Old geographies, new orders -- China, India and the future of Asia

[Abingdonboy]

@Dillinger @sancho @Koovie @Water Car Engineer @COLDHEARTED AVIATOR @bloo @KRAIT @sandy_3126 @arp2041 @Sidak @levina @Chinese-Dragon [USER=15719]@Horus @Echo_419 @RoYaL~GuJJaR @Roybot @@kbd-raaf @sancho @@he-man @Juggernautjatt @Indo-guy @IndoUS @IndoCarib @waz[/USER]

 

[Levina]

I liked that video and Rush Doshi's explanation as to why India and China 've the largest population in the world and why these countries were once the biggest contributors to world's economy, also how they would achieve the same status again (in the future).
The geography,tibetan plateau and our rivers 're the real reasons he says and I agree.

@Abingdonboy you 'd not tagged @Chinese-Dragon properly.

 

[FaujHistorian]

I liked that video and Rush Doshi's explanation as to why India and China 've the largest population in the world and why these countries were once the biggest contributors to world's economy, also how they would achieve the same status again (in the future).
The geography,tibetan plateau and our rivers 're the real reasons he says and I agree.

@Abingdonboy you 'd not tagged @Chinese-Dragon properly.

Levina Ji

In pre-industrial days economies were different, very different from today's modern economies.

Can we say that Egyptians can establish the empire in 2014 just because there used to be one 1000s of years ago?

No.

 

[MilSpec]

Levina Ji

In pre-industrial days economies were different, very different from today's modern economies.

Can we say that Egyptians can establish the empire in 2014 just because there used to be one 1000s of years ago?

No.

The video states, India/China had half the world population 2000 years ago, there was no Industrial revolution, thus with the same resources all around the world, India and China had half the worlds economy,

Industrial revolution put both India and China to disadvantages, but with proliferation of productive technology like Mechanized farming, Fertilizers, Pesticides, India and China with still more than world's half the population will out grow most economies in the world, that essentially is the quality of quantity.

 

[Levina]

Levina Ji

In pre-industrial days economies were different, very different from today's modern economies.

Can we say that Egyptians can establish the empire in 2014 just because there used to be one 1000s of years ago?

No.

Did you watch the video??
You 're very lazy fauji bhai but quick to jump into conclusions.

When I said India and China 're on their way to become world leaders I meant that China and India would contribute to the world's economy like it did in 1820s. I did not mean we're going to be "supa powa" etc etc and take over America did I??. The presenter gave his hypothesis based on the population in China and India and its geography and also in today's world the use of technology. The vapid state would disappear soon is what he predicts.

Now I'll talk to you only after you watch that video.

 

[Developereo]

I did not mean we're going to be "supa powa" etc etc and take over America did I??

Actually, the presenter is suggesting precisely that.

His claim is that India and China will return to the historical percentage of global GDP just because of their populations.

Mostly, of course, he is pushing the India super powa theme, using China as a red herring.

Silly premise, to say the least...

 

[Levina]

Actually, the presenter is suggesting precisely that.

Did he say that???

His claim is that India and China will return to the historical percentage of global GDP just because of their populations.

Mostly, of course, he is pushing the India super powa theme, using China as a red herring.

Hmm
I can see you 've an issue with India being projected as a supa powa. Lol
Frankly none of us Indians want India to be the next "America", and we 've never been good leaders nor ambitious enough to conquer the world or nose around. We're mostly content with what we have. But when pushed to the wall we do react like every other human being on earth.
Back to the topic of development then I think the guy is right that its the population of China and India which is going to bring about the development. We 've huge markets where foreign investors would luv to invest, unfortunately in India our laws pretty much stifle the foreign companies and ergo I think some of the laws(like the land acquisition) if relaxed would bring in more investment and with it ostensibly the development. Pls excuse the tautology.

Silly premise, to say the least...

Dont force me to call you a tink tonk. grrr!

 

[Developereo]

Did he say that???

