would have already gone along with your religion.

Then years later, when a india's Deng came onto stage, everybody would get a clear start, believe whatever they will, do whatever they like, but follow the law and pay the taxes`````

Like me, communist believe a quick and brutal social-re-engineering. They are natural enemy to any form of castes and religion(before reform).

 

[paritosh]

communism is almost perfect....except that you need to be in the position of today's china where ethnic diversity is not as stark as in the case of say...erstwhile ussr...or india.
communism seeks to destroy everything that differentiates man from man.now if you have a communal identity between groups of a single nation(erst USSR,india)...you'd see chaos.
whilst communism seeks to remove intra-national competition...it fails in front of the human characteral flaws of jealousy,hatred, and the desire to belittle thy neighbor....these flaws extend to the community level.

 

[wtf]

Agree with you on the Japan part--the result of vote was decided before it began in Japan``````their congress was just a rubber stamp dutyfully replay the undertable exchange between the zaibatsu and various interests groups.
No wonder a single party can sit on the throne for 50 years despite of a 'democratic' constitution.

But this fact along with many others--like korea-- also proved that in so far, no third world country with significant size have actually industrialized under modern democracy(without slavery, colonization etc``````) So tell me why india's long term success is guaranteed by democracy?

Unfortunately what you said is mostly true. There have been very few countries that have grown fast without a strong govt. hand on the tiller. Japan & Korea were not exactly government controlled, but they did end up forming strong Zaibatsu and Chaebols, which could influence formation of the legal system.

On the outskirts of Asia, Israel and Australia managed to develop rapidly. Israel especially is notable in that they have been at war for long periods, have no oil and are under boycott by neighbors for all its existence.

But none of these are models for India to follow. When India develops it will be pretty much a unique model in development. Already the service sector is outpacing manufacturing. The closest equivalent I can think of is New York of USA in the early 1900's with free immigration and with Irish, Jews etc. as powerful (and vilified) minorities and large services based growth.

 

[ever4244]

communism is almost perfect....except that you need to be in the position of today's china where ethnic diversity is not as stark as in the case of say...erstwhile ussr...or india.
communism seeks to destroy everything that differentiates man from man.now if you have a communal identity between groups of a single nation(erst USSR,india)...you'd see chaos.
whilst communism seeks to remove intra-national competition...it fails in front of the human characteral flaws of jealousy,hatred, and the desire to belittle thy neighbor....these flaws extend to the community level.

well, partly the idea was right,

but partly the idea was wrong.

Unity bring equality, power and efficiency

but diversity can also bring freedom and innovation

My point is: As a developing nation, unity always precede to diversity, so a ten-year period communist revolution would do a lot good to a third world nation before industrialization. after that , you can try whatever your want--because communist revolution give us a clear start without the burden of our out-dated culture, out-dated religion and out-dated social-structure.

communism is a power of destruction, it is the best choice to bring down the old, but may not be the best tool to establish the new. However, every old civilization has some thing very old ,very vile, hiding under the disguise of tradition, moral and culture, blocking the road to industrialization and equal competition ---and that is where communism needed most

 

[wtf]

Like me, communist believe a quick and brutal social-re-engineering. They are natural enemy to any form of castes and religion(before reform).

I agree to your point. I think the parent posters claim was that if India ever were to get a strong government, it would be Hindu fundamentalist and not Communist.

I would make a further claim that Hindu Fundamentalism based on strong capitalism will be even more effective in economic growth compared to a Communist government which then had to find a way of slowly transforming into capitalist (like in China). I base this claim on the rapid development of pre-war Japan and Germany who both emphasized strong national identity and strong manufacturing growth. The same story was repeated in Fascist Italy and Franco's Spain.

India could follow that path and be even richer, but I for one, would rather be in a slow growing country if it was at the expense of minorities.

The money tree may or may not grow in the future, but we eat the fruits of freedom today.

 

[ever4244]

Unfortunately what you said is mostly true. There have been very few countries that have grown fast without a strong govt. hand on the tiller. Japan & Korea were not exactly government controlled, but they did end up forming strong Zaibatsu and Chaebols, which could influence formation of the legal system.

On the outskirts of Asia, Israel and Australia managed to develop rapidly. Israel especially is notable in that they have been at war for long periods, have no oil and are under boycott by neighbors for all its existence.

