Re: High IQ China still (!) beats Low IQ India

tell us all what you have personally achieved in life, asian - go on.


"RichAsianKid" <richasiankid@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All right I've posted enough articles previously about how China has
all the right reasons to beat India. Examples:

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/060423_lynn.htm

AND

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/000828.html

And let's not forget, Shankar Acharya, Honorary Professor at Icrier
and former Chief Economic Adviser to the Government of India, had this
to add:

http://in.rediff.com/money/2005/sep/27china.htm

* * * *

So now, let's add another data point:

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?at_code=412947

China-India Influence: So Near, Yet So Far
BRIC is overhyped. Even India is overhyped. China is the main player

China isn't hype. It's a hard reality for the rest of the world powers
to readjust their respective positions unwillingly in order to let
this growing power take up more and more room in the limited global
arena.

And many powers, realizing the potential and reality of China shrank
their respective space to accommodate China, only to rediscover within
days that the space they vacated was occupied by this octopus-dragon
within days, and that it asking for even more sooner than anyone
expected.

Enough has been written on rising China; however the actual impact of
China can't be gauged with Western-style measures of economic power
(read GDP). That only understates China's power, helping China to
further strengthen itself without drawing adverse attention. In terms
of GDP, it still is 1/4th that of the U.S. or the EU.

Still many joined the hype when it came to focus on future growth
drivers of the world economy, and influencing geopolitics through a
combination of economic and military measures. And unfortunately, hype
has followers everywhere.

The biggest of that hype is proven by the coinage of the "BRIC"
acronym, encompassing the obvious four of the largest eight populous
countries.

The four not included in that Goldman Sachs creation are the U.S.
itself, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.

One scale does not fit all. It's high time that the world rewrites
that Brazil-Russia-India-China by beginning and ending with China
alone, and still it would be an understatement for China. If one wants
to add another important meaningful growth destination that can
influence the world economically and militarily, it's Russia.

On the other hand, India is all hype. As time moves, more and more of
the hype is falling part, compared to China.

It's either propaganda or stupidity that often compares India and
China as running side by side in the same race of economic growth,
accompanied with influencing world opinion (read Asia-Pacific/South
Asia). Their similarities are few, whereas the differences stand like
the Himalayas in between these two neighboring nations.

Many miss those high mountains of differences between India and China
in an apparently "flat world" on two-dimensional maps. Policymakers in
the West, in spite of knowing fully well how naive the Indo-China
comparisons are, are only too happy to go along, as it apparently
reduces the pressure on their assumed superpower status.

Talking about two smaller rising competing neighborly stars in the
single superpower world are much more comforting than facing a rapidly
rising economic monster. India has been used in that propaganda as a
pawn, and a few in India have fallen for the short-term glamor of that
comparative propaganda without considering the long-term potential
loss when the time comes for the scorecards to be read out wide in the
open.

The similarities are obvious, and can't be missed. To repeat the
obvious, these are:

(1) Both India and China have population of 1 billion-plus, India at
1.1 billion and China at 1.3 billion. However with present trends,
India will exceed China between 2030 and 2050, maybe even earlier. And
the next country in population (the U.S.) is only one-quarter the size
of these two. Even when 57 countries from Africa (933 million) or 52
European countries or regions (809 million) are taken as a whole, each
of them fall short of the billion mark. That's how India and China
compare in population to the rest of the world! Therefore when one
feels that it demands an Indian eye to understand the "real" China,
the feeling may not be discarded easily.

(2) Short-term economic growth rates for last couple of years,
irrespective of the bases and the long term historical data, had these
two nations at the top of the world list, and caused the hype to be
fed by ignoring the longer-term trends and other trademarks of these
two societies; and finally:

(3) Both India and China have had rich cultural and economic
prosperity in the past. Both have histories of 5,000 years or even
older, and for nearly the two millennia preceding the industrial
revolution, these two nations were what the U.S. and Europe is to
present world. India and China contributed 20 percent or even more to
global GDP for close to 2,000 years.

The long-term past is never an indicator of the short-term future. And
the short-term pasts for India and China have almost nothing in common
beyond the obvious to indicate that they would have similar results in
short-term future.

India and China have more differences that would critically determine
what roles they play in near-term global affairs. And their global
roles are likely to be different, one with the voice of 1.3 billion
demanding more with every passing day; and the other struggling to
identify the common voice from its caste-based, religion-based,
language-based, party-based fragmented 1.1 billion.

