pull down to refresh

Can India grow as fast as China did? Can India do it without Bitcoin?
886 sats \ 9 comments \ @IamSINGLE 28 Sep bitcoin
In case you already don't know CNBC publishes an "Inside India" where I saw this report which surprisingly was not venomous towards China's recent economic vows. It was rather a realistic narration of the future financial projections for one third of the world's population. The CNBC article cleat indicates that India doesn't stand a chance to overtake China's economy, at least not in 21st century. The reasons given are all true and I too believe that India won't surpass China's economy like the way it's going right now. Be surprised but I'm buying this CNBC newsletter.
The growth rate is politically important for Prime Minister Narendra Modi as he’s set out his vision to make India a developed economy by 2047 – a mere 23 years away and when India will log a whole century as an independent nation.
Meanwhile, China, now an upper-middle-income country, has grown by more than 10% annually for more than 22 years since the 1960s, according to CNBC’s count of World Bank data. India has never managed to achieve that feat.
Currently China's Nominal GDP stands at 18.5 trillion USD which is almost 500% more than that of India's. If India needs to come closer to China's GDP, it at least requires to manage at least a 15% growth rate for the rest of this century to even come closer to China's GDP. However, currently the GDP growth rate in India is just about managing a healthy 7% (approax) yoy increase in the GDP. They say figures won't lie, however I have so many other concerns regarding India for which I'm quite skeptical of it being in the race of even becoming a developed economy by 2047, let alone the question Can India grow as fast as China did? The answer lies in culture and politics rather than economics. So, here's my take on why India might never progress at a speed like China did.
First of all India's 150 B people are just too many for its limited area. India is seventh biggest country by its area but no. 1 I population. If only India had 50 million people and all spoke the same language, Tata, Infosys, Reliance and other big companies combined could make it a developed country. China also had a burst in population but its area size is around 200% more than that of India's. We all know more land means more resources and China surely profited in a big way for this. Also, China didn't have population above 1 billion while it was growing.
TBH, with her size and diversity, India is not an underachiever. She is doing just fine. China had some exceptional advantages as a country that would have been developed long ago if it wasn't for civil war, invasions and western sanctions. In fact it is proportionately far far less than what it should be. The same could be applied to India but not now.
On cultural front, it seems China is more united than India. The Chinese people have a cultural foundation of thousands of years. India also enjoy a cultural foundation but it is faulty. While most of the China speaks Mandarin, India has at least 22 major languages. While China has Buddhism as a major religion, India is a land of all religions, 70% Hindus, 22% Muslims and 8% others.
On political front, China enjoys a better electoral system. It is similar to that of enterprises. The Chinese presidents are the top leaders in several provinces and have led hundreds of millions of people to obtain them. Unlike India, the head of the country (Prime Minister) may be elected without any prior experience. The Chinese government's system seems to be a one-party ruling, but the Communist Party can stand out from the people through various tests, which in fact is not a case in India. As per latest publications dated 23 March 2024 from Election Commission of India, and subsequent notifications, there are 6 national parties, 57 state parties, and 2,764 unrecognised parties.1
Talking about China's social atmosphere, the ideological liberation activities of China’s May Fourth Movement2, the Cultural Revolution and so on have made China’s feudal system ineffective. Now most people believe that science is rejuvenating and feudalism has almost disappeared. However, the ethnic (caste) system in India is still deeply rooted.
So, when India's corporate media publishes things like *India may leave Chian behind before 2050 or in 21st century, I don't buy any of such. Instead such news always makes me think about how politics under democracy runs on false promises. Recently, I've heard that China is considering to allow Bitcoin mining and other uses, India has been exploring ways how to discourage Bitcoin adoption by Indians.
I can only dream India getting past, China if only India leads the Bitcoin Movement in middle and South East Asia. But, this is not happening right now, nor is India progressing. All claims of India becoming developed (like the one as USA or EU are) are just false hopes that are being regularly served to rather satisfied people of this most diverse country.
So, the question whether India can grow as fast as China once did, the straight answer is "No". It is surely not gonna happen without Bitcoin.

