Stupid :Why China is progressed more than India according to Rahul Gandhi

[Jade]

@anonymus

Why China has progressed more than India? Here is my view. Investors and money always look for opportunity that have the least risk for a return. Starting and running a business in India is far more riskier than running a business in China because of the inherent ambiguities in Indian polity. (Yes, boils down to democracy vs authoritarian).

Ex: Retail bill.... in-spite of the bill, the retail environment has not changed much in India because the opposition doesn't supports it. (What happens if Walmart invests billion of dollars in retail and tomorrow BJP comes and ask them to shut their shops). If such a bill would have been operational in China, this would have totally changed the retail environment in China. This doesn't mean India is unattractive market as compared to China. It is as attractive market as China and more so in certain areas.

 

[SamantK]

And Sarah was a successful governor before chosen by McCain. What has Rahul done?

I believe that is exactly what he is saying.

 

[SamantK]

Coming to the topic, China has progressed more can not be put in one or two sentences but I would take a hazard by putting it thus.

The indomitable spirit of putting their country first. Which we even in 21st century have not achieved.

 

[Jade]

Coming to the topic, China has progressed more can not be put in one or two sentences but I would take a hazard by putting it thus.

The indomitable spirit of putting their country first. Which we even in 21st century have not achieved.

I would disagree. China is as corrupt as India is, and what is 'putting their country first'...? And how would some know that a policy is best for the country unless it bears fruit? What would have happened if Chinese reforms of 1979 were a flop?

 

[SamantK]

I would disagree. China is as corrupt as India is, and what is 'putting their country first'...? And how would some know that a policy is best for the country unless it bears fruit? What would have happened if Chinese reforms of 1979 were a flop?

Corruption happens everywhere, people live with relatively less freedom in China because they believe overall their country is progressing.

If the CPC was as bad and was not delivering, I'm sure that China would not have remained the way it is.

 

[Jade]

Corruption happens everywhere, people live with relatively less freedom in China because they believe overall their country is progressing.

If the CPC was as bad and was not delivering, I'm sure that China would not have remained the way it is.

I am not saying CPC was or is bad. Certainly it has delivered results, and my disagreement was about 'putting their country first'. argument.

 

[SamantK]

I am not saying CPC was or is bad. Certainly it has delivered results, and my disagreement was about 'putting their country first'. argument.

Exactly, they let CPC function because it is performing, if it were not so how do you see China would be today with a population of 1 billion?

 

[anonymus]

@anonymus

Why China has progressed more than India? Here is my view. Investors and money always look for opportunity that have the least risk for a return. Starting and running a business in India is far more riskier than running a business in China because of the inherent ambiguities in Indian polity. (Yes, boils down to democracy vs authoritarian).

Ex: Retail bill.... in-spite of the bill, the retail environment has not changed much in India because the opposition doesn't supports it. (What happens if Walmart invests billion of dollars in retail and tomorrow BJP comes and ask them to shut their shops). If such a bill would have been operational in China, this would have totally changed the retail environment in China. This doesn't mean India is unattractive market as compared to China. It is as attractive market as China and more so in certain areas.

That certainly is not only a factor, instead it is the most important factor as other factor .

But it would be a travesty to dismiss growth of China as an exclusive product of authoritarianism.

An Important facet of China has been it's focus on gross capital formation compared to fetish of economic equality that is prevalent in both Brazil and India.

This Marxist dictum is the basic cause as to depressed and lopsided growth in both of countries. In India too, service sector which is Independent of government control has grown much faster than either agriculture or manufacturing.

The point is that if a government is hung up on socialism and tries to bring forth a socialist system, it is going to depress economic growth as wealth cannot be distributed , only poverty is distributive and the fact that taking away money from capitalists is not desirable as it decreases investment potential of economy.

I would like to quote tony blair's response on being asked as to How would he justify David beckhem earning millions every month in contract to which he replied that " AS long as an average person fulfills basic necessities of life, he is not concerned regarding what a footballer earns".

 

[Jade]

Exactly, they let CPC function because it is performing, if it were not so how do you see China would be today with a population of 1 billion?

Or it could also mean disagreeing with CPC means death or political prosecution.

What would have happened if 1979 reforms would have failed? What is good for the country is subjective and differs. What is good for the country according to you may not be the same for me, despite both of us having the best intention for our country.

