Impact of China's rise in the world - Long term predictions (30-50 years)


AndrewS

Colonel
Registered Member
Actually, here are some of the reasons, beside population, why India is better placed now than China had been in 1971, or even in 1981, to “rise” in the next 30-50 years.

1. india’s literacy rate in 2020 is 74%. Chinese literacy rate in 1971 is uncertain due to the chaos of the culture revolution. But officially Chinese literacy rate did not reach 74% until 1986. The annual growth in India’s literacy rate now is approximately the same as China’s had been between 1980-1990, when China’s overall literacy rate was the similar to India’s today.
2. The per capita productivity of Indian economy in 2020, measured by PPP, and adjusted for inflation is 6 times high than China’s in 1971, and about the same as China’s in 2004.
3. India’s total steel production in 2020 is 120 million tons, this is already second highest in the world. That is about 6 times China’s production in 1970, and about the same as China’s production in 1997. The compounded annual growth rates between 1997 and 2020 have similar to those of China’s over the same period.
4. India’s automobile production in 2020 was 5 million cars, about 25 times that of China’s on 1971, about the the same as China’s in 2004.
5. India’s total electricity generation in 2020 was about 2000TWh. China’s in 1971 is unclear, but China’s electricity generation also did not reach 2000TWh until 2004.
6. In 2020 8% of India’s population have 4 year university degrees. China’s figure in 1971 is unclear, but China did not reach 8% until 2011.

So broadly speaking, India is somewhere between 15 and 35 years behind China by different measures. There are more measures clustering around 15. India is not nearly as far behind as many people in China thinks.

You can't compare the total volume of steel, automobiles or electricity produced.
It has to be adjusted for a per capita comparison.

For example, China's population in 1971 was only 841 million, which is significantly smaller than today.
You'll have to run the numbers yourself, but on these quantitive metrics, my guess is that India is probably another 10 years behind your comparisons.

---
On point number 6, India should be ashamed of having so many university graduates funded by the state - when basic literacy and numeracy levels are so atrocious. That is a gross misallocation of resources towards the elite at the expense of the overall nation.

I remember a development study on China from 20 years ago.
In a nutshell, basic education in the poorest regions of China had a huge rate of return which far exceeded the returns from roads, water, telecoms, healthcare provision. That makes sense since basic literacy and numeracy has a huge impact for the rest of your life.
 

AndrewS

Colonel
Registered Member
it is not wise to discount the potential of 1.4 billion people, likely to be 2-2.5 billion+ in 50 years, because of issues it exhibits now. where might a foreign observer with passing familiarity with what is happening with china in 1971 have predicted where china might be in 2021?

If in 50 years India’s GDP per capita still remains 1/3 of china’s as it is now, Indian economy would likely be larger than that of the US. In reality, China has reached the point of development that would see development rate level off, where as india can still expect 2 or 3 decades of rapid growth, so the ratio of GDP per capita would decline. so India would almost certainly be physically and economically stronger than the US in 50 years. India being far closer than the US would be a far more prominent fixture in the china’s geopolitical world than the US.

Prior to the pandemic, India's growth rate was steadily declining, and had dropped to only 4% per year, which is reminiscent of the Hindu rate of growth.

India looks more like the Brazil, which also had periods of fast growth, but ultimately is stuck in the middle-income trap.

And if India is significantly more powerful than the USA, would the USA cede gracefully its positions in the current American-dominated order?
 

AndrewS

Colonel
Registered Member
Indian semi-democracy is in serious decline as a functioning system. It has been moving towards an authoritarian ethnostate since BJP assumed power the first time in 2000. The pace of this transition has picked up markedly since Modi took power. It is not altogether unlikely the transition will be completed in less than 10 years. Then Indian will likely attempt to follow the authoritarian trajectory of South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore, and China.

Even if india does not become the world’s number 2 power in 30-50 years, it would still retain by far the greatest and most structurally built-in potential of any nation to rival China in raw national power in the long run. Long term regional, much less global, hegemony by China is not probable because India is on china’s door steps. If the USSR had been in Canada much of the world would not notice the Cold War between the USSR and the US.

Indian demographics do not allow it to organised as an authoritarian ethnostate

In South Korea, Taiwan and China - over 90% identify as the dominant ethnicity. So every ethnic minority person is outnumbered by 9 to 1.
In Singapore, it's 75% Chinese. So every ethnic minority is still outnumbered by 3 to 1.

In comparison, the Hindus only make up half of the Indian population.
And with current demographic trends, the Hindus will soon be outnumbered by non-Hindus

A Hindu ethnostate simply will not work.
It reminds me of the Soviet Union, where ethnic Russians were outnumbered by non-Russians.
And we know how that ended.

And that leaves aside the other cleavages in Indian society, such as language.
Look at the problems we see with Quebec or Belgium because of language.

It's more that that. 20% are non-Hindu. 21% Dalit. 7% tribals. That's about half the population right there who are either entirely outside Hindu fold or has only one foot inside it.
 

AndrewS

Colonel
Registered Member
The nationalists in Taiwan do not seem to be

actually, go forth an multiply is much of the key. the best predictor of Long term economic power tends to be population, provided the population can be supported. population is the fundamental reason is why Germany surpassed france and britain, why the united states surpassed britain and germany, and population really is the only reason why china will surpass the united states. So long as the population does not exceed the carrying capacity of the land, and the development is not artificially suppressed, and relatively free commerce in capital, product snd raw material is available, ratio of economic output in the long run trends towards ratio of population.

People tend to latch onto stories of their success as the only legitimate representative of their own deserts snd worth, and ignore past failures as also reflecting some deeper and perhaps not really fundamentally resolved issues.

As to why India economic output remain below that of some of G7 for 70 years despite having popukation larger than all of G7, hmmmm, good question. China’s population has also always been greater than that of the g7 combined, yet Chinese economic output remain less than that of some of the G7 for 150 years. maybe you should ask the chinese why.

If the indians are as good as the chinese in “rising”, they ought to have another 80 years to do it.

Who is doing the multiplying in India?

Inside India, the Hindus will soon be outnumbered by non-Hindus.
Think Black Lives Matter versus White Nationalists in the USA, but worse.

Also, look at the example of Brazil which blows apart your argument about economic convergence.

The Brazilian population does not exceed the capacity of the land, and they have ample natural resources.
There is relatively free commerce in capital, products and raw materials

But they have completely stagnated and stopped catching up economically.

---
My thinking is that:

For a poor developing nation, the ratio of economic output in the long run will naturally converge to the limits set by basic urbanisation and light-industry aka the middle-income trap as demonstrated by Brazil.

But to surpass the middle-income trap requires a further step, whether that is:
1. abundant natural resources
2. becoming a business hub
3. or becoming a hi-technology economy.

But items 1+2 only work if you have a small population.
Otherwise you have to grow technology companies to move up the industrial value-chain.

On that measure, India's R&D spending as a % of GDP has been gradually declining since 2009
It is now at 0.65% of GDP.
Note that Brazil is roughly at twice this spending level, yet is still economically stagnant and stuck in the middle-income trap.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

steel21

Junior Member
Registered Member
On point number 6, India should be ashamed of having so many university graduates funded by the state - when basic literacy and numeracy levels are so atrocious. That is a gross misallocation of resources towards the elite at the expense of the overall nation.
I dont know what India teaches in those universities.

I have a good friend who works in financial compliance. They off-shored their whole team to Bangalore.

The entire team are made up of new graduates supposedly in their mid to late 20's all with an MBA.

Yet, NONE of them can made a decision to save their life. This is an industry that relies the analyst to be a bit of a detective, looking to anomalies and intricacies. However, whenever there is a problem, the Indian team comes to a complete halt, and freeze in place, despite repeated instructions to be adaptive over a period of half a year.

Working with Indians give you the impression that there are absolute boundaries, and no matter what the trade-off is, they will not think outside the box and exceed those guidelines. You would think a country so enamored with Jugaad would show more initiative.

No saying there are no good schools in India.

Then again, they are paying these guys like $5k USD a year.......
 

Nutrient

Junior Member
Registered Member
Indian demographics do not allow it to organised as an authoritarian ethnostate

...

In comparison, the Hindus only make up half of the Indian population.
And with current demographic trends, the Hindus will soon be outnumbered by non-Hindus

A Hindu ethnostate simply will not work.

Even if a stable and authoritarian Hindu ethnostate could be established, that would only make the upper castes more powerful.

I have already noted that India is a classic Third World country: a thin, rich layer rules a vast majority of the desperate. The rulers have little motivation to improve the lot of the lower castes, as doing so would cause the current rulers to lose power. So the probability is high that India will remain in the Third World.

If the Brahmins and the other high castes got more powerful because India transformed into an authoritarian Hindu theocracy, the country would be even more likely to remain in the Third World.
 

AndrewS

Colonel
Registered Member
Even if a stable and authoritarian Hindu ethnostate could be established, that would only make the upper castes more powerful.

I have already noted that India is a classic Third World country: a thin, rich layer rules a vast majority of the desperate. The rulers have little motivation to improve the lot of the lower castes, as doing so would cause the current rulers to lose power. So the probability is high that India will remain in the Third World.

If the Brahmins and the other high castes got more powerful because India transformed into an authoritarian Hindu theocracy, the country would be even more likely to remain in the Third World.

Well, a stable authoritarian Hindu ethnostate could be established if:

1. the non-Hindu regions seceded or split off (Kashmir, Northeast, etc)
2. a minimum of 400 million non-Hindus were somehow removed from India (mostly Muslims or Dalits)

That would change the demographics enough for the Hindus to be sufficiently dominant.

But if Hindu culture isn't reformed to remove caste identity, then yes, the upper castes will continue to protect their unearned privileges and keep the lower castes down.
 

Bigboii

Junior Member
Registered Member
They need alliances throughout the globe- to be a proper superpower

If they get Asia (especially middle east and Central Asia) that alone will make tham superpower but by the standards set by west (Brit, America) it wouldn't be a big deal in the imagination of the world (but they'll be superpower none the less)

You won't be handed down the Korea, Germany, Japan, Turkey, Iran (at least during the Shah years) of the worlds

IE Rags to riches Story

You need to create these stories in countries strategically important to you and they may not be rich rn but you need to get tham rich so they can effectively do your bidding and keep your stratigecally important areas safe (need immense economic muscle for that tho)

and make sure you have thier balls in Beijing...
Making sure that flip flops will cost tham dearly
 

Jono

Junior Member
Registered Member
hey guys and girls.
I guess we have spent enough time discussing the potential of India.
shall we move on and focus back on China please.
I think with the ascent of China and its successful (and exemplary, if I may add) handling of COVID, the west is now feeling very threatened by the governance system of China.
for decades, the west has been trumpeting their form of democracy system as the most supreme form of governance on earth, to be aspired by all.
Democracy=freedom=prosperity and well being.
so any country not embracing democracy hook and sinker is branded a pariah and treated as an outcast.
Now China is offering an alternative system which works, efficiently and effectively, without much grandiose chest thumping and finger pointing.
the recent G7 meeting shows the decline in power and influence and insecurity of the west for the entire world to see. instead of showing leadership, as to how to lead the world forward and help solve the ills and problems of humanity, all they can muster is " stop China, contain China, counter China, and smear China by all means " , really pathetic.
G7=Gang of 7 vs one country.
to me, if it takes 7 developed countries to counter one country, that country must be doing really well to attract that much jealousy and animosity.
 

Bigboii

Junior Member
Registered Member
The
I do expect Chinese movies to improve since more and more talents will join the industry and the movie budgets will also grow. But I don't expect Chinese movies to be hugely popular outside China that soon. It could happen 50 years from now. But I still expect hollywood to remain atleast equally popular.
I feel language is a tad bit overrated ( I know you aren't pointing to that specifically but I have seen a lot of Chinese people making the language argument)

Look at Korea for example they have some of the best movies in the world (in recent times imo)

I barely watched Hollywood and movies in general but after seeing some Korean movies I was hooked

But barely anyone knows Korean
But it has a market, japanese anime in Japanese has a market outside of Japan, Bollywood has a market outside of SA, Asian Horror movies has a market

So I believe if you can sustain an industry in home market and the market is big enough for you to create big budget movie you are in the game

Next step is quality that's where Chinese movies that I watch are a let down

They try to copy Hollywood to attract US market but they lose the touch

Cause if I want to watch Hollywood Id rather watch Proper Hollywood

I came to see authentic Chinese movie made for Chinese audiences and not a mash up

look at Jackie Chan, IP man
Like successful artists in west

They're authentic! They try to represent Chinese culture

You need that to be successful, quality, authenticity

Language isn't that big of an issue imo
 

Top