What's new

Nouriel Roubini: Indian Tortoise Will Soon Pass Chinese Hare

You use an Android phone right?

Since my autocorrect also turns China into Chiba. So annoying, I don't even want to go to Chiba. :cheesy:

Ahahahahahahah.....:lol::rofl:

Yes I use android bro.:( Reason I have so much auto incorrect in my posts/comments.:frown::cry: Maybe/Seems android doesn't like China though.:D:P
 
.
India and China's economies are now so different that it is a bit pointless to compare. China now has to focus on managing certain challenges rather than making fundamental transformations (unless the democracy question crops up, how that is handled will be crucial). They need to manage the banking sectors problems, real estate, demography, a low propensity to consume etc. The structural reforms required are incremental, not foundational.

India has has to make sweeping structural changes, in some cases starting from scratch. Everything from public services, healthcare, labour and manufacturing policy etc needs to be overhauled. In India, many of the policies that China adopted are non-starters. For instance, land acquisition for industry/infrastructure can never be tackled in the Chinese way in a democracy. Just as China over the last 3 decades demonstrated an unprecedented development strategy, India's development will be unique as well. I'm very confident about this government, I think sustained double digit growth is possible 2018-19 onwards. No matter how China does at that time- all indications are that they'll continue to do well- India's development will be immensely exciting.
 
.
It's a feel good article. Let the Indians have their moment.

Eh, we have been seeing the same article since internet becomes available. There is a reason turtle/hare story is a fairy tale. Plus, you know, the moral of the turtle/hare story is diligence will win over laziness and we all know which country is the diligent one here.
 
.
the point is that China has become so arrogant due to its economic development in the past 3 decades that some so-called educated Chinese refuse to see the reality. The reality is that if China can attain such rapid economic development after more than a century of depravity and poverty and always harps on its population size to overtake the United States and EU, then it is equally plausible that Russia and United States can increase their population manifold to match the Chinese population and remain ahead of China for many more decades or centuries. After all, the United States with just one-fifth of Chinese population has had an economy that was 20-30 times greater than the Chinese economy for about 50 years since 1940. Plus with a land mass that is equal to China's, the US can increase its population manifold and maintain its lead if it feels threatened by much more populous enemies.

This is idiotic. The US government does not and will never get involved in "increasing it's population". America is not some North Korea where the leaders say jump and the people say how high. It works the other way.

In fact, America has been setting up organizations and "family planning" centers and abortion clinics all over the country. Americans are attempting to reduce child birth rates and fertility rates, not increase it. Unfortunately, Americans and the rest of Western society see an increased population as a BURDEN, taking up more natural resources and "polluting" the world with more CO2 emissions, and not as more GDP per capita added to the aggregate GDP value.

Westerners now use their oversensitive far-left liberal moronic feelings for measuring what is factual and what is not, while the Chinese don't give a shit about PC culture and just do what is most productive. The West is dying and soon to be dead. Things are becoming even MORE liberal and MORE PC, not the other way around.

Banning genetic research all over Western Europe, and requiring insurmountable regulatory hurdles in the US, while China forges ahead with BGI Genomics and IQ-genetic research. GMO foods being banned in many European countries, and again falling under ever-larger regulatory hurdles, while China says "screw you illiterate conspiracy-ridden citizens, we will do what is more productive for the country". There are countless examples of this... Oh how conspiracy theories and overemotional libturds have destroyed America with their elitist intellectual infantilism.

Does China have that problem? No. It doesn't even have the misfortune of falling under the Western umbrella (Japan), where such nations are forced to take on more Western values to appease the oversensitive liberal crowd. Of course a lot of good comes in the modernization of political and economic systems (something the West has done better than anyone else), and the rapid increase of technological and living standards, but in return, taking on Western values of incessant whining and childish debates on things like whether we should promote nuclear energy, or increase wealth (muh environment), or even increase our technological ability, has led to utter ruin.

