China or India? - Page 4 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Wallaroo · #46 (**permalink**) 03-27-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pi Jiu

And thats not even speaking of the QUALITY of the expressways ... Indian expressways shouldn't even be called that. More like congested village roads where anything goes, for the most part.

Quite unlike China where the highway quality is up to western standards in most places.

A country like India would probably need at least 50.000 km of expressways if most of the population wants a car. Impossible when the country is so extremely crowded and definitely not the right way to go for India. The most suitable solution for India would be the danish dual mode transportation system RUF Dual Mode Transport System which the city of Calcutta already are very interested in.

3.14 · #47 (**permalink**) 03-27-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gort

I love this don't you? In order for asians to suceed they have to be ruled by dictatorships. If that were the case China should have passed us by a long time ago since they have been under a dictatorship of one kind or another pretty much all of its history. Oh they may have called themselves Emporers, or Nationalists, and then finally Communists, but underneath they all had one governing principle. No completition. What I am amused about is how any government that will not allow competition can compete with governments that will. China only realized that lately, so much for the dictatorship theory.

You have dodged his point, instead choosing to go off on a tangent.

Luke is absolutely right - third world countries, not just Asian countries need a certain amount of control, or actually a benevolent dictatorship (benevolent as far as the economy is concerned in China's case). Western principles of democracy aren't always condusive to rapid growth and development - in fact, democracy only works when the majority of the population is at a certain level of understanding which isn't the case with 3rd world nations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallaroo

A country like India would probably need at least 50.000 km of expressways if most of the population wants a car. Impossible when the country is so extremely crowded and definitely not the right way to go for India. The most suitable solution for India would be the danish dual mode transportation system RUF Dual Mode Transport System which the city of Calcutta already are very interested in.

Well, I slightly disagree - India definitely DOES need more and more better roads ... not just the dual mode system - that would work in the cities, but o utside the cities, good highways and railways are an absolute MUST for the country to develop.

As for most of the population wanting a car, that one is inevitable.

Gort · #48 (**permalink**) 03-27-2007

So what we are being told is the average asian is not as able to understand freedom of choice and how to make that choice as westerners? Do you think westerners just woke up one morning and decided "hey lets try democracy for a change?"

Yes we started out the same way with despots and dictators in the forms of kings and queens. SOme benevolent others less so. THe difference is apperantly the westerners were able to figure out how to make democracy work in less than 5000 years.

Your answers are a slam on asians and a pathetic effort to defend the system in China.

3.14 · #49 (**permalink**) 03-27-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gort

So what we are being told is the average asian is not as able to understand freedom of choice and how to make that choice as westerners?

No. What you are being told, if you'd care to actually read for a change (hey, Gort, reading is fun!) - is that the general population in most third world nations, if not all, be they in Asia, Africa, Uganda, Botswana or Chad, are not able to understand WHAT exact choices are right for them. Lack of education is one reason, though there are others.

Westerners live in first world nations, and this problem doesn't apply.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gort

Yes we started out the same way with despots and dictators in the forms of kings and queens. SOme benevolent others less so. THe difference is apperantly the westerners were able to figure out how to make democracy work in less than 5000 years.

What is your point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gort

Your answers are a slam on asians and a pathetic effort to defend the system in China.

My answers are a slam on Asians, and so are Luke's?

Really!

Gort, no offense, but you really have NO clue as to what you are talking about here - please educate yourself on the realities first before posting. You would look a lot less ignorant.

And as far as Asians and Asian culture goes, your ignorance is quite frankly amusing to the nth degree.

3.14 · #50 (**permalink**) 03-27-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gort

THe difference is apperantly the westerners were able to figure out how to make democracy work in less than 5000 years.

Oh, and before you whine about me not addressing this:

Western nations do not have many of the problems that current third world nations are plagued with. Overpopulation, riots, communal hatred, a lack of education amongst the majority ... all these things count. Westerners were blessed to live in lands where there was enough for all, and so democracy managed to work within a relatively short period.

This is not the case in Asia.