But none of these are models for India to follow. When India develops it will be pretty much a unique model in development. Already the service sector is outpacing manufacturing. The closest equivalent I can think of is New York of USA in the early 1900's with free immigration and with Irish, Jews etc. as powerful (and vilified) minorities and large services based growth.

as many has pointed out a service oriented economy may proform well in small region like HK or country like Britain, but are you sure half of india's would be able to go to service?

Country like india can never jump over industrialization directly into information revolution. You got nearly a billion farmer to lift!

Without industrilization,the old feudal order like caste can never be rooted out. A revolution or a movement can only kick the process start, you need factories and workers to disintegrate the old social structure. In europe, in american, old vile like the blood-sucking aristocracy , the frantic Roman catholic church(in the past), slavery in america, all of them was brought down by industrilization, because profits of industry needs competition(to get better hands), freedom(of lifestyle and movement)(to get cheaper hands), equality( to certain degree)(to free enough hands from landlords and slavemasters) That is a natural process to destroy the old and create the new

 

[moha199]

We Indians are not living like animals , Many are under poverty though we are poor we know how to live like human

In India elite class enjoy luxury,Not only in India all over the world rich get this life. Here we have one more category in between ,we use to call it "middle class" and its very big.

Indian government has not got so much money but still it runs a lot of schemes for poor, poor people get a lot of benefit from education to everything.

I did not read the article But I am sure its not going to be correct. In economy nobody can "beat" any one, If India develops China gets benefit in trade ,Same way If India loose then China too.Its not war that if you loose some one else gets benefit.

You call it living like humans by killing Cristens jews shiks muslims for elections wow.... 3000 muslims killed, 2000 cristens killed along 150 churches burned down nuns rape, Jews been killed, Shiks have been killed in thousands and thousands, What were you talking about that you guys know how to live in peace, This is why you have problems with Pakistan, Bangladesh,Siri Lanka, etc Is that your peace.........

 

[ever4244]

I agree to your point. I think the parent posters claim was that if India ever were to get a strong government, it would be Hindu fundamentalist and not Communist.

I would make a further claim that Hindu Fundamentalism based on strong capitalism will be even more effective in economic growth compared to a Communist government which then had to find a way of slowly transforming into capitalist (like in China). I base this claim on the rapid development of pre-war Japan and Germany who both emphasized strong national identity and strong manufacturing growth. The same story was repeated in Fascist Italy and Franco's Spain.

India could follow that path and be even richer, but I for one, would rather be in a slow growing country if it was at the expense of minorities.

The money tree may or may not grow in the future, but we eat the fruits of freedom today.

that is depended on how enlightened are those india elites and how capable are they.

nationalsim was a necessary evolutional stage for a nation to rise up.
We got nationalism in WW2, at the peak after the korea war.

Before we got nationalism, A small britain could beat our Qing empire in war with less than 10000 man in Opium war.

When geting nationalism, A small japan could beat our ROC with 1000,000 man in WW2

after gotten nationalism, we fought a standstill with US in korea.

That's power of nationalism, that's power of people

 

[wtf]

as many has pointed out a service oriented economy may proform well in small region like HK or country like Britain, but are you sure half of india's would be able to go to service?

Country like india can never jump over industrialization directly into information revolution. You got nearly a billion farmer to lift!

Without industrilization,the old feudal order like caste can never be rooted out. A revolution or a movement can only kick the process start, you need factories and workers to disintegrate the old social structure. In europe, in american, old vile like the blood-sucking aristocracy , the frantic Roman catholic church(in the past), slavery in america, all of them was brought down by industrilization, because profits of industry needs competition(to get better hands), freedom(of lifestyle and movement)(to get cheaper hands), equality( to certain degree)(to free enough hands from landlords and slavemasters) That is a natural process to destroy the old and create the new

Indian caste system is already decaying and is hardly like the feudal order. I would rather not kill everything that is good about the country (democracy, personal property rights, freedom of religion) in hopes of wealth in future. .

Rather than have a 10 year revolution to "secure the means of production" ie farmland and factories, I would rather see a progressive inheritance tax imposed. That will achieve the same result in 30 years, with much less bloodshed. Rather than have the entire dirt-poor farmers lose their land to government and then become employees to government or work in sweatshops, I'd rather see a government work program guaranteeing minimum wage.

