The Indian policymakers are barking up the wrong tree. Such tantrums as Delhi is displaying can only make India look foolish — not only in Beijing but in the world capitals too, which take China’s rise as the most consequential event in modern history. Chinese writings increasingly have an air of condescension toward the Modi government’s policies. Worse still, a window of opportunity is closing on a potentially productive relationship that could help advance India’s development meaningfully, which ought to have been Modi’s top priority today — not geopolitics.China is developing rapidly while India remains a basket case relatively with little hope on the horizon without major changes that will be difficult to implement without enormous restructuring across the board. The development that is taking place is under the aegis of US firms with the aim of extracting economic rent rather than assisting Indians.
Development will be very difficult for India even under the best of circumstances owing to demographics. For example the average IQ of the population of China is 105; of the US, 98, and of India 82 (source). This reflects a dismal educational system as well as the persistence of the caste system. The average IQ of the Brahmin caste is 120. (Right, I know that IQ has issues, but it is indicative of cultural type, educational level, and human resources.)
India needs a cultural revolution in addition to a political one, but the basis is not there yet. India and China are both still "poor countries" based on per capita GDP, but China's (14,239 in 2015) is greatly exceeds India's (6,020). Compare with US at 55,805. (Oil -rich Qatar led the world with 132,099, so per capita GDP is not necessarily reflective of level of economic development.)
Expectations regarding the potential of Modi's success in forming India were inordinately high, and the reality is falling short of them. The former finance minister Manmohan Singh was much more capable economically than Modi is and he did not live up to expectation either. Too much drag to overcome easily and quickly. So India continues to slog along.
Geopolitically and geostrategically, India continues to play opposing forces against each other under Modi, who has recently increased rapprochement with the US while maintaining good relations with Russia. In doing this, Modi is playing the US and Russia against Pakistan and China. India is also interested in drawing in US investment, management and technology, which is a mixed blessing. This US has shown itself to be a shark in this respect. The cost will be high, again because India believes that it does not have the money itself.
India Punchline
Modi creates a legacy in China ties
M K Bhadrakumar
9 comments:
Instead of GDP, look at per capita energy consumption between India, China and the US. Then determine which level is sustainable in the long term.
Energy per capita is also a measure of development.
The amount of energy is not as Important as the type of energy and the sources of energy wrt to environmental impact of negative externality associated with energy usage now that the sinks are filing up. The solution to pollution is no longer dilution.
Levels of energy consumption are important to both sustainability and environmental impact. Wind power is a supposedly clean, renewable energy source, but wind farms have negative externalities. Excepting fusion technologies riding to the rescue, the future will be about doing more with less. How to develop a low energy, high standard of living economy...
One of the negative externalities of all use of energy is increased heat. Heat pollution in cities is now a serious negative externality that architects , city planners, and public policy experts are working on. Conservation is the low hanging fruit, but that is not enough as the world urbanizes.
The more I study Green Wizardry at the Archdruid Report, the less I believe our current consumption trends can continue. Urbanization may also have to take a different turn.
"China's (14,239 in 2015)"
Fixed exchange rate.... would be much higher if they delegated regulation of the exchange rate to their fiscal agents...
" The average IQ of the Brahmin caste is 120. "
Looks like they are "the fittest" over there...
They are the "fittest" in a sense but not the sense that social Darwinists mean, that is, genetically. That is an ancient belief that is false. Even before genetics was understood, birth was considered a determinative factor in success, as in "born to rule." The Brahmins are culturally privileged and are the most educated. However, traditionally rulers were not selected from the Brahmin caste since they were the priests. Ruler were selected from the Kshatriya caste, that is, the warrior caste. The Vaisya caste pursued commerce. The Sudra caste performed the dirty work. These the major castes, Obviously intermarriage among the various caste produced more distinctions. Caste is still a strong cultural force that persists in India, just as race and ethnicity does in America, even though it is not supported by law. But customs die hard.
There is no scientific evidence that intelligence is not chiefly inherited as social Darwinists and conservatives from day one have thought, millennia before Darwin. While the jury is still out on natural v. acquired intelligence, it is clear that developmental conditions play a role in intelligence based on brain development (biological) and structuring (cultural, institutional, environmental). Biological development is based on the parents' health and nutrition, for example, especially the mother's during gestation. Upbringing and education also play a role in intelligence. Moreover, at one time it was believed that IQ was a given at and could not be changed. That has been disproven.
The conservative assumption is that meritocracy is based on some people being better than others and this is often related to birth, presumably genes. While there may be some genetic basis for meritocracy, it is chiefly related o class status, power and wealth that culture some more than other, as well as embedding them in social networks that lead to greater success. In other words, meritocracy on genetics is based in belief rather than fact. Asymmetrical opportunity plays a significant role and this is influenced by privilege. e.g., "being born with a silver spoon in one's mouth."
Again, false causality.
Direction: "There is no scientific evidence that intelligence is not chiefly inherited as social Darwinists and conservatives from day one have thought, millennia before Darwin. "
Scratch the "not."
Should be, "There is no scientific evidence that intelligence is chiefly inherited as social Darwinists and conservatives from day one have thought, millennia before Darwin."
Of course there is genetic inheritance that influences the brain as analogous to a computer. The hardware is essentially same within a species, however, there are subtle difference biologically that have neurological effects. Some are more privileged than others in certain respects.
However, this is a mixed blessing. Some who are naturally gifted in an area just really on the gift and don't develop it much further. Other's less gifted work hard to develop what they have to work with and outperform other that were more gifted at birth.
The conservative belief that nature and hard work are relevant, but they are not exclusive as factors. There are also other factors and conditions that are operative and those are affected by limiting or expanding opportunity and access, for example.
Problems arise intellectual when one takes an element of truth for the whole truth. This can be as misleading as taking a false belief for a true one.
I still have no idea of what Matt is getting at.
Post a Comment