Most other countries are much worse off, so no one notices the 'bad' in the West. When you're living on $2 a day you don't much care about how bad it is to have to debate such trivial things. But China, no, China is forging ahead, copying the West's systems but WITHOUT the liberal BS. China is doing what no other nation has done. Become wealthy and prosperous without a Western umbrella. We shall see who wins the clash of values that is inevitably coming. My bet is on China.
 
.
India and China's economies are now so different that it is a bit pointless to compare. China now has to focus on managing certain challenges rather than making fundamental transformations (unless the democracy question crops up, how that is handled will be crucial). They need to manage the banking sectors problems, real estate, demography, a low propensity to consume etc. The structural reforms required are incremental, not foundational.

India has has to make sweeping structural changes, in some cases starting from scratch. Everything from public services, healthcare, labour and manufacturing policy etc needs to be overhauled. In India, many of the policies that China adopted are non-starters. For instance, land acquisition for industry/infrastructure can never be tackled in the Chinese way in a democracy. Just as China over the last 3 decades demonstrated an unprecedented development strategy, India's development will be unique as well. I'm very confident about this government, I think sustained double digit growth is possible 2018-19 onwards. No matter how China does at that time- all indications are that they'll continue to do well- India's development will be immensely exciting.
This is actually a good point, never thought about it like that.

Though I don't know what form Indian growth in the next 20 will look like, if indeed, successful, it could be the role model for more countries, as Chinese model is more Chinese, a democratic developing success story could have more applications.
 
.
Roubini's prediction might not be wrong. But it does sound very unconvincing, coming out of the mouth of a fake economist like him. When charlatans like Roubini, Krugman or Acemoglu start praising China's economy, I will be very worried. Conversely, when they scream and harp on about China's "slow pace of reforms" or "unsustainable growth model", I will be able to breathe a sigh of relief.
 
.
Roubini's prediction might not be wrong. But it does sound very unconvincing, coming out of the mouth of a fake economist like him. When charlatans like Roubini, Krugman or Acemoglu start praising China's economy, I will be very worried. Conversely, when they scream and harp on about China's "slow pace of reforms" or "unsustainable growth model", I will be able to breathe a sigh of relief.

While I share some of your misgivings about all three, putting poor Krugman and Acemoglu in the same bucket as Roubini is a bit harsh. The only thing in common amongst the three is their unfavourable view of China's prospects. Roubini is a non-entity, Krugman and Acemoglu have both been serious economists in the past but have lost the plot while trying to become public intellectuals. Krugman is quite brilliant, he just lets his political leanings and hunger for fame come in the way.
 
.
While I share some of your misgivings about all three, putting poor Krugman and Acemoglu in the same bucket as Roubini is a bit harsh. The only thing in common amongst the three is their unfavourable view of China's prospects. Roubini is a non-entity, Krugman and Acemoglu have both been serious economists in the past but have lost the plot while trying to become public intellectuals. Krugman is quite brilliant, he just lets his political leanings and hunger for fame come in the way.

Roubini is an "entity", if we were to go purely by his credentials on paper. A academic who taught at Yale, NYU, and worked at IMF, World Bank, IMF, US Federal Reserve, Clinton administration, etc.

Anyway, my gripe with those 3 (and many others like them) is that they are disingenuous con artists and prostitutes who now work to justify the abhorrent policies of the ruling establishment. Like quantitative easing for one. And as you've noted, Krugman and Acemoglu have taken an explicitly political bent. IIRC, they've all been enthusiastic supporters of color revolutions. They have no integrity at all.

I respect serious economists even when they have a bearish outlook on China (e.g. Michael Pettis). In fact, one's outlook on China's economic prospects has nothing to do with my opinion. I only despise quacks and frauds and hired mouthpieces.
 
.
A sleepy and lazy Tortoise will surpass a never stop China hare ?how?In your dream?Not every tortoise will surpass a hare like what happened in fairy tales,You indian childrens.


Indians need to turn to fairy tales for encouragement. But who can blame them. They need to feel relevant.
 
.
Indians need to turn to fairy tales for encouragement. But who can blame them. They need to feel relevant.

