8 ms·

Industrialization, obviously. China made more money, and faster. All such questions are easily answered once you take a look at the per-capita budget each coun

Industrialization, obviously. China made more money, and faster. All such questions are easily answered once you take a look at the per-capita budget each country has for the required expenditures.

energy123 2y ago
Why didn't India industrialize like China did?
- kentrado 2y ago
  China has central planning.
  - gruez 2y ago
    But it only got richer as it liberalized?
    - kentrado 2y ago
      Reality is often complicated and ideology fails to fit everything in a neat little box. So, it could be that central planning is good for some use cases and bad for others. Likewise, with liberalised economies. There may even be some overlap between the two.
  - em500 2y ago
    But I thought central planning was bad for economic development. Or was that authoritarianism?
    - insane_dreamer 2y ago
      Central planning is very good for pulling a country out of an a poorly developed state into a highly developed state. The USSR experience this under Stalin (setting aside that he was a mass murderer) which created an industrial power. Even in the US, during WW2 the industry was centrally planned and that pulled the US out of the Great Depression. However, central planning as proven to be bad once you reach a developed state. Lots of reasons for this which would be too long to get into here, but has a lot to do with people willing to follow a sacrifice when there is a crisis or the country is working together to get itself out of a bad situation.
    - toast0 2y ago
      Central planning and authoritarianism can be very effective at changing the course of an organization, government, or country; once the choice is made. What they don't always do well is make the choice to change when conditions change. There's also usually a limited bandwidth for deciding and forcing change, so you tend to end up without economic diversity and without great results in areas outside of policy. A democratic/distributed decision making process tends towards slower changes and less alignment, but more diversity. If you decide to be the world's production line, economic diversity may be less important. But having diversity is usually a good thing when economic tides change.

Industrialization, obviously. China made more money, and faster. All such questions are easily answered once you take a look at the per-capita budget each country has for the required expenditures.

energy123 2y ago

Why didn't India industrialize like China did?

kentrado 2y ago
China has central planning.
- gruez 2y ago
  But it only got richer as it liberalized?
  - kentrado 2y ago
    Reality is often complicated and ideology fails to fit everything in a neat little box. So, it could be that central planning is good for some use cases and bad for others. Likewise, with liberalised economies. There may even be some overlap between the two.
- em500 2y ago
  But I thought central planning was bad for economic development. Or was that authoritarianism?
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    Central planning is very good for pulling a country out of an a poorly developed state into a highly developed state. The USSR experience this under Stalin (setting aside that he was a mass murderer) which created an industrial power. Even in the US, during WW2 the industry was centrally planned and that pulled the US out of the Great Depression. However, central planning as proven to be bad once you reach a developed state. Lots of reasons for this which would be too long to get into here, but has a lot to do with people willing to follow a sacrifice when there is a crisis or the country is working together to get itself out of a bad situation.
  - toast0 2y ago
    Central planning and authoritarianism can be very effective at changing the course of an organization, government, or country; once the choice is made. What they don't always do well is make the choice to change when conditions change. There's also usually a limited bandwidth for deciding and forcing change, so you tend to end up without economic diversity and without great results in areas outside of policy. A democratic/distributed decision making process tends towards slower changes and less alignment, but more diversity. If you decide to be the world's production line, economic diversity may be less important. But having diversity is usually a good thing when economic tides change.