The only commonality here again is the sharp division these two
nations have created along the economic lines of prosperity -- with a
small number of haves and a significant majority of have-nots. India
has come on top of the Asian billionaires list with 36 billionaires
having combined net-wealth of $191 billion; China has 20 billionaires
with combined wealth of $29.4 billion. Indian billionaires control
wealth nearly three times the government's annual budget; in China,
the annual budget exceeds by five times the billionaires' combined
wealth.

* * * *

And here's the second part (imagine that, RichAsianKid doing all this
selflessly just to further human knowledge, wow, friends may call him
asiantrash, he may yet be some masochistic scut)

http://www.bloggernews.net/17502

India increasingly looks like the case of a lost democracy, in China
there is no democracy. India has fallen prey to crony capitalism;
China has adopted socialist market economy with tremendous state
control and intervention. India liberalized its economy with literacy
rate of 55% and poverty rate of 40%, if not worse, an unheard of
proposition even in the west in light of the social fabric.
Liberalization in India resulted in curtailing government spend/
investments severely not only in manufacturing or industries, but also
in social sectors (combined center and state spend on social sector
dipped below 20% lately, a drop of 4% in as many years), and as a
result today crony capitalists dictate Indian government what they
expect, and Indian government is too-happy to deliver like midwives
delivering babies to the wishes of these crony capitalists.

China allowed industries to boom by retaining absolute control over
policies, investing heavily itself in infrastructure along with
attracting tremendous and unforeseen levels of FDIs; true there were
casualties in employee rights, in human rights or even on
environmental fronts.

India championed in empty rhetoric failing thereby both in protecting
human rights or delivering the growth impetus; China delivered without
caring how people within or outside felt on its style of delivery.
India never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity; China
created and grabbed opportunities.

India and China are likely to have distinctly different roles in
coming days, contrary to what's popularly projected in global media
about the common road they would traverse in short-term to medium-term
future. Part I of this article dealt with their superficial (but
misleading) similarities.

The differences, as such, are many. The most important ones are listed
here with little bit of history and their likely local and global
impacts:



1. Literacy Rate: China at 90.9% still ranks at the 80th position
globally; whereas India with 61% literacy stands at the 144th position
out of 176 nations. Sociologists worth their salt in India know
teacher absenteeism in state-aided primary schools is as high as
18-57%. Many of those schools run with a single teacher; and it's only
obvious that half the students' who complete primary schools, and
constitute to be the largest chunk of literates in India, practically
remains illiterate. Ample examples with the likes of South Korea
globally show how important literacy as the sole soft infrastructure
is in economic development. Incidentally both China and India had
their literacy rates at 20% levels back in the 1950s.
2. Trade surplus/deficit - India happens to be the only major
nation in Asia-Pacific or even in emerging blocks with significant
trade deficits, in-spite of globalization of trade and easy export-
money everywhere in this region. The deficits could be managed due to
easy global liquidity so far; and less is said about trade surplus in
China, the better. Global news headlines scream at unsustainable $230
billion trade imbalances between the U.S. and China itself; whereas
India's overall exports is little more than half that trade surplus
China enjoys with the U.S. With all the hyped services outsourcing and
IT prowess linked to India, India runs closed to 6% of its GDP is
unsustainable trade deficits; and barring the U.S., no other major
economy do enjoy that luxury. As a result of that, forex reserves in
India ($200 billion) stands at 1/7th of the equivalent Chinese figures
($1.4 trillion). Indian capitalists beat the drums of free market when
it suits them; and ask for government to intervene when it hurts them.
Rise of rupee against dollar, sort of a global phenomenon with falling
dollar, has prompted Indian exporters for government intervention/
support in the form of export subsidies.
3. Consumption of hard infrastructure: In steel, consumption/capita/
year in India is nearly 1/10th of equivalent Chinese figure, India
consumes hardly 40 kgs (90lbs)/capita/year whereas China consumes
around 350 kgs/capita/year. India incidentally has abundant good
quality iron ore, and China (having low-ash coke) imports iron-ores
from India. In cement, India produces (170MT) hardly 1/7th of what
China does (1.1 bn tons). Coming to power consumption/capita, India
stands at 1/5th of Chinese figures again. China added 300,000 MWs of
capacity in last three years and thereby doubled its installed
capacities (622,000 MWs); India has a capacity of 104,000 MW.
Naturally consumers in India, from agriculture to industry to
households; all pay dearly for the power-crisis, hampering
unimaginable loss to the economy.
4. Accountability/responsibility: The biggest difference in India
is no one is accountable or responsible for any failures whereas hyped
successes have expectedly many fathers in India. Indian power minister
blames states for the power shortage in India; Indian Prime Minister
blames Indian industry paying high wages to its senior managers for
phenomenal growth in 'exclusive growth' and 'crony capitalism' whereas
his cabinet forms policies that pay for industries with Indian tax-
payers money in different forms of sops and subsidies.