I agree with you. I don't want to see India like China because Chinese can't do anything without copying. :lol::lol:
 
.
LOL Indians always think they can, but the problem is they never will, how many articles praising India? LOL, Indians all over the net bragging about how they are the greatest, but go to India to see the reality. No toilets, no care for health and hygiene, but yet they seem to think they are a "super power" ROFLMAO.
 
. .
An economy awakes : Slowly but steadily, India will overtake China - New York Times

By Jonathan Power
Published: May 7, 2004


India is now in the middle of what many Chinese would give their right arm for — a general election. Yet China is the power that gets all the attention.

When President Richard Nixon first went to China it was widely assumed that he was ignoring India and courting China because China had nuclear weapons and could help balance the Soviet Union. But since 1998 India has possessed nuclear weapons and can balance China.

While Washington is slowly waking up to the fact that the tortoise soon might overtake the hare, the investors and the press continue in their old ways. Last year the inflow of foreign capital into China was two and a half times that into India. The press barely covers the Indian election while every day there is a story out of Beijing.

This skewed appreciation has been going on since the time of Mao. China basked in accolades in the 1960s and 70s, while India was mocked for its "Hindu growth rate." China's people were fed, housed, clean and tidy, while India's were ragged, hungry and sinking into a trough of despondency — "a wounded civilization," in the words of the novelist V.S. Naipaul.



With the 1981 famine we could see, to use George Watson's phrase, that "the intellectuals were duped." China had to beg around the world for grain while India had managed to survive the savage drought of 1979 without having to import a sack.

Now with Mao long dead and the capitalist reforms of Deng Xiaoping well into their stride, the story is being repeated but in a more complex way. To many, China's economic progress has been nothing less than spectacular. But inflationary pressures, bad bank loans, a rapidly increasing maldistribution of income and crime all threaten its economic stability.

India, meanwhile, has been gradually but with increasing speed loosening up its old Fabian socialist system. After a major economic crisis in 1991, Finance Minister Manmohan Singh introduced major promarket reforms and fiscal expansion and India's economy has never looked back.

India's annual growth has been averaging 5 percent — and is now 8 percent, thanks to a good monsoon. Singh, who has become Sonia Gandhi's principal economic adviser, believes that with more reforms than the present government has so far countenanced, an average annual growth rate of 6.5 percent is sustainable — which is what he privately thinks China's overhyped growth rate actually is.

India is better placed than China for future growth. Its capital markets operate with greater efficiency. They are also much more transparent. Companies can raise the money they need. India's legal system, while too slow, is much more advanced and is able to settle sophisticated and complex cases. Its banking system has relatively few nonperforming assets.

India's democracy and news media are alive and vital, which provides a safety valve for the incoherent changes that modern economic growth brings. India has religious riots, secessionist movements, urban squalor and bitter rural poverty. But the voters know they can throw the rascals out, and regularly do.

Moreover, the massive flows of foreign investment into China are a two-edged sword. It has become a substitute for domestic entrepreneurship. Few of the Chinese goods we buy are in fact made by indigenous companies. And the few that exist are besieged by regulatory constraints and find it hard to raise domestic capital. China's state-owned enterprises remain massive but bloated and possess a frightening number of nonperforming loans from China's vulnerable banking system.

India, by contrast, has created world-class companies that can compete with the best in the West, often on the cutting edge of software, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology.

India's trump cards are its use of English, its emphasis on mathematics in its schools and the talents of its diaspora. For decades China has benefited from the wealth and the investment potential of its diaspora and the economic energy of Hong Kong and Taiwan. After years of ignoring its émigrés, India is now welcoming them back — and they have much more "intellectual capital" to offer than China's, much of it coming from Silicon Valley, where the Indian contribution has shone.

Watch the tortoise continue its course as the hare starts to lose its breath.

**

Jonathan Power is a commentator on foreign affairs.