 

[Jade]

That certainly is not only a factor, instead it is the most important factor as other factor .

But it would be a travesty to dismiss growth of China as an exclusive product of authoritarianism.

An Important facet of China has been it's focus on gross capital formation compared to fetish of economic equality that is prevalent in both Brazil and India.

This Marxist dictum is the basic cause as to depressed and lopsided growth in both of countries. In India too, service sector which is Independent of government control has grown much faster than either agriculture or manufacturing.

The point is that if a government is hung up on socialism and tries to bring forth a socialist system, it is going to depress economic growth as wealth cannot be distributed , only poverty is distributive and the fact that taking away money from capitalists is not desirable as it decreases investment potential of economy.

It certainly is not about democracy vs authoritarianism, but more about the disagreement about a policy among political parties in a democracy.

Gross capital formation as a per cent of GDP is as good in India as in China.
Gross capital formation (% of GDP) | Data | Table

You example on service sector is apt. There is a political convergence among political parties on service sector as compared to agricultural or Industrial sector, hence it grew faster. China has the luxury of not dealing with the ‘disagreement’. Hence its investment environment is more certain and boils down to a point of whether the sector is attractive or not for investment, than other considerations.

 

[doublemaster]

Rahul Gandhi's take on relatively faster rise of China vis-a-vis India: A study in stupidity by contrast.

Rahul Gandhi’s dragon cliché​

The Congress vice-president would do well to ponder why China has outperformed India on every social and economic indicator.


Rahul Gandhi

...................................................................................................................................................


This is the quality of leader we are struck with.

This mother-son duo with able guidance of Rasputlin council (NAC) has destroyed India's economy by running expensive bribery Oops poverty alleviation programs and not doing anything to bring reforms which this country desperately needs. Instead what we see is a rampant socialism with a penchant for mediocracy in this party.Every day some of the member from "inner circle" ( I am talking about jokers like Jairam ramesh) makes some statement as to why India is a sh!tty place and needs to bring more yojna's for poor. He seems to conveniently forget that GoI's Fiscal deficit at 5.7% of GDP any it is already ruining growth by crowding out enterpenurs from debt market and if resources are raised by increasing taxes, it would be ruinous for middle class which is reeling under double whammy of high Inflation and low growth.Not to say increased government spending would be a source of Inflation in itself.This party seems to hate anyone who is not dependent on Government doles for his livelihood.



Congrees has a USP of being Pro-People and to prove it has started many Poverty alleviation program like NREGA. These programs which at surface seems to be well intentioned but suffers from a fundamental flaw in my opinion which is that they seems to misjudge the nature of poverty.


Poverty could not be defined just by lack of resources. Even i live in a quasi slum and sometime have to make decisions like forgoing breakfast so that i may have some money left for lunch. A lot of other student stays in conditions which could be described as borderline poverty but neither have i ever felt like poor nor have i ever claim to be.

Poverty is more than lack of resources.It is lack of future and a soul breaking disillusionment.The poor person not only suffers from lack of resources but also from a nagging regret that he could do nothing to improve his situation.

Schemes which provide a poor person with free entitlements are actually responsible for perpetuating poverty as not only are they not providing a poor person skill to better his life but also extinguishing whatever motivational drive that person may have for improving his life.These schemes reduce their status to that of beggars and dependents of state.The only good they serve is to convert them into static votebanks.

In my opinion, yojna's like NREGA should be scrapped and the resources spent on them should be diverted towards improving Rural infrastructure which would pull out rural poor from poverty by providing them access to market and skill development programs which would enable them to take advantage of opportunities.

Another peculiarity of current regime is it's insistence on right based approach. The problem with this approach is that just because you have defined some basic need as a constitutional right, resources would not become available for it's fulfillment.They simply could not.Constitution is not some magical document which provides resources for what it written in it.The resources would be provided by very economy which congress seems to view with a sense of disgust.

The ascension of Rahul Gandhi is going to make problem worst.He has repeatedly shown a lack of understanding of basic problems facing this country.

It is said that patriotism is a refuge of scoundrel. I would like to add to this correct saying is that not only patriotism but religion, socialism and any other ideology which has an emotional appeal is an refuge of scoundrel.

