61–70 of 84 posts
Obviously in the case of India and China there are other factors at play, but for me this is the elephant in the room
The comment under does make sense. We have to explain Taiwan, Korea, and Japan as well. If the difference is 1950s actions then Taiwan in particular is unexplained, having diverged in 1949. Though the cotton mill productivity does challenge the idea that it’s genetics or something inherent. Interesting problem for sure.
China was extremely mismanaged until the 90s as well and wasn’t really ahead of India. If anything they missed out on 30-40 years of actual development until Mao and other exceptionally incompetent lunatics died out.
The comment under does make sense. We have to explain Taiwan, Korea, and Japan as well. If the difference is 1950s actions then Taiwan in particular is unexplained, having diverged in 1949. Though the cotton mill productivity does challenge the idea that it’s genetics or something inherent. Interesting problem for sure.
The easiest issue to explain is the Taiwan question. In 1949, Taiwan stripped China of all its gold reserves and its entire elite class, leaving the Chinese mainland with nothing but a shambles. Furthermore, following the Korean War in 1950, the United States backed Taiwan in imposing a comprehensive blockade on China's coastline; this plunged China into a state of total hostility with the U.S.and, by extension, with…
> any discussion of economic development
That’s not true at all though. They attempted some grandiose programs. It’s just that there are hardly any words to describe how absurdly incompetent Mao and his ilk where. So they just failed outright until they began liberalizing the economy in a controlled way.
The article feels all over the place. What should India do to beat China? Invest in education? Exterminate millions of its own (undereducated) population in meaningless wars and poorly–planned public works? Make their women burn their bras? Switch Communism in for Hinduism and end Democracy? Other than the first, I think I'd rather bow down to China.
Well economic growth and development in China only began several years after they stopped doing all of these things.
They weren’t ahead of India in any meaningful way back when Mao was still in power and enacting his unhinged ideas.
China invested in converting people to a skilled workforce planned top down. Smart workhorses, be it workers, doctors engineers, scientists, sportspersons. Freedom from traditional norms were replaced by bondage to standardisation/regimentation to communist party leadership’s planned rule sets to scale quickly. And which is fine. India in 1947 invested in freedom of thought, democracy, and gradual donning away with a…
Almost nothing China did until the late 80s really helped economic development. If the CCP focused on doing the inverse of that through its brutal and exceptionally misguided policies.
China didn’t really overtake India until it began liberalizing.
This site is very US-centric so people don’t want to hear this, but “democracy” is not necessarily the best form of government for a nation. Obviously in the case of India and China there are other factors at play, but for me this is the elephant in the room
And is it still relevant to call the view that democracy _is_ the best form of government a "US-centric" idea, considering that the current US seems to not be concerned about (and sometimes even embrace) non-democratic powers, in-land and around the world? If anything, it sounds to me like over the past few years it became a US-centric idea that it's totally fine to not have democracy.
This article seems to completely miss the significant compounding effect of real growth over 13 years. China liberalized their economy in the 70s: 1976 Mao dies -> Cultural revolution ends -> 1978 Deng Xiaoping launches 'Reform & Opening Up'. India liberalized their economy in the 90s: 1991 Rao and Singh come to power -> eliminate tariffs, dismantle the License Raj. The difference is at least that of compounded growt…
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?end=2001...
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.PP.CD?end=2... (no data available before 1990 apparently)
This site is very US-centric so people don’t want to hear this, but “democracy” is not necessarily the best form of government for a nation. Obviously in the case of India and China there are other factors at play, but for me this is the elephant in the room
Can you elaborate? What's unique about the nations for which democracy isn't the best form of government? What's unique about their people? And is it still relevant to call the view that democracy _is_ the best form of government a "US-centric" idea, considering that the current US seems to not be concerned about (and sometimes even embrace) non-democratic powers, in-land and around the world? If anything, it sounds…
Not the person you responded to, but functional democracies require either an already-established functioning government, which can be efficiently perpetuated and controlled by elected leaders (think the United Kingdom); or a non-functioning government which can be effectively reformed and then perpetuated by elected leaders (think Taiwan). In both cases, functional democracies also require an electorate who can be brought to work towards a nation's major development goals.
There are countries for which none of these criteria can be reasonably met in the context of a democracy. One reason is if the electoral processes are so corrupt that no one competent is actually elected or, if they are accidentally competent, are too busy working towards their own and their cronies' ends to be effective leaders. The second is if there is underlying social strife which prevents people from working collaboratively towards nation building.
India fails in both counts: the corruption at all levels of government is nothing short of legendary, and the country as a whole is comprised of very diverse peoples who, historically, have had little reason to work together. Many African countries, rather tragically, are in the same boat: during the colonial era, "countries" were almost randomly assembled out of groups of people who historically had almost nothing in common. When the colonial powers left, they typically left nothing behind -- no knowledgeable and experienced administrators, no established universal education, and little or no social infrastructure. The people were then left to reinvent government from scratch, and the "country" more often than not was actually five separate nations of people who hated each other.
In sum, democracy is sort of an advanced form of government which, when introduced, really does need a somewhat coherent nation to already exist (in more cases) for it to work well. An autocratic or authoritarian government is usually the on-ramp, so long as it's reasonably functional and stable for long enough. Wherever democracy has persistently failed to take off, it's invariably a place in which the underlying foundation didn't exist to begin with.
The article feels all over the place. What should India do to beat China? Invest in education? Exterminate millions of its own (undereducated) population in meaningless wars and poorly–planned public works? Make their women burn their bras? Switch Communism in for Hinduism and end Democracy? Other than the first, I think I'd rather bow down to China.
> Exterminate millions of its own (undereducated) population in meaningless wars and poorly–planned public works? Well economic growth and development in China only began several years after they stopped doing all of these things. They weren’t ahead of India in any meaningful way back when Mao was still in power and enacting his unhinged ideas.
This site is very US-centric so people don’t want to hear this, but “democracy” is not necessarily the best form of government for a nation. Obviously in the case of India and China there are other factors at play, but for me this is the elephant in the room
Can you elaborate? What's unique about the nations for which democracy isn't the best form of government? What's unique about their people? And is it still relevant to call the view that democracy _is_ the best form of government a "US-centric" idea, considering that the current US seems to not be concerned about (and sometimes even embrace) non-democratic powers, in-land and around the world? If anything, it sounds…