Gort · #51 (**permalink**) 03-27-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pi Jiu

No. What you are being told, if you'd care to actually read for a change (hey, Gort, reading is fun!) - is that the general population in most third world nations, if not all, be they in Asia, Africa, Uganda, Botswana or Chad, are not able to understand WHAT exact choices are right for them. Lack of education is one reason, though there are others.

Westerners live in first world nations, and this problem doesn't apply.

What is your point?

My answers are a slam on Asians, and so are Luke's?

Really!

Gort, no offense, but you really have NO clue as to what you are talking about here - please educate yourself on the realities first before posting. You would look a lot less ignorant.

And as far as Asians and Asian culture goes, your ignorance is quite frankly amusing to the nth degree.

When the magna carta was written in England what do you think the average education level of people in the street was?

WHen the US began a revolution to get rid of the english king how educated do you think the average man on the street with property was?

When the French went through their frst revolution how educated was the average frenchman.

Please I know exactly what you and Luke are saying. You essentially said it again. Asians are too ignorant to be trusted with making a free choice when it comes to political leadership and need to be led to the economic promied land by tyrants. If that was the case China as I point out has been run by one type of tyrant or another for the entire 20th century and if you are honest for pretty much all of its recorded history. Why is it then that it is only in the past 15 years or so that they are just getting to the promised land?

As for ignorance on the topic I prefer to let your posts speak for themselves thank you.

3.14 · #52 (**permalink**) 03-27-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gort

When the magna carta was written in England what do you think the average education level of people in the street was?

WHen the US began a revolution to get rid of the english king how educated do you think the average man on the street with property was?

How much space was available for everyone to live peacefully without fights and tension? How much religious difference was there between the people, and how much religious hatred?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gort

Please I know exactly what you and Luke are saying. You essentially said it again. Asians are too ignorant to be trusted with making a free choice when it comes to political leadership and need to be led to the economic promied land by tyrants.

Ah ... So here we have it. Your whole argument, as usual, is another meaningless antiChinese rant, simply because you think those who run China are tyrants, and have been brainwashed by the US media to believe everything about China is tyrannical and bad ...

Anyway, here is my point again in bold. Note the word "Asian" is missing. Read carefully, and focus like a laser beam. You might just get it.

Quote:

No. What you are being told, if you'd care to actually read for a change (hey, Gort, reading is fun!) - is that the general population in most third world nations, if not all, be they in Asia, Africa, Uganda, Botswana or Chad, are not able to understand WHAT exact choices are right for them. Lack of education is one reason, though there are others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gort

If that was the case China as I point out has been run by one type of tyrant or another for the entire 20th century and if you are honest for pretty much all of its recorded history. Why is it then that it is only in the past 15 years or so that they are just getting to the promised land?

Ah, I see "Asian" suddenly gets blended into "China" ...

Hey, Gort, India has been run by "tyrants" too for most of it's history. And guess what, in ancient times, India was the RICHEST nation in the whole world ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gort

As for ignorance on the topic I prefer to let your posts speak for themselves thank you.

You are the one that's ignorant, pretending to know about Asia and Asians when you are clearly not Asian, and have no clue about what life is like in Asia.

Gort · #53 (**permalink**) 03-27-2007

At lleast I have had the guts to let people know who and what I when it comes to nationality and ethnicity. WHere you are concerned you purposefully run from this issue so you can basically act like you know everything about everything.

I never claimed to be a China expert, if I did show me where or simply stop the comments that are factually not accurate. However one doesn't have to be an expert to be able to understand history.

3.14 · #54 (**permalink**) 03-27-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gort

At lleast I have had the guts to let people know who and what I when it comes to nationality and ethnicity. WHere you are concerned you purposefully run from this issue so you can basically act like you know everything about everything.

More ad hominem, and pure bunk as usual - you still haven't answered why exactly I should tell you where I am from, and what relevance it has to the debate at hand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gort

I never claimed to be a China expert, if I did show me where or simply stop the comments that are factually not accurate. However one doesn't have to be an expert to be able to understand history.

Most of your claims about the Chinese economy, for instance, are factually incorrect. I have pointed this out to you in the past, but am met with insults and put downs.

