3 ms·

> but the article seems to cite the same pain points today. The issues raised by the article are a result of colonial era policies. And it’s not clear what the

> but the article seems to cite the same pain points today. The issues raised by the article are a result of colonial era policies. And it’s not clear what the author means by “Mumbai” because they don’t link or reference most of their claims but I suspect they’re talking about Mumbai proper which is fully built out. The growth of Mumbai is happening in the “suburbs” (very different from American suburbs in that they’re denser than Mumbai proper) and connecting them through a newly built subway system. > At no point did I criticise India's democracy or accuse it of authoritarianism. You claimed Indians have an insatiable appetite for central planning and this has led to a massive waste of human potential. I showed through the Chinese example that Central Planning does not necessarily lead to any waste of human potential and almost certainly is responsible for the greatest use of human potential in the history of human civilization. But more so, India is an extremely federal state, maybe behind only the U.S. and the EU if you consider the EU a state. > It would behoove you, and Indians more generally, to listen to the criticism without getting confused over what's being criticised. I agree Indians don’t take criticism well and that’s a problem. My comment was not because I can’t take criticism. I can write a critique of India today where the footnotes would be longer than the original blog post. Heck I’ve written that (I won’t post because I don’t want to lose my anonymity). The problem is that your criticism is completely wrong and worse backwards. India’s problem has nothing to do with an insatiable appetite for central planning. If anything India’s problem arises from a lack of sufficient central planning. Let’s talk about the U.S. The US is extremely federal but almost all the useful infrastructure in the U.S. is still a result of central planning around World War 2. The highway system, the massive series of dams and other energy projects, land grant colleges, etc. My issue isn’t with you criticizing. My issue is with you criticizing based on knowledge from 50 years ago where the criticism isn’t just wrong but actually backwards.

anon291 3y ago
> I showed through the Chinese example that Central Planning does not necessarily lead to any waste of human potential and almost certainly is responsible for the greatest use of human potential in the history of human civilization. Hold your horses. I agree that Chinese central planning has done wonders for China. However, American-style distributed planning is still clearly superior. American GDP growth has been continuous for years, and America is currently completely outpacing China. Many economists predict China's decline over the next few decades as the centrally planned demographics cliff hits. I think it's foolish to be overly impressed by China, and I think your characterization of it as the 'greatest use of human potential in the history of human civilization' is completely off point. > Let’s talk about the U.S. The US is extremely federal but almost all the useful infrastructure in the U.S. is still a result of central planning around World War 2. The highway system, the massive series of dams and other energy projects, land grant colleges, etc. Hmm... well certainly some are, but the highway system is distributed planning. The feds centrally fund it, but individual states are responsible for actually planning the highway's routes, as long as certain conditions are met. The majority of American highways existed before the interstate acts. The acts simply brought them up to standards and ensured a consistent numbering system. For example, before I-5 was designated, there was the 'Pacific highway' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Highway_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Highway_(United_States...) built in a distributed manner by three states acting together at the behest of groups of individuals. Moreover, a lot of American infrastructure is private: hospitals, banking, energy, rail. This was even more true in the developing years of the American economy. By the time the federal highway funds came in, America was already a 'developed' country, and had developed without much central planning.

anon291 3y ago

> I showed through the Chinese example that Central Planning does not necessarily lead to any waste of human potential and almost certainly is responsible for the greatest use of human potential in the history of human civilization. Hold your horses. I agree that Chinese central planning has done wonders for China. However, American-style distributed planning is still clearly superior. American GDP growth has been continuous for years, and America is currently completely outpacing China. Many economists predict China's decline over the next few decades as the centrally planned demographics cliff hits. I think it's foolish to be overly impressed by China, and I think your characterization of it as the 'greatest use of human potential in the history of human civilization' is completely off point. > Let’s talk about the U.S. The US is extremely federal but almost all the useful infrastructure in the U.S. is still a result of central planning around World War 2. The highway system, the massive series of dams and other energy projects, land grant colleges, etc. Hmm... well certainly some are, but the highway system is distributed planning. The feds centrally fund it, but individual states are responsible for actually planning the highway's routes, as long as certain conditions are met. The majority of American highways existed before the interstate acts. The acts simply brought them up to standards and ensured a consistent numbering system. For example, before I-5 was designated, there was the 'Pacific highway' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Highway_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Highway_(United_States...) built in a distributed manner by three states acting together at the behest of groups of individuals. Moreover, a lot of American infrastructure is private: hospitals, banking, energy, rail. This was even more true in the developing years of the American economy. By the time the federal highway funds came in, America was already a 'developed' country, and had developed without much central planning.