Footnotes

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_India ↩
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Fourth_Movement ↩
write
preview
related posts
37 sats \ 5 replies \ @Satosora 28 Sep
It depends on how much they skew the numbers. But I dont doubt India is growing fast. China seems to be having quite a bit of its own troubles.
reply
31 sats \ 4 replies \ @Undisciplined 29 Sep
It's well worth questioning how much of the Chinese growth was real. I don't doubt that it's more developed and wealthier than India, but 5x? I'm skeptical. There's been a lot of fake growth in China that was really just capital misallocation.
From the outside, my sense is that India's big hurdle is the overbearing regulatory state. If India ever enacted free market reforms, they'd soar past China in no time.
reply
41 sats \ 2 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 29 Sep
Free market reforms are not the cure all. If you think they are you did not read Adam Smith sufficiently carefully. What is required is a good government oversight with continuity and strategy. These countries (India and China and virtually all other non 'western nations) have been screwed over by western imperialism and most of them are locked into a state of ongoing subjugation and exploitation by the still dominant western empire/s. Without a government capable of projecting your nations will all 'developing' nations will remain stuck in an endless cycle of moving sideways, dependent upon the western imperial nations who put them in this state deliberately to gain the upper hand. India is hopelessly divided internally and is stuck with a form of government imposed upon it- entirely inappropriate to its actual economic and developmental requirements, again- no accident! China on the other hand has developed its unique and genuinely Chinese form of government and strategy designed to confront the western imperialism that caused such humiliation and exploitation from The Opium Wars onward until WW2. There is significant denial among the west, especially Libertarians who cannot fathom how and why a nominally 'communist' one party state China can for decades outperform the west. Its simple- The Chinese government directs capital flows toward a strategy designed to advance Chinese interests. Chinese strategy is logically coordinated internally and externally. In contrast in the West Capital has captured governments and uses them to advance its own narrow rentseeking interests- there is no cohesive government led strategy because western governments are hopelessly owned by corporate sponsors.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 29 Sep
There's been a lot of development in economic thought since Adam Smith. I encourage you to look into it sometime. Smith is the beginning (sort of), not the end.
China has never outperformed the west (at least not in the past couple of centuries). Fast growth is a function starting from such a low point and reversing course on insane communist policies. Performance of an economy is about the standard of living enjoyed by the people in it.
More freedom = more prosperity. China still doesn't have much of either, but it has more of both than it did under Mao. You're the one not comprehending this very straightforward relationship and confusing your wishful thinking for data.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 29 Sep
Human nature has not changed since Adam Smith.
Standard of living depend upon the quality and efficiency of the internal economy and upon the extent of trade and resource hegemony. Both of these factors rely upon the quality of government a nation enjoys, or suffers.
China was the most advanced economy on earth 1000-500 years ago. Marco Polo saw it. It enjoyed dominance over and tribute from all immediate neighbours except Japan. It enjoyed a rational and efficient tax system and logistics trade routes infrastructure funded via taxation in a win win manner. Medieval China was far more wealthy and stable than medieval Europe because China had a cohesive unified and efficient government. Europe was a shambles of schisms, factions, poverty and incessant war.
While it was never in competition with the west before 1800, since The Opium Wars it has been forced to respond to the brutal global resource imperialism imposed by the west. China is virtually the only non euro-christian culture to have never been completely subjugated and to now be in a position to reject western imperialisms dictates.
China is now responding- Both Ukraine and Middle East conflicts are proxy wars between China and The West. State power and economic strength inevitably rest heavily upon the military and strategic power projection capability...this is where Libertarians fail to see the world as it is and always has been.
There is far more latent support for Chinas new economic model than N.Korea, Iran and Russia who are already operating under Chinas new empire and openly challenging the wests imperialism. The west with its late empire decadence and division is under a real challenge.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satosora 29 Sep
They have the labor and the people willing to work. Isnt the royalty over there a bit greedy?
reply
84 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 29 Sep
European Imperialism came in and utterly destroyed traditional governmental structures- India is still carrying the structural dysfunction of British Imperialism.
In contrast China was Never fully taken over by western imperialists- it was hugely traumatised but over the 20th century China regained its sovereignty and reconfigured itself in a manner capable of Responding to western Imperialism. Yes that reconfiguration involved some massive internal conflict such as the Cultural Revolution but since then China is now capable and demonstrating it has a level of sovereignty no other nation has enjoyed post western imperialism. China is now building an empire of its own with Russia and Iran and N.Korea already subservient tribute states to it. Chinas current growth rates of close to 5% are still the envy of all western democracies and India. China has won the trade and logistics war- there is no nation on earth that can afford not to trade with China without losing significant economic advantage.
India is still stuck in the dysfunctional state that imperialism deliberately placed it.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @rebel_nomad 29 Sep
On cultural front, it seems China is more united than India.
99 out of a 100 times I'd always meet any "diversity" BS not even with a reply, whenever it comes out of the former free world its nothing but communist brain rot
But for India? It is probably actually real strength!
As for growth, is that really necessary in terms of GPD? Which is nothing but delusional fiat thinking, where the fabric of cultures has no value and where resource management is about total depletion for the 0.1% on the very top only...
What might be done for the very bottom that is literally starving? I can't speak at all for India, I've only been there a few days in 94... But I'd still warn of adopting any of the Western delusions and especially globalist mind viruses and technocratic assault on humanity itself!
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby 29 Sep
India has better demographics than China. I don't know if they can match China's growth but I think they will do extremely well in the coming decades.
reply