Some interesting statistics.
GDP in 2004: China - 1.45 trillion, India - 0.52 trillion (China about 3 times bigger)
GDP in 2014: China - 10.3 trillion, India - 2.04 trillion (China over 5 times bigger)
 
Last edited:
.
An economy awakes : Slowly but steadily, India will overtake China - New York Times

By Jonathan Power
Published: May 7, 2004


India is now in the middle of what many Chinese would give their right arm for — a general election. Yet China is the power that gets all the attention.

When President Richard Nixon first went to China it was widely assumed that he was ignoring India and courting China because China had nuclear weapons and could help balance the Soviet Union. But since 1998 India has possessed nuclear weapons and can balance China.

While Washington is slowly waking up to the fact that the tortoise soon might overtake the hare, the investors and the press continue in their old ways. Last year the inflow of foreign capital into China was two and a half times that into India. The press barely covers the Indian election while every day there is a story out of Beijing.

This skewed appreciation has been going on since the time of Mao. China basked in accolades in the 1960s and 70s, while India was mocked for its "Hindu growth rate." China's people were fed, housed, clean and tidy, while India's were ragged, hungry and sinking into a trough of despondency — "a wounded civilization," in the words of the novelist V.S. Naipaul.



With the 1981 famine we could see, to use George Watson's phrase, that "the intellectuals were duped." China had to beg around the world for grain while India had managed to survive the savage drought of 1979 without having to import a sack.

Now with Mao long dead and the capitalist reforms of Deng Xiaoping well into their stride, the story is being repeated but in a more complex way. To many, China's economic progress has been nothing less than spectacular. But inflationary pressures, bad bank loans, a rapidly increasing maldistribution of income and crime all threaten its economic stability.

India, meanwhile, has been gradually but with increasing speed loosening up its old Fabian socialist system. After a major economic crisis in 1991, Finance Minister Manmohan Singh introduced major promarket reforms and fiscal expansion and India's economy has never looked back.

India's annual growth has been averaging 5 percent — and is now 8 percent, thanks to a good monsoon. Singh, who has become Sonia Gandhi's principal economic adviser, believes that with more reforms than the present government has so far countenanced, an average annual growth rate of 6.5 percent is sustainable — which is what he privately thinks China's overhyped growth rate actually is.

India is better placed than China for future growth. Its capital markets operate with greater efficiency. They are also much more transparent. Companies can raise the money they need. India's legal system, while too slow, is much more advanced and is able to settle sophisticated and complex cases. Its banking system has relatively few nonperforming assets.

India's democracy and news media are alive and vital, which provides a safety valve for the incoherent changes that modern economic growth brings. India has religious riots, secessionist movements, urban squalor and bitter rural poverty. But the voters know they can throw the rascals out, and regularly do.

Moreover, the massive flows of foreign investment into China are a two-edged sword. It has become a substitute for domestic entrepreneurship. Few of the Chinese goods we buy are in fact made by indigenous companies. And the few that exist are besieged by regulatory constraints and find it hard to raise domestic capital. China's state-owned enterprises remain massive but bloated and possess a frightening number of nonperforming loans from China's vulnerable banking system.

India, by contrast, has created world-class companies that can compete with the best in the West, often on the cutting edge of software, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology.

India's trump cards are its use of English, its emphasis on mathematics in its schools and the talents of its diaspora. For decades China has benefited from the wealth and the investment potential of its diaspora and the economic energy of Hong Kong and Taiwan. After years of ignoring its émigrés, India is now welcoming them back — and they have much more "intellectual capital" to offer than China's, much of it coming from Silicon Valley, where the Indian contribution has shone.

Watch the tortoise continue its course as the hare starts to lose its breath.

**

Jonathan Power is a commentator on foreign affairs.

Some interesting statistics.
GDP in 2004: China - 1.45 trillion, India - 0.52 trillion (China about 3 times bigger)
GDP in 2014: China - 10.3 trillion, India - 2.04 trillion (China over 5 times bigger)

Wow, They even used the same tortoise-hare analogy. I can't wait till 2024 when the next deluge of 'India's growth will surpass China' moment now !!!!!' articles come out.
An economy awakes : Slowly but steadily, India will overtake China - New York Times

By Jonathan Power
Published: May 7, 2004


India is now in the middle of what many Chinese would give their right arm for — a general election. Yet China is the power that gets all the attention.

