3 ms·
Well do you have any figures to back your clam that this is an idiotic piece? Comparison of India and China is a common topic on the Economist (and elsewhere).
by Jun8 13y ago
Well do you have any figures to back your clam that this is an idiotic piece? Comparison of India and China is a common topic on the Economist (and elsewhere). These are countries with comparable population, demographics, history of exploitation by the West, and they are both in Asia. Sure, theere are large difference in the details but I think the question that, given its tremendous presence in the tech field, very much comparable to China, why has India not excelled as much as its neighbor? This article is trying to argue the thesis that the "Chinese economic revolution" was mostly due to them exploiting their manpower to great effect (even when Mao was in power this was their strategy, it was just done in a misguided and primitive way) while India has
been less successful in achieving this.
- lake99 13y ago> Well do you have any figures to back your clam that this is an idiotic piece? The article was arguing for "How India is throwing away the world’s biggest economic opportunity". I don't need data to show the arguments were weak. I just need to analyse the arguments presented. > These are countries with comparable population, agreed > demographics huh? > history of exploitation by the West I don't see that coming up in the article > and they are both in Asia. How is that relevant? > Comparison of India and China is a common topic on the Economist (and elsewhere). My problem is not with the comparison of China and India. My problem is with this comparison of China and India.