Indian Supreme Court did put on hold the OBC reservation policy by
asking the government to 'set the rules first before it plays the
game', whereas in case of another controversial policy (an attempt to
copy from China, by the way), the SEZ policy, no one still knows what
the rules are. There was a sealing for 5000 hectares in SEZ Policy
even in last month; and now it's gone with the clearance of bigger
SEZs, that too without land-ownerships. It all depends on the
influence a capitalist has in the government, and different SEZ
policies would emerge to suit their customized needs. No one in India
would know for sure what the latest SEZ policy is and how long that
would stay. And by relegating basic government responsibility to
create both soft and hard infrastructure to an adequate level before
competition can take over, in the name of free markets, privatization
(or Public-Private Partnerships), Indian government has abandoned
governance too early towards the development of a crony-capitalized
society.



1. Other economic measures: India has market-exchange rate with
central bank intervention, China has regulated exchange rate. China,
in-spite of absorbing the huge inflows and artificially keeping its
currency low, could manage inflation (at around 3%, true rising lately
but managed well between 2-3% for years) while delivering nearly
double-digit growth for couple of decades. India with couple of years
of 8-10% growth is already bleeding under high inflation rates (5-6+
%). Cost of capital in China, in-spite of often repeated slogans of
slowing economy, is much less than that in India. Indian government
debates on how closed to $60 billion, lying idle for years with state-
owned Public Sector Units, or similar huge Provident Fund money, not
even getting assured market-rate of returns, can be channeled to the
stock markets; whereas that sum, if invested in power or roads or
ports can collectively do the country much better, thereby delivering
better returns to the shareholders and stakeholders of those funds as
well.



India's economic growth is slowing before even touching that magical
double digit number even for a single year; whereas contrary to all
textbook theories, China looks like a heavy train, accelerating with
every passing quarter. And when IMF forecast for growth for all
emerging economies is at 7.5%, and 5% for the world; India's 8%
projected growth looks no big deal. Per-Capita Income of India stands
at two-fifth level of China, both in nominal and PPP terms; and Indian
savings rate of little over 30% falls short of 50% savings rate of
China. In terms of market-capitalization, India stands at $1 trillion,
China is at around $2 trillion; however when Hong Kong is included, it
gets closer to $3.5 trillion for China. India allows derivatives
trading, China doesn't; in India there is no separate pricing for
domestic or foreign investors, allowing FIIs with unending reserves to
play havoc in an apparently depthless market where retail investors
often pay the price of being the victims, China tries to protect
domestic investors with some safeguards, true effectiveness of these
safeguards can be questioned.



1. Posture (China's aggression and India's tepid acceptance: Some
six months back, in a train in India I met an officer working with
Indian Railways, the lifeline of India. The uniqueness of this
gentleman was his ability was his rattling of latitudes and
longitudes, up to couple of decimal points, of smaller unknown places.
He did travel extensively in the North Eastern Provinces of India; and
he told me categorically that China would take away Arunachal Pradesh
(AP) from India one day, sooner or later. He also shared many of his
frustrations on why India continuously fails to counter internal
terrorism (lack of intelligence). I did not take his China aggression
views seriously; however he explained how China has built logistics
and rail-links to their border with AP, whereas India has let the rail-
links from British period die in those remote parts due to negligence.
In next few months till date, I read often in mainstream media about
China claiming AP to be part of it, with stronger and stronger voice
with every passing day.



China has illegally taken possession of a large part of Jammu and
Kashmir (J&K) as well. Both sides have their claims and counterclaims.
Rather than facing the truth with courage, Indian school kids are
still taught about the maps where undivided J & K is shown as an
integral part of India. India is known to be soft, and would accept
any nonsense (example of Kargil war, with Pakistan) whereas China has
been able to send a no-nonsense strong signal globally, more so with
India. One wonders whether any Indian ambassador in China can claim
Tibet to be part of India and still be based in Beijing. Probably not,
not even for a single day.



