3 ms·

As I see it, India is a functioning democracy with a strong commitment to capitalistic industry. Regulation might be too much/too less in some areas but that wi

As I see it, India is a functioning democracy with a strong commitment to capitalistic industry. Regulation might be too much/too less in some areas but that will eventually improve. OTOH, China is very close to dictatorial, with the government controlling everything from the exchange rate to every company's policies. For example, we have proper public debates in India about stuff like net neutrality, freedom of the press, and we routinely criticize the government and politicians. That is simply not possible in China. I really do not understand how anybody with even a little understanding of the two countries can lump India and China together in the same political/financial group.

XorNot 11y ago
Because, "capitalist" and "communist" are not two fundamentally opposed groups: go far enough in either direction, and you end up in the same place results-wise.
hluska 11y ago
> I really do not understand how anybody with even a little understanding of the two countries can lump India and China together in the same political/financial group. Are you asking how the term 'BRIC' came about?? If so, the paper where the term was first used is available online and it is remarkably readable. The pdf is located: http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/archive/archive-pdfs/build-better-brics.pdf http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/archive/archive-pdf... There were at least two follow up reports that I'm sure are also available online.
- exelius 11y ago
  The BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) countries are all grouped together because they all have very large populations (Russia is the smallest at 140 million) and rapidly modernizing economies. In other words, they're actually big enough to stand on their own on the global stage should their economies become fully developed. From the standpoint of an investment banker (which is where the term BRIC comes from) any differences between them are largely irrelevant - they all have a large population, a government that is stable enough to protect their business investments, and an improving distribution of wealth to ensure widening participation in the economy to sustain growth for decades (this is important when macro investing; a rising tide raises all ships, and macro investors are basically investing in all ships). But that's about where the similarities between these 4 countries end, so using the term "BRIC" to speak about cultural similarities is meaningless.
seanmcdirmid 11y ago
So let's just talk about countries with more than a billion people with growing economies? They are mentioned together because of their developing status and increasing effects on the world economy, but otherwise have little in common.

XorNot 11y ago

Because, "capitalist" and "communist" are not two fundamentally opposed groups: go far enough in either direction, and you end up in the same place results-wise.

hluska 11y ago

> I really do not understand how anybody with even a little understanding of the two countries can lump India and China together in the same political/financial group. Are you asking how the term 'BRIC' came about?? If so, the paper where the term was first used is available online and it is remarkably readable. The pdf is located: http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/archive/archive-pdfs/build-better-brics.pdf http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/archive/archive-pdf... There were at least two follow up reports that I'm sure are also available online.

exelius 11y ago
The BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) countries are all grouped together because they all have very large populations (Russia is the smallest at 140 million) and rapidly modernizing economies. In other words, they're actually big enough to stand on their own on the global stage should their economies become fully developed. From the standpoint of an investment banker (which is where the term BRIC comes from) any differences between them are largely irrelevant - they all have a large population, a government that is stable enough to protect their business investments, and an improving distribution of wealth to ensure widening participation in the economy to sustain growth for decades (this is important when macro investing; a rising tide raises all ships, and macro investors are basically investing in all ships). But that's about where the similarities between these 4 countries end, so using the term "BRIC" to speak about cultural similarities is meaningless.

seanmcdirmid 11y ago

So let's just talk about countries with more than a billion people with growing economies? They are mentioned together because of their developing status and increasing effects on the world economy, but otherwise have little in common.