People who are not good enough to formulate their ideas with clarity usually hide behind a ready made ideology. The current glut of quasi-socialist policies is a result of neither Rahul nor Sonia having any firm grounding in Economics and them trying to go along with ideas which sound good on surface.

@Dillinger @arp2041 @Ayush @ZYXW @Jade @janon @Ajaxpaul @godofwar @Guynextdoor2 @KRAIT @sandy_3126 @Joe Shearer @jbgt90 @Bang Galore @Chinese-Dragon @neehar @johnSeb @Samantak @kurup @Syama Ayas @RISING SUN @doublemaster and any other member interested.



@jbgt90 Sir, i knew you are the supporter of congress but you are also one of the most sensible posters here. Could you shed some light as to why congress insist with Gandhi family when there are more competent people than them in congress itself.



@Chinese-Dragon If congress loses next election, India-China relations are bound to improve.This editorial is an example of misunderstanding that heir apparent of Congress have for China.


@Dillinger since we are struck with rahul, can't we force him to have some proper education.

@ all posters, if you visit website of hindu (Clicking on the given link), take trouble of reading the comment section also.It would give a good insight as to what is wrong with Indian society. Most of the posters there are advocating that Rahul should be given a chance to put his ideas into action as if India is a toy that some crown prince should experiment with.

Rahul Gandhi will not become PM. Even if UPA wins next election Sonia/Rahul will follow the same model. Politics will be controlled by them. Economics will be controlled by "able" people in their ministry. This is good model for congress. Otherwise congress will never exist after few years. Once they had reached to this level thats the reason they brought Sonia Gandhi to politics. I think it is enough if rahul gandhi is capable of handling the party. This model is exactly same as BJP.
Where all the politics handled by RSS. After all we dont give minister ship based on the qualifications right? Added advantage for congress is they have highly qualified economists whose performance in growth still better than NDA.

What Rahul Gandhi said about India and China is correct. But that example wasnt strong enough. In india decions are hard to make where as in china it is simple. They dont have a opposition who just oppose for the sake that they are in opposition. They do not have to worry about protests of citizens. Probably they do not even have to worry about coalition politics!
Plus lot of other factors. His problem is he doesnt know to bluff and market like modi.


But anyways..You cant probably expect any solutions from modi because he already thinks that Gujarat is ahead of china.
Gujarat, the gateway to India: fact or farce? - The Hindu

Going by the Gujarat government’s figures, memorandums of understanding (MoUs) for Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) worth $876 billion were signed during its five biannual Vibrant Gujarat Global Investors Summits from 2003 to 2011 and a whopping 84 per cent of the projects have already been implemented or are under implementation.

This would mean Gujarat has overtaken all of China, whose FDI inflows during this period were to the tune of $600 billion. And, interestingly, after the 2013 Vibrant Gujarat Global Investors Summit, the government chose not to give out any MoU numbers when Chief Minister Narendra Modi declared that, “Gujarat is now the gateway to India.”

Behind the envelope calculations show that if the State had implemented even 60 per cent of the investments promised, it would have left the dragon behind.

But, as it were, the latest figures of FDI inflows for the financial year 2012-13 up to January this year indicate that Gujarat ranks sixth in the country with Rs. 2,470 crore or 2.38 per cent share.

Maharashtra continues to top the FDI numbers with FDI of Rs. 40,999 crore or 40 per cent, followed by Delhi, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka.

Gujarat was slightly ahead of West Bengal in 2012-13, which got FDI of Rs. 1,934 crore.

In fact, Gujarat’s share in the FDI kitty has been heading southward during the last three financial years from 3.38 per cent (Rs. 3,294 crore) in 2010-11, 2.85 per cent (Rs. 4,730 crore) in 2011-12 to 2.38 per cent (Rs. 2,470 crore) now. These numbers contradict the State government’s claim that Gujarat had bucked the worldwide overall economic downturn to become the engine of India’s growth.

Nothwithstanding the government claims, it is an open fact that Gujarat’s FDI numbers have always been the same or lower through the years.

Reserve Bank of India’s FDI figures encompassing the decade of 2000 to 2011 reveal that while Gujarat received just about $7.2 billion in FDI, Maharashtra got $45.8 billion and Delhi over $26 billion. Even Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, with a $8.3 billion and $7.3 billion share, got a larger piece of the national FDI pie.