About your point about services growth.
Services sector is a catch-all term for a lot of things. For example if a person works in a factory, he is called an employee in manufacturing. If on the other hand the works on contract as a consultant, he is now in service sector. The growth of service sector is considered a good thing because it indicates a large amount of freedom. And about the question of where do we get our manufactured items from - of course we'll buy it from China. Free trade is good for everyone and nowadays China is the biggest proponent of this. You guys can produce items pretty cost-effectively and then the Chinese government subsidizes it for the rest of the world through a low exchange rate. Hopefully the governments can settle the border issues and then there is no reason for animosity.

 

[ever4244]

Indian caste system is already decaying and is hardly like the feudal order. I would rather not kill everything that is good about the country (democracy, personal property rights, freedom of religion) in hopes of wealth in future. .

Rather than have a 10 year revolution to "secure the means of production" ie farmland and factories, I would rather see a progressive inheritance tax imposed. That will achieve the same result in 30 years, with much less bloodshed. Rather than have the entire dirt-poor farmers lose their land to government and then become employees to government or work in sweatshops, I'd rather see a government work program guaranteeing minimum wage.

About your point about services growth.
Services sector is a catch-all term for a lot of things. For example if a person works in a factory, he is called an employee in manufacturing. If on the other hand the works on contract as a consultant, he is now in service sector. The growth of service sector is considered a good thing because it indicates a large amount of freedom. And about the question of where do we get our manufactured items from - of course we'll buy it from China. Free trade is good for everyone and nowadays China is the biggest proponent of this. You guys can produce items pretty cost-effectively and then the Chinese government subsidizes it for the rest of the world through a low exchange rate. Hopefully the governments can settle the border issues and then there is no reason for animosity.

The trick is: we got a revolution nearly 50 years ago, but have you got the desired inheritance tax? you could have end their suffering 50 years ago``````with a little(comparatively) sacrifice

 

[wtf]

You call it living like humans by killing Cristens jews shiks muslims for elections wow.... 3000 muslims killed, 2000 cristens killed along 150 churches burned down nuns rape, Jews been killed, Shiks have been killed in thousands and thousands, What were you talking about that you guys know how to live in peace, This is why you have problems with Pakistan, Bangladesh,Siri Lanka, etc Is that your peace.........

While you are taking headcount, Taliban apparently managed to kill 4000 muslims just this year. You have to see things in perspective, consider that Pakistan has only about 1/6th of India's population. I am not claiming that India has a spotless record on sectarian violence, but my belief is that compared to anti-sikh/anti-hindu riots of the 80's things are a whole lot better.

And I did not understand why your post was relevant to the thread. The thread is about whether democracy helps economic growth or not. Not whether India has a spotless record on peace/violence etc.

 

[ever4244]

Indian caste system is already decaying and is hardly like the feudal order. I would rather not kill everything that is good about the country (democracy, personal property rights, freedom of religion) in hopes of wealth in future. .

Rather than have a 10 year revolution to "secure the means of production" ie farmland and factories, I would rather see a progressive inheritance tax imposed. That will achieve the same result in 30 years, with much less bloodshed. Rather than have the entire dirt-poor farmers lose their land to government and then become employees to government or work in sweatshops, I'd rather see a government work program guaranteeing minimum wage.

About your point about services growth.
Services sector is a catch-all term for a lot of things. For example if a person works in a factory, he is called an employee in manufacturing. If on the other hand the works on contract as a consultant, he is now in service sector. The growth of service sector is considered a good thing because it indicates a large amount of freedom. And about the question of where do we get our manufactured items from - of course we'll buy it from China. Free trade is good for everyone and nowadays China is the biggest proponent of this. You guys can produce items pretty cost-effectively and then the Chinese government subsidizes it for the rest of the world through a low exchange rate. Hopefully the governments can settle the border issues and then there is no reason for animosity.

You could easily impose your bright policy on a nation with a well-developed state-machine--say US, japan, even China etc.

But in india now, No way to pass, No way to implement, No way to examine.

or you have to wait another 30 years````````

 

[wtf]

The trick is: we got a revolution nearly 50 years ago, but have you got the desired inheritance tax? you could have end their suffering 50 years ago``````with a little(comparatively) sacrifice

Not yet to the inheritance tax, it is my pet project I am saving up for when I am prime minister Manmohan Singh did pick up on my second plan though - we now have a job guarantee program in rural areas.

Saying that we would have ended our problems with a revolution is taking the extremely optimistic view. If we had a revolution and it went the wrong way, we could have ended up like Myanmar or North Korea too. Or have a "cultural revolution" or still be like USSR and Cuba. Our Socialistic experiment under Nehru is what set our growth rate back for years. I can't understand how taking a more extremist view will help things more.