Wallaroo · #55 (**permalink**) 03-27-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pi Jiu

Well, I slightly disagree - India definitely DOES need more and more better roads ... not just the dual mode system - that would work in the cities, but o utside the cities, good highways and railways are an absolute MUST for the country to develop.

As for most of the population wanting a car, that one is inevitable.

Problem is the barrier effect which both expressways and new railroad lines create, and that would be a huge problem in such an overcrowded country. Imagine all the people that would have to move from their homes and all the fields that would be divided into two.

I say that India should upgrade existing railroad lines and build new airports/seaports, but forget about a large network of expressways and go with the RUF system instead because its cheaper and have no barrier effect.

Luke · #56 (**permalink**) 03-27-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gort

I love this don't you? In order for asians to suceed they have to be ruled by dictatorships. If that were the case China should have passed us by a long time ago since they have been under a dictatorship of one kind or another pretty much all of its history. Oh they may have called themselves Emporers, or Nationalists, and then finally Communists, but underneath they all had one governing principle. No completition. What I am amused about is how any government that will not allow competition can compete with governments that will. China only realized that lately, so much for the dictatorship theory.

You are just being arrogant. Thousands of years of dictatorship make Chinese civilization the only surviving civilization despite various types of foreign invasions. Egyptian, Babylonian and Ancient Indian civilizations are all devoured by foreign cultures. Chinese political and economic systems formed the leading civilization until the 18th century AD when Europeans finally abandoned church authority.

To be more accurate, Asian countries need good dictators of course. Therefore, what is important is to guarantee that only intelligent people can climb up the power pyramid. Elitism is very suitable in Asia.

About your competition theory, no one shall compete with the government, but the administrative people in the government must be able to win lots of competition, and the personnel in high positions must be flexible in order to guarantee elitism. Dictatorial elitism in later 19th century in Japan, later 20th century in S Korea, Taiwan and Singapore brings prosperity. With no proper elitism, pure dictatorship is not good for sure.

In conclusion, elitism, combined with dictatorial efficiency, is the most beneficial for Asia.

Luke · #57 (**permalink**) 03-27-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gort

So what we are being told is the average asian is not as able to understand freedom of choice and how to make that choice as westerners? Do you think westerners just woke up one morning and decided "hey lets try democracy for a change?"

Yes we started out the same way with despots and dictators in the forms of kings and queens. SOme benevolent others less so. THe difference is apperantly the westerners were able to figure out how to make democracy work in less than 5000 years.

Your answers are a slam on asians and a pathetic effort to defend the system in China.

You completely miss the point. The education level in developing countries, like China and India, is much lower than the education in developed countries. If 1.3 billion Chinese people in average are as highly educated as Americans, I will support "one vote for each person" system. (Actually, more educated and more capable people shall have more votes)

In order to improve the education levels, a country need resources!! Where are the resources?? Western countries are never willing to share their resources that they have accumulated through colony and racial slavery with developing countries. Therefore, the order is:
1. Use the most efficient way to gather resources as much as possible (Elitism plus discipline);
2. Improve education; 3. Gradually transfer to more liberal systems.
Western democracy is only good when people have higher education resources.

Wallaroo · #58 (**permalink**) 03-27-2007

Pi Jiu

Do you work with orphans or something....getting in touch with your inner Mother Theresa?

A lot of Scandinavians do that for a period of time when they are young.

Luke · #59 (**permalink**) 03-27-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gort

When the magna carta was written in England what do you think the average education level of people in the street was?

WHen the US began a revolution to get rid of the english king how educated do you think the average man on the street with property was?

When the French went through their frst revolution how educated was the average frenchman.

You raised an interesting issue. However, you selectively ignore that England, France and America had accumulated trememdous amount of resources by colonial robbing and systematic slavery. From these wealth, English and French at that time were in average much better educated than people from other countries at that time. Developing countries nowadays cannot follow the path of western countries.

By the way, when England is getting rich, it was not a democracy. They have to thank their elitism education and some intelligent Queens. American democracy was based on slavery and excluded women. France was under constant struggle between a republic and an empire.