Albeit the overall FDI inflow into India fell by some 30 per cent during 2012-13, Gujarat has beaten this, as the numbers suggest, with a bigger decline close to 50 per cent.


What kind of CM who feeds wrong information to his people?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He doesnt have a basc quality to become PM. You can not even think of getting a justice in his state until SC transfer case to some other state? Isnt this shame?

 

[anonymus]

Rahul Gandhi will not become PM. Even if UPA wins next election Sonia/Rahul will follow the same model. Politics will be controlled by them. Economics will be controlled by "able" people in their ministry. This is good model for congress. Otherwise congress will never exist after few years. Once they had reached to this level thats the reason they brought Sonia Gandhi to politics. I think it is enough if rahul gandhi is capable of handling the party. This model is exactly same as BJP.
Where all the politics handled by RSS. After all we dont give minister ship based on the qualifications right? Added advantage for congress is they have highly qualified economists whose performance in growth still better than NDA.

The problem is not the title that Rahul gandhi would hold, the problem (which is present in case of Sonia also) is that they control the strings of power.

It does not matter how many Economists are there in Congress, if madam or crown prince wants to implement a yojna , it is implemented even if it does not make any Economic sense.

This is the reason that lack of ability to form independent thought in gandhi family is bad for country as they could always fall for lobbying by " naam bade aur darshan choote " type of groups like NAC.

RSS does have a political control over BJP but i do not remember it interfering in critical functions ( economy, defense, foreign affairs ) of government.

The problem with Sonia + Rahul and NAC is that they have assumed role of quasi government and government has happily abrogated it's law making duties to NAC.

What Rahul Gandhi said about India and China is correct. But that example wasnt strong enough. In india decions are hard to make where as in china it is simple. They dont have a opposition who just oppose for the sake that they are in opposition. They do not have to worry about protests of citizens. Probably they do not even have to worry about coalition politics!

That is a reason and no body is denying it, but this in no way is an excuse for incompetence of UPA II. This explanation would have struck if made for UPA I when government was dependent on left support but not for UPA II when it has most comfortable parliamentary majority that any party has in two decades.

UPA I performed quite well compared to UPA II which is showing regression in it's whole tenure. It not only has dithered on reforms but has also brought regressive policies at the cost of fiscal health.

Gujarat, the gateway to India: fact or farce? - The Hindu

Going by the Gujarat government’s figures, memorandums of understanding (MoUs) for Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) worth $876 billion were signed during its five biannual Vibrant Gujarat Global Investors Summits from 2003 to 2011 and a whopping 84 per cent of the projects have already been implemented or are under implementation.

This would mean Gujarat has overtaken all of China, whose FDI inflows during this period were to the tune of $600 billion. And, interestingly, after the 2013 Vibrant Gujarat Global Investors Summit, the government chose not to give out any MoU numbers when Chief Minister Narendra Modi declared that, “Gujarat is now the gateway to India.”

Behind the envelope calculations show that if the State had implemented even 60 per cent of the investments promised, it would have left the dragon behind.

But, as it were, the latest figures of FDI inflows for the financial year 2012-13 up to January this year indicate that Gujarat ranks sixth in the country with Rs. 2,470 crore or 2.38 per cent share.

Maharashtra continues to top the FDI numbers with FDI of Rs. 40,999 crore or 40 per cent, followed by Delhi, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka.

Gujarat was slightly ahead of West Bengal in 2012-13, which got FDI of Rs. 1,934 crore.

In fact, Gujarat’s share in the FDI kitty has been heading southward during the last three financial years from 3.38 per cent (Rs. 3,294 crore) in 2010-11, 2.85 per cent (Rs. 4,730 crore) in 2011-12 to 2.38 per cent (Rs. 2,470 crore) now. These numbers contradict the State government’s claim that Gujarat had bucked the worldwide overall economic downturn to become the engine of India’s growth.

Nothwithstanding the government claims, it is an open fact that Gujarat’s FDI numbers have always been the same or lower through the years.

Reserve Bank of India’s FDI figures encompassing the decade of 2000 to 2011 reveal that while Gujarat received just about $7.2 billion in FDI, Maharashtra got $45.8 billion and Delhi over $26 billion. Even Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, with a $8.3 billion and $7.3 billion share, got a larger piece of the national FDI pie.

Albeit the overall FDI inflow into India fell by some 30 per cent during 2012-13, Gujarat has beaten this, as the numbers suggest, with a bigger decline close to 50 per cent.