This is his talk summarized:

A- Historically, India and China had the largest populations.
B- Historically, India and China dominated the global GDP.
C- B happened because of A, since (agricultural) productivity was mostly equal across the board.
D- (European) technology upset the boat.
E- Technology is now permeating all over the world.
F- If (technological) productivity is equalized across the board, then A will again imply B

The flaw in the argument is the first part of F.
Can it ever be truly realized?
Are there other factors at play?

 

[MilSpec]

Actually, the presenter is suggesting precisely that.

His claim is that India and China will return to the historical percentage of global GDP just because of their populations.

Mostly, of course, he is pushing the India super powa theme, using China as a red herring.

Silly premise, to say the least...

fail again!

 

[Judge]

The flaw in the argument is the first part of F.
Can it ever be truly realized?
Are there other factors at play?

Simple and conservative projections imply that in a few decades China, US and India will be the 1st to 3rd biggest economies of the world.
It wont even take an equality of technology.

There are disruptive technologies that help developing nations shave years and decades off the established timeline of development by 1st world nations.
China and India are proving it by rolling out facilities to its citizens in fraction of the time it took 1st world countries to do so and growing faster than the global average.

Being the 2 of the 3 largest economies in the globe and in the same region sharing a vast border automatically puts forth that we would be the most powerful landmass(spanning India and China and Bhutan/Nepal) once again.

 

[Foggy_Bottom]

This is his talk summarized:

A- Historically, India and China had the largest populations.
B- Historically, India and China dominated the global GDP.
C- B happened because of A, since (agricultural) productivity was mostly equal across the board.
D- (European) technology upset the boat.
E- Technology is now permeating all over the world.
F- If (technological) productivity is equalized across the board, then A will again imply B

The flaw in the argument is the first part of F.
Can it ever be truly realized?
Are there other factors at play?

There maybe many factors in play for that to be realized. Who in the right mind would argue that.

But what he is saying is no different from what experts have laid out after analyzing those factors . There is now a consensus that say China and India will be in the top 3 . Who is no1/2/3 maybe still up to debate, but there is a consensus on who will be in the top3.

Don't hate.

 

[Developereo]

Simple and conservative projections imply that in a few decades China, US and India will be the 1st to 3rd biggest economies of the world.
It wont even take an equality of technology.

There are disruptive technologies that help developing nations shave years and decades off the established timeline of development by 1st world nations.
China and India are proving it by growing faster than the global average.

Being the 2 of the 3 largest economies in the globe and in the same region sharing a vast border automatically puts forth that we would be the most powerful landmass(spanning India and China and Bhutan/Nepal) once again.

Even if we accept the projections, that's a far cry from regaining historical share of global GDP.

And that's before we even contemplate other plays (legitimate and illegitimate) that the leaders have at their disposal to sabotage the up and comers and/or to maintain their lead.

There maybe many factors in play for that to be realized. Who in the right mind would argue that.

But what he is saying is no different from what experts have laid out after analyzing those factors . There is now a consensus that say China and India will be in the top 3 . Who is no1/2/3 maybe still up to debate, but there is a consensus on who will be in the top3.

Don't hate.

Not having access to State Dept. secret files, the rest of can only use common sense.

 

[FaujHistorian]

There maybe many factors in play for that to be realized. Who in the right mind would argue that.

But what he is saying is no different from what experts have laid after analyzing those factors . There is now a consensus that say China and India will in the top 3 . Who is no1/2/3 maybe still up to debate, but there is a consensus on who will be in the top3.

Don't hate.

size of economy matters

but there are a lot of other factors that truly determine the impact of a country and its contribution in specific areas.

 

[Foggy_Bottom]

Not having access to State Dept. secret files, the rest of can only use common sense.

Look what your common sense got you- while the two countries moved on to higher achievements

 

[Developereo]

Look what your common sense got you- while the two countries moved on to higher achievements

I wasn't talking about Pakistan (which is sorely lacking in common sense) but myself only.
Projections are all well and good but, by definition, they don't take into account unforeseen events.

This is not about playing cards around a campfire. Global dominance is a dog eat dog affair, and the current leaders didn't get there by playing nice or being complacent.