India does not have any consistent foreign policy, what it has is a
political theater of democracy to be in power, at any cost. There
isn't a single example where Indian diplomacy and foreign policy have
succeeded fairly, not even in Bhutan (going by latest reports), Nepal
or Sri Lanka (who may now consider the option of taking Chinese or
Pakistani help in its fight against LTTE if Indian response is
inadequate). Bangladesh, a country surrounded by India on three sides,
and where India played significant role in its freedom back in the
1970s, today decides in favor of China for its gas-exploration
contracts, ignoring ongoing Indian discussions for years. It's the
same story in military-ruled Myanmar. Land-based links for China from
AP to Bangladesh or to Myanmar to the Bay of Bengal would help China
commercially and militarily, weakening India's position further.
Obvious Sino-Pak relationship and interests are well-known. And this
is the only part of the world having three proven Nuclear Powers with
reasonably proven delivery mechanisms. Any forms of escalation with
unjustified aggressions can happen anytime in South Asia.

Beyond Asia, China has successfully started influencing untapped
Africa also like never before with its trillion-dollars reserve cash
pile. India is yet to get its long due recognition even within various
Asian forums (ASEAN).

Any power anywhere needs to be balanced with counter powers. Monopoly
anywhere rots, and present unipolar world is a glaring example of
that. With the reducing U.S. influence, countries from Japan to South
Korea (where US defense has permanent base, it also has presence in
Philippines) to others in Asia-Pacific may come under strong Chinese
influence sometime in the future.

None has any objection to China and its legitimate global right of 1.3
billion people. However what many are concerned about is the
aggressive signals that China routinely sends - to its very own
neighbors. China should realize that before it gets accepted and
acknowledged as a responsible global power, its very own neighbors
need to accept that first; and help it achieve bigger role in the
global arena.

To counter a unipolar and aggressive China in these parts (East Asia,
Asia-Pacific, South Asia) of the world, this is high time that like-
minded democratic nations from Japan to South Korea to India develop
alternative arrangements locally, starting now itself as it's better
late than never. Prevention is better than cure. India is not able to
respond adequately to Chinese aggression even with its own borders,
and India's future influence in this region to counter alone that of
Chinese influence would be grossly inadequate. If countries in this
region start relying too much on the external U.S. protection, which
to counter China has to grow proportionately in this region, may prove
counterproductive both for other Asian economies and also for China.
It's another matter that rise and fall of powers forecast fall of U.S.
influence sometime in the future, signs of signs are already visible
with Iran impasse.

Other countries of the region - starting with Japan, South Korea, and
others should act on counter-balancing strategy with India so that
Asia does not get affected by rotting monopolistic super-power ever in
future. Though China isn't like that today, there is no guarantee that
with unforeseen opportunities, it does not become one misguided
superpower in near-to-medium term future.

Ranjit Goswami is a research scholar with the Indian Institute of
Technology (IIT), Kharagpur, India; and is the author of the book
"Wondering Man, Money & Go(l)d'".

----

Postmortem analysis - RAK comments: Ladies and gents, I therefore ask
you, isn't this **perhaps** an example of biology triumphing over
ideology? No way of proving it of course, but keep in mind the
clockworks of the modern world: the right does not always win, but the
winner is always right. I'm all for democracy for sure, but I'm not
one starry-eyed proponent in defiance of all evidence, like naively
hoping for some middle east country to reform totally and to be remade
in our image like some blank slate. I think democracy is a very useful
tool, and very productive tool, but not an end in itself. (I know, how
disappointing, hey, convince me otherwise). More importantly I see
that people are different. Blacks are VERY different from whites.
LIkewise with Asians. Races do matter in the aggregate. If not you
won't have these multimillion dollar commissions trying to 'tackle'
this diversity problem. If diversity is so natrual, you won't have to
tell people what to have or what not to have. Afterall, do you have to
convince teenagers to have sex?

For intellectuals (ahem, like RichAsianKid), the case of how former
communist and now fascist IQ 105 China has now (as of 2007) decisively
triumphed over diverse democractic IQ 81 India indicates to them, to
RAK, to us, that well-meaning ideological programs, even on a grand
scale, just ain't everything. Social outcomes do make a difference -
but it's only in the context of underlying demographics, i.e.
biological inklings and makeup, afterall.


.