What kind of CM who feeds wrong information to his people?

The article seems to be wrong on two counts.

1. MoU's are declaration of intent by companies for investment in future not investment themselves.

I do not know what has happened in reality but it is possible that Gujrat MoU's exceed the total amount of FDI china received in the same period.

The FDI received by china is the amount of foreign Investment in China during a particular period of time which has materialized while MoU's are expression of Intent for Investment which could materialize over a long period of time.So it is neither abnormal nor malicious if MoU's of Gujrat are more than FDI of China.

2. FDI of Maharashtra is abnormally high due to the method of counting FDI. Since most companies are headquartered in Mumbai, the FDI they receive from institutional investors is counted as FDI of Maharashtra.

He doesnt have a basc quality to become PM. You can not even think of getting a justice in his state until SC transfer case to some other state? Isnt this shame?

Certainly it is and in final assessment should be counted against him. But it could not become a single comparative parameter in Modi Vs Rahul comparision. I would have been happy with a perfect ubermensch choice had it existed but we have to choose from what is available.

 

[Icewolf]

In my opinion it is because of Chinese & Indian culture.

Inians could never retain their territry from invaders.

While some of the best invaders came out of the Mongolian ethnicity land.

Indians bred very fast & then stuck there when no resources.

Chinese also has a large population but actually do work to feed their family.

Chinese are more productive and Indian less productive.

It has to do with the varying mineral deposits, and the varying culture.

Language of Chinese was more complex than Indian language.

 

[doublemaster]

The problem is not the title that Rahul gandhi would hold, the problem (which is present in case of Sonia also) is that they control the strings of power.

It does not matter how many Economists are there in Congress, if madam or crown prince wants to implement a yojna , it is implemented even if it does not make any Economic sense.

This is the reason that lack of ability to form independent thought in gandhi family is bad for country as they could always fall for lobbying by " naam bade aur darshan choote " type of groups like NAC.

RSS does have a political control over BJP but i do not remember it interfering in critical functions ( economy, defense, foreign affairs ) of government.

The problem with Sonia + Rahul and NAC is that they have assumed role of quasi government and government has happily abrogated it's law making duties to NAC.



That is a reason and no body is denying it, but this in no way is an excuse for incompetence of UPA II. This explanation would have struck if made for UPA I when government was dependent on left support but not for UPA II when it has most comfortable parliamentary majority that any party has in two decades.

UPA I performed quite well compared to UPA II which is showing regression in it's whole tenure. It not only has dithered on reforms but has also brought regressive policies at the cost of fiscal health.



The article seems to be wrong on two counts.

1. MoU's are declaration of intent by companies for investment in future not investment themselves.

I do not know what has happened in reality but it is possible that Gujrat MoU's exceed the total amount of FDI china received in the same period.

The FDI received by china is the amount of foreign Investment in China during a particular period of time which has materialized while MoU's are expression of Intent for Investment which could materialize over a long period of time.So it is neither abnormal nor malicious if MoU's of Gujrat are more than FDI of China.

2. FDI of Maharashtra is abnormally high due to the method of counting FDI. Since most companies are headquartered in Mumbai, the FDI they receive from institutional investors is counted as FDI of Maharashtra.



Certainly it is and in final assessment should be counted against him. But it could not become a single comparative parameter in Modi Vs Rahul comparision. I would have been happy with a perfect ubermensch choice had it existed but we have to choose from what is available.

This you took from some fools comment in the same link!!!! Am i right? Otherwise prove it..! Because modi gang already accepted saying that
Brother i try to read the comment most of the time to know any thing wrong in the article.

Rest i will asnwer later when i get time

 

[anonymus]

This you took from some fools comment in the same link!!!! Am i right? Otherwise prove it..! Because modi gang already accepted saying that
Brother i try to read the comment most of the time to know any thing wrong in the article.

Rest i will asnwer later when i get time

Yes i did took it from the comment. only point 1 was my original but this made sense to me so i posted it as if it would be wrong then it automatically get negated.

EDIT:

Even though the point was not mine and i took it as it made sense, on further investigation it has appears to be partially true.

http://business.mapsofindia.com/fdi-india/states/

As RBI is calculating FDI equity flows it do contain within it's ambit FII's investment in share market.