5 ms·

I'd like this to be true, but I can't help thinking that much of this is just wishful thinking. India has terrible infrastructure, which as far as I can make ou

• known 15y ago
  India is importing 75% of its crude oil. 50% in USA & China. http://mazamascience.com/OilExport/ http://mazamascience.com/OilExport/
• nazgulnarsil 15y ago
  things are still getting better. the presence of bad things doesn't mean you can ignore a huge upswing in living standards all over a country of a billion+ people.
  • w1ntermute 15y ago
    > the presence of bad things doesn't mean you can ignore a huge upswing in living standards all over a country of a billion+ people. You can say that about China, but not about India. Things have not improved much for the average Indian. In fact, in many places it's gotten worse.
    • nazgulnarsil 15y ago
      <citation needed> Every presentation I have seen on India cites dramatic improvement from 2000-2010.
    • radicaldreamer 15y ago
      Can we get some objective data or examples for these claims?
      • known 15y ago
        Former USSR republics are doing better than India http://doingbusiness.org/rankings http://doingbusiness.org/rankings Georgia - 12, Estonia - 17, Lithuania - 23 Latvia - 24, Kyrgyzstan - 44, Armenia - 48, Azerbaijan - 54, Kazakhstan - 59, Belarus - 68, Moldova - 90, Russia - 123, . INDIA - 134 CARS PER 1000 PEOPLE Moldova - 49, Azerbaijan - 51, Belarus - 87, Ukraine - 140, Kazakhstan - 170, Russia - 213, Latvia - 372, Estonia - 410, Lithuania - 453 . INDIA - 12 GLOBAL PEACE INDEX Lithuania - 42, Estonia - 46, Latvia - 54, Moldova - 66, Kazakhstan - 95, Ukraine - 97, Belarus - 105, Uzbekistan - 110, Armenia - 113, Turkmenistan - 117, Azerbaijan - 119, . INDIA - 128
        • dimmuborgir 15y ago
          We're talking about whether India has made progress from its own past. Why are you bringing former Soviet states for comparison?
          • known 15y ago
            Why shouldn't I compare India (born in 1947) with Soviet states (born in 1991)? Do HDI or Wikipedia or I need your permission?
            • rrrazdan 15y ago
              Well because its absurd to call them born in 1991. Tomorrow if Catalonia or Basque nation were to secede or Scotland for that matter, would you call them born in 2011 in this context and then compare them with India?
            • JoachimSchipper 15y ago
              Because that is not the topic under discussion? We were talking about improvements in India, not absolute comparisons.
        • olegious 15y ago
    • JoachimSchipper 15y ago
      The United Nations Human Development Report doesn't seem to agree: http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/IND.html http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/IND.html. What do you mean?
      • known 15y ago
        Kashmir is excluded from India in that map.
        • baltcode 15y ago
          Is that relevant to the analysis of the level of human development and well being? Kashmir probably lags behind because of the conflict, but the numbers for India as a whole are probably in the same direction as shown in the UN report.
    • yummyfajitas 15y ago
      Everywhere I go in Pune, I see new stores, new shopping malls, new apartment complexes advertising Italian marble and fitness centers [1]. The traffic on the roads today is unprecedented, caused by the fact that a huge number of Indians can now afford cars (car production has increased about 500% over the past 10 years). Don't get me wrong - it's got a long way to go. This morning I just jogged through undocumented housing without plumbing or electricity. But to say things have not improved is just ridiculous - even many of the people without electricity had cellphones. (Certain shops let you charge a cellphone for a few rupees.) [1] The fitness centers are, unfortunately, never used. My apt complex has a gym, and the weights are always exactly where I leave them.
    • dimmuborgir 15y ago
      What are you talking about? The UN's Millennium Development Goal (MDG) report says: "India is expected to reduce its poverty rate from 51 per cent in 1990 to 24 per cent in 2015, reducing its number of extremely poor by 188 million." http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?685779 http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?685779
      • known 15y ago
        As per BBC, 80% Indians surviving on 20 rupees/day http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6946800.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6946800.stm
        • dimmuborgir 15y ago
          The article is old and it quotes an unnamed 'survey'. I'm reminding you again, the discussion here is about progression of India from its own past but you're either coming up with figures for some particular year or some senseless comparison with other countries. In other words, you're simply trolling.
          • known 15y ago
            836 million Indians live on less than Rs 20 a day http://ibnlive.in.com/news/836-million-indians-live-on-less-than-rs-20-a-day/47645-7.html http://ibnlive.in.com/news/836-million-indians-live-on-less-...
        • yummyfajitas 15y ago
          That's a typo, it's almost certainly meant to say 200 INR/day. India's GDP per capita works out to be about 145 INR/day, so it's plausible that the 80'th percentile would be 33% higher than that. It's a little unlikely that the 80'th percentile would be 1/7 of that.
• garyrichardson 15y ago
  I suspect 85% of all the worlds politicians are criminals. The sort of people who are willing to do anything to get ahead excel at politics.