When President Richard Nixon first went to China it was widely assumed that he was ignoring India and courting China because China had nuclear weapons and could help balance the Soviet Union. But since 1998 India has possessed nuclear weapons and can balance China.

While Washington is slowly waking up to the fact that the tortoise soon might overtake the hare, the investors and the press continue in their old ways. Last year the inflow of foreign capital into China was two and a half times that into India. The press barely covers the Indian election while every day there is a story out of Beijing.

This skewed appreciation has been going on since the time of Mao. China basked in accolades in the 1960s and 70s, while India was mocked for its "Hindu growth rate." China's people were fed, housed, clean and tidy, while India's were ragged, hungry and sinking into a trough of despondency — "a wounded civilization," in the words of the novelist V.S. Naipaul.



With the 1981 famine we could see, to use George Watson's phrase, that "the intellectuals were duped." China had to beg around the world for grain while India had managed to survive the savage drought of 1979 without having to import a sack.

Now with Mao long dead and the capitalist reforms of Deng Xiaoping well into their stride, the story is being repeated but in a more complex way. To many, China's economic progress has been nothing less than spectacular. But inflationary pressures, bad bank loans, a rapidly increasing maldistribution of income and crime all threaten its economic stability.

India, meanwhile, has been gradually but with increasing speed loosening up its old Fabian socialist system. After a major economic crisis in 1991, Finance Minister Manmohan Singh introduced major promarket reforms and fiscal expansion and India's economy has never looked back.

India's annual growth has been averaging 5 percent — and is now 8 percent, thanks to a good monsoon. Singh, who has become Sonia Gandhi's principal economic adviser, believes that with more reforms than the present government has so far countenanced, an average annual growth rate of 6.5 percent is sustainable — which is what he privately thinks China's overhyped growth rate actually is.

India is better placed than China for future growth. Its capital markets operate with greater efficiency. They are also much more transparent. Companies can raise the money they need. India's legal system, while too slow, is much more advanced and is able to settle sophisticated and complex cases. Its banking system has relatively few nonperforming assets.

India's democracy and news media are alive and vital, which provides a safety valve for the incoherent changes that modern economic growth brings. India has religious riots, secessionist movements, urban squalor and bitter rural poverty. But the voters know they can throw the rascals out, and regularly do.

Moreover, the massive flows of foreign investment into China are a two-edged sword. It has become a substitute for domestic entrepreneurship. Few of the Chinese goods we buy are in fact made by indigenous companies. And the few that exist are besieged by regulatory constraints and find it hard to raise domestic capital. China's state-owned enterprises remain massive but bloated and possess a frightening number of nonperforming loans from China's vulnerable banking system.

India, by contrast, has created world-class companies that can compete with the best in the West, often on the cutting edge of software, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology.

India's trump cards are its use of English, its emphasis on mathematics in its schools and the talents of its diaspora. For decades China has benefited from the wealth and the investment potential of its diaspora and the economic energy of Hong Kong and Taiwan. After years of ignoring its émigrés, India is now welcoming them back — and they have much more "intellectual capital" to offer than China's, much of it coming from Silicon Valley, where the Indian contribution has shone.

Watch the tortoise continue its course as the hare starts to lose its breath.

**

Jonathan Power is a commentator on foreign affairs.

Some interesting statistics.
GDP in 2004: China - 1.45 trillion, India - 0.52 trillion (China about 3 times bigger)
GDP in 2014: China - 10.3 trillion, India - 2.04 trillion (China over 5 times bigger)
 
.
Wow, They even used the same tortoise-hare analogy. I can't wait till 2024 when the next deluge of 'India's growth will surpass China' moment now !!!!!' articles come out.

Why do you treat each of these articles like they're personal insults? I know you phrase your disapproval either as scorn or ridicule but it comes across like you are affronted. What China has achieved over the past three decades is astonishing, I would have imagined that those achievements would lead to citizens who aren't so insecure about their country.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom