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


AndrewS

Colonel
Registered Member
Yes, the US under Trump staged by far the worst COVID response of any major country in the world, so it is a low bar to get over to beat it. but still, beating Germany ain’t bad.

From my viewpoint, the Indian response was actually worse than the US.

India has a draconian lockdown at no notice with absolutely no consideration of how to keep people from hundreds of millions of people from going hungry everyday.

The whole point of the first Indian lockdown was to buy time for testing capacity and treatment capacity to be ramped up. But this didn't happen, so all the suffering from that lockdown was pointless.

It reminded me of demonetisation which was trumpeted as another Modi-success, but everyone outside India can see it was pointless and left Indians poorer and worse off.

Since then, there is still a shortfall in testing capacity and the Indian government didn't bother with ordering any vaccines. It was only in April that the Indian government funded the vaccine manufacturers. Even then, I can see the production targets are pitiful compared even to the US response.

Plus the US federal government decides on vaccine allocations and pricing. In comparison, different states and private hospitals in India were all competing for vaccines. So there was a lot more waste, everything was slower, and also cost more.
 

AndrewS

Colonel
Registered Member
I notice that you are simply comparing India in 2020 to China in 1970 whereas I was pointing out the advancement China made in 1970s compared to 1949.

Take literacy rate for example. China went from 20% literacy rate in 1949 to 68% in 1982. Over the same period, Indian literacy rate went from 18% to 43%. If we look at the most recent 30 years, China's literacy rate went from 78% to 97% while India's went from 48% to 74%.

Even in modern times, India is incapable of achieving the kind of growth China achieved in the 1970s.

Covid 19 further exposed the inadequacies of Indian society: rampant religious superstition, widespread ignorance of basic hygiene, and an incompetent government detached from reality.

Those are not the marks of a rising society. In the next 30 years, instead of a rising India, we will be seeing a decline of Indian status and influence around the world.

@Richard Santos
@vincent

Indian education is at the bottom of the world rankings, and has gotten worse over the past decade, as per PISA.
This lack of education will stay with these children for the rest of their lives in the next 50+ years.
COVID and Hindu nationalism will only make things even worse, because half of all Indian children are poor Dalits, Tribals or Muslims.

In January, the Indian government announced its plan to rejoin the Program for International Student Assessment, or
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, after a 10-year absence. The country dropped out of the ranking, run by the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, in 2009 after being placed 72nd out of 74 nations.
...
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, school enrolment in India is up but the quality is often poor and is getting worse in some places. Nationally, only about half of children can read, and less than a third can do basic arithmetic, according to the report.
...
But even with its best government schools being tested, India is still likely to come near the bottom of the PISA table, according to Jishnu Das, education economist at the World Bank's
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. This won’t come as a surprise to the government, which is already aware of declining education scores over the past decade thanks to school assessments conducted by education research nonprofit ACER India, he said.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

discspinner

Junior Member
Registered Member
Given India's development level, it ought to easily be growing at least 8% per year. That it hasn't speaks volumes. Notably, this year the gap will grow even more. How, may you ask, assuming India grows 8% and China grows 8% this year? Well, the rupee hasn't budged against the dollar while the yuan will likely appreciate 15% year on year. The gap in nominal gdp will grow from 5.5x to more than 6x.
 

siegecrossbow

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Given India's development level, it ought to easily be growing at least 8% per year. That it hasn't speaks volumes. Notably, this year the gap will grow even more. How, may you ask, assuming India grows 8% and China grows 8% this year? Well, the rupee hasn't budged against the dollar while the yuan will likely appreciate 15% year on year. The gap in nominal gdp will grow from 5.5x to more than 6x.

Rupee has actually depreciated against the dollar.
 

Tyler

Senior Member
Registered Member
Given India's development level, it ought to easily be growing at least 8% per year. That it hasn't speaks volumes. Notably, this year the gap will grow even more. How, may you ask, assuming India grows 8% and China grows 8% this year? Well, the rupee hasn't budged against the dollar while the yuan will likely appreciate 15% year on year. The gap in nominal gdp will grow from 5.5x to more than 6x.
How do you come up with 15% appreciate of the RMB? It has not changed much since last year.
 

discspinner

Junior Member
Registered Member
How do you come up with 15% appreciate of the RMB? It has not changed much since last year.
It's appreciated around 12% since the lows of last May.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I saw 14% somewhere else but can't find it. It may have been a projection of where the yuan will be at the end of the year.
 

Phead128

Senior Member
All of East Asian states were dictatorships or defacto single-party states during their industrialization period (Japan during Meiji-era or 40-years under LDP-single party rule, Taiwan under Chiang Kai Shek and son dictatorship, South Korea under Park Chung Hee dictatorship, Singapore under Lee Kew Yuan strongmen, Hong Kong under colonial governor regime, or China under the Paramount leaders).

All of European states were under Imperial, Monarchs, or Colonial Empire rule during their industrialization period, whether it's the Kings of England, Kings of France, Kaisers of Germany, Tsars of Russia, Kings of Holland, King of Italy, etc...

Only the United States was a constitutional Democratic republic during it's industrialization period, but as an inheritor of the Anglo-Saxon industrial revolution legacy, vast land/resources, and slavery, it's industrialization experience is unique. Not to mention the powerbrokers were still rich white slave-owning elites, so it's not truly a diverse representative democracy.

India is one outlier attempt industrialization as a democracy. India can achieve the veneer or superficial aspects of industrialization, but with it's bureaucracy and democratic partisanship, brain drain, and caste backwardness, I do not see India achieve anywhere near China's level of industrialization the near future.
 

Richard Santos

Senior Member
Registered Member
All of East Asian states were dictatorships or defacto single-party states during their industrialization period (Japan during Meiji-era or 40-years under LDP-single party rule, Taiwan under Chiang Kai Shek and son dictatorship, South Korea under Park Chung Hee dictatorship, Singapore under Lee Kew Yuan strongmen, Hong Kong under colonial governor regime, or China under the Paramount leaders).

All of European states were under Imperial, Monarchs, or Colonial Empire rule during their industrialization period, whether it's the Kings of England, Kings of France, Kaisers of Germany, Tsars of Russia, Kings of Holland, King of Italy, etc...

Only the United States was a constitutional Democratic republic during it's industrialization period, but as an inheritor of the Anglo-Saxon industrial revolution legacy, vast land/resources, and slavery, it's industrialization experience is unique. Not to mention the powerbrokers were still rich white slave-owning elites, so it's not truly a diverse representative democracy.

India is one outlier attempt industrialization as a democracy. India can achieve the veneer or superficial aspects of industrialization, but with it's bureaucracy and democratic partisanship, brain drain, and caste backwardness, I do not see India achieve anywhere near China's level of industrialization the near future.

The fact that most european states were monarchies during the 19th century rather obscures a more subtle reality on the ground. Outside of Russia, the era of absolute monarchy in Europe was largely brought to an end by around 1850 as an result of longer lasting effect of the French revolution and Napoleonic war. The monarchs, while not powerless, generally had limited ability to influence the economic policies and legal developments of most states. The tradition of effective parliamentarianism in states such as holland, belgium, italy and germany was in fact fairly well developed under 19th century monarchies.

It would be reasonable to suppose the powers of monarchs were far more circumscribed, abd they were far more beholden to a truly elected parliment, during main parts of their industrialization than the strongmen in Taiwan and south korea during their industrializations, or the CCP central committee in china now.
 
Last edited:

Richard Santos

Senior Member
Registered Member
All of East Asian states were dictatorships or defacto single-party states during their industrialization period (Japan during Meiji-era or 40-years under LDP-single party rule, Taiwan under Chiang Kai Shek and son dictatorship, South Korea under Park Chung Hee dictatorship, Singapore under Lee Kew Yuan strongmen, Hong Kong under colonial governor regime, or China under the Paramount leaders).

All of European states were under Imperial, Monarchs, or Colonial Empire rule during their industrialization period, whether it's the Kings of England, Kings of France, Kaisers of Germany, Tsars of Russia, Kings of Holland, King of Italy, etc...

Only the United States was a constitutional Democratic republic during it's industrialization period, but as an inheritor of the Anglo-Saxon industrial revolution legacy, vast land/resources, and slavery, it's industrialization experience is unique. Not to mention the powerbrokers were still rich white slave-owning elites, so it's not truly a diverse representative democracy.

India is one outlier attempt industrialization as a democracy. India can achieve the veneer or superficial aspects of industrialization, but with it's bureaucracy and democratic partisanship, brain drain, and caste backwardness, I do not see India achieve anywhere near China's level of industrialization the near future.
india is not attempting industrialization as a democracy. It is attempting to industrialize as a relatively new federal state that had no tradition of common outlook and shared parogatives between its states.

Furthermore ability to achieve a common outlook was sabotaged by the British on their way out by purposedly working the iniquitous privileges of some indian states over the others set as precondition for their joining the british Raj in the 1700s and 1800s into the indian constitution as condition of Indian independence.

Part of Modi’s appeal is he create the illusion he can rise above the states and impose an effective central direction. This illusion was shattered by Covid round 2.
 
Last edited:

Top