  • bruce511 15y ago
    No, that's inaccurate. Bear in mind there's a difference between criminal behaviour, and, well, morally corrupt behaviour. There are also broadly speaking two kinds of politicians. Those in countries where the quickest way to riches are to be part of the government, and those where it's easier to make really big money outside the government. In the former people are attracted to politics strictly for the money, whereas in the latter there are other desires (like fame, power and so on). The ones in it for the money are more likely to see government money as their own money and accumulate as much of that as possible. The real problem with corruption though is not politicians. It's the civil service. While polititians set policy, and create laws, it is the civil service that we interact with every day. Corrupt cops, customs & border officials, judges, and so on have a far more devastating effect on every-day life than some minister or senator that buries a million here or a million there. I'm not arguing for corrupt politicians - of course that's bad - they set the tone, and ultimately have the power to condone or condemn bribes and other considerations in the civil service. And of course politicians steal more in absolute terms, to the point where infrastructure is compromised - but the real "daily" damage is done when each transaction comes with an "informal tax". Now if you want to talk moral behavior - then I agree there is definitely room for improvement. The whole concept of campaign funding means that elected officials are bought and paid for by those with the cash to spend.
• ChuckMcM 15y ago
  I think you unscientific impression is leading you astray. India has its share of problems, and it has its share of corrupt politicians. But it also has a pretty robust democracy and part of what returnees are bringing home is an appreciation for governments that work vs ones that don't. And when the people don't tolerate an ineffective government they change it. The other thing India is, is big. There is a lot of country there. While it's true you can find abject poverty and people manually crushing rocks with bigger rocks to make a handful of gravel to sell, you can also find vibrant urban centers with shopping centers and affluence that would make you think you were back in Europe or the US. Its an interesting transition, and if they pull it off they will become a threat to China. But their economic development also puts a damper on some of the saber rattling too. My own take on it is that nothing but good can come of India developing its economy into a completely vertically integrated one.
  • jbarham 15y ago
    > And when the people don't tolerate an ineffective government they change it. Easier said than done, or there wouldn't be so many long-standing ineffective governments around... It is often easier for people to change the country they live in (i.e., emigrate) than to reform the government they live under.
  • hessenwolf 15y ago
    Do you mean a threat to China's status as leading economic power, or a threat to China? Improvements in productivity help all of us, because we make more stuff to share around; it is not a zero sum game.
    • yardie 15y ago
      Aren't they they same. We are all on one big rock and access to petroleum, water, and food will become more limited and more contested as both economies grow. Economically and realistically, India is a threat to China, Europe and the US.
    • ChuckMcM 15y ago
      I believe if they are successful they will be a threat to China's economic growth and their border disputes may spill out into more explicit hostilities. From an economic standpoint they may be able to put together cost competitive manufacturing facilities with a better quality of life for their workers. That, coupled with the increasingly forceful way in which China struggles to maintain its margins are threatening the delicate balance in China between the benefit of hard currency and the challenge of an upwardly mobile workforce. (or not which would turn out to be the problem) As more companies are put under pressure to avoid doing business with companies like FoxConn and the ability to keep information about working conditions in China out of the press is reduced. It makes for a challenging environment for the Chinese. To have a neighbor state pick up the slack with workers who, if they are successful can move on to big houses and a more affluent lifestyle, and are thus both happier and more productive in their jobs. That is the threat economically. If India were to provide a ready market for Afghanistan's raw mineral wealth, that too could be problematic for the Chinese.
• dimmuborgir 15y ago
  Are you saying that Chinese authorities are not corrupt? Did the state controlled media of China make you believe so? Take a look at Corruption Index published by Transparency International: http://transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results http://transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/... Both China and India are the same. In fact, with free-media, India has a greater chance of tackling corruption in the future than China.
  • wisty 15y ago
    This index is about transparency, corruption, and accountability. India is transparent, but corrupt. China lacks transparency, but bribery is rare. In India, you have to pay small (or large) bribes to get anything done. You are faced with a bureaucracy which wants to trip you up with red tape, to force you to pay more bribes. This is not conductive to small business. China really falls apart when it comes to bigger businesses. State owned enterprises get preferential treatment for all kinds of things, especially funding. And bigger businesses have to follow regulations more carefully.
    • dimmuborgir 15y ago
      Any source that China is more conducive to small businesses than India?
      • known 15y ago
        http://doingbusiness.org/rankings http://doingbusiness.org/rankings China - 79 India - 134
        • dimmuborgir 15y ago
          I was asking with respect to bribery. The list you quoted takes a lot of other things like infrastructure, funding etc into consideration.
• shrikant 15y ago
  Completely on board with the first paragraph. But your unscientific impression may be a little coloured by your age. (I'd wager you're late 20s, early 30s?) I feel the same quite a few times - that things were getting rapidly better between 1995-2005, after which the pace of change became glacial to the point of regressing. After putting a little more thought into it, I am almost certain that the way I feel this way is because I have a different view of the world now. I am older, more mature and more prosperous than I was in the early oughties, and subconsciously have a better standard of indicators that I look for, when considering 'how things have changed'. Consequently, things like the systemic corruption and poor infrastructure seem far more important to me now, than they did 10 years back. I suppose I was far less concerned about them, and looking more at access to information (the evolution of the Internet) and 'material pleasures' (malls, entertainment, global brands, etc.) Basically, if I look at the situation in India today through the same lens that I did 10 years back, then I'd be prepared to say that things are still improving.