Hudson · #60 (**permalink**) 03-27-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pi Jiu

Which will be a world superpower first? China, or India?

The answer to this question is very straightforward and simple - China. The socialist state of India will never ever become a superpower due to many endemic problems within its system of government, and overbearingly socialist economy.

However, there are many who furiously attack me when I say this, mostly due to a very biased outlook against China, and a very erroneous belief of China still being a totalitarian communist state, combined with a complete lack of knowledge of what China really is like these days. I suspect these folks have never been to China, have no idea what China is like these days, and are being tutored by Fox News or the like on "communism" and other irrelevant nonsense, while also choosing to ignore China's stupendous development.

Anyway, my question is this, which will be a world superpower first? China, or India? Please advise your opinion, along with plausible reasons.

My answer is: China. China is already up to first world standards by some benchmarks, and in another 30-40 years will definitely be the next superpower. India? Never, and I'll outline why below.

1. The Indian system of chaotic democracy, and socialist thinking only leads to corruption, going around in vicious circles, and very little development in the long run. In contrast, the Chinese one party system is far better, and is really what is required in India for progress. The Chinese one party system is the main reason why the country has progressed so fast, since the country is nowhere near as chaotic and lawless as India is. That, and ...

2. OVERPOPULATION! This is another major reason why India will never improve to the standard it should, while China jumps ahead by leaps and bounds. The Indian inability to get their population under control is pathetic to say the least.

3. The deplorable practices of socialism in India. The Indian economy is still a socialist economy, while the Chinese gave it up in the 70's.

4. The general socialist attitudes in India and age old thinking, which never changes no matter what is going on in the world.

The only things India does have going for it right now are more English speakers than China, and better IT people, BUT ...

1. English in India isn't necessarily English that others can understand. Only a very small %age of the population speaks standard English, and the rest speak their own "regional versions "of English, often laden with heavy, unintellgible accents and incomprehensible dialects. So, this is not an overall advantage in the long term, especially as the Chinese are learning US (or Aussie, UK, Canadain, South African) English to the exclusion of all others.

2. IT - Again the same problem - many IT folks, but the quality is not that good, and the wages are crap. Pure crap. China, on the other hand, while it may not have that many IT people now, is rapidly catching up in this aspect too.

I look forward to the Forum's response on this one. I would appreciate honest reasons and answers, and those without bias.

China will eventually may become a world superpower before India, but a lot of obstacles would have to be overcome.

1. Many countries distrust the Chinese government, even more so than the US or Europe, because of its recent political and economic history. This would include many Asian countries, some Latin American Countries, and even some African countries.

2. Although China is 4th currently in GDP, it still lags far behind the US, or the EU if taken as a whole (GDP $12.4 trillion and $13.4 trillion) with China being $2.2 trillion). And even with an annualized growth factor of about 8%, that cannot be sustained with the US and EU having an annualized growth from 3% to 4%. You also have labor shortages in some sectors, but this is at least being offset by the population migration from rural to urban areas, but not enough.

3. China is still inhibited by a centralized planning control mechanism, which could create shortfalls if the mechanism become inflexible. In other words, China's economy could ground to a halt if a serious economic crisis, like inflation or an economic sector, like agriculture, is hit hard. The world saw how ineffective the Chinese government was when SARS first came out. The government was secretative, inflexible, and practically ignoring the problem. If the same type of economic scenario hit China, you could see a repeat. This is what most economic and monetary professionals fear.

4. Curreny is going to appreciate to both the US Dollar and the Euro. it could cause Chinese exports to become more expensive to foreign consumers while domestic products, produced in China, could become cheaper. Thus competive forces could slow the growth factor.

What I outlined are reasons why China would not become an economic superpower; however, it does have some factors in its favor. As long as the Chinese people have the huge purchasing power advantage over other nations, it will continue to grow. This would allow more poltiical and economic reforms to be implemented instead of rushed. Thus the government could gain international momentum as a valued partner, not as a competitor or agitator to some nations. This is the hope of most Chinese officials and businessmen, but only fate will tell.