|
I see someone brought up the license raj and comparable high growth rates post-liberalization. However, recently growth rates have been dropping and the rupee has weakened but there hasn't been any sign this has been caused by a "return of the raj" which opens up the question if the end of the raj unleashed a relatively temporary bubble that wasn't actually sustainable. Btw, just to be clear the license raj wasn't a Marxist or socialist founded system but rather was cleared by India's internal mechanics and its own forms of auturky. As far as the solution to India's ills as aggressive modernism, I do think present day China does have plenty of pitfalls that can be avoided and public consultation maybe isn't such a bad thing. In addition, I think liberalism has its limits in India especially if India doesn't have a ready export market to throw its cheap labor at. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 05:37 on Mar 11, 2014 |
#
¿
Mar 11, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 20, 2024 04:38 |
|
|
ronya posted:It was tied to the Fabian socialism of Nehru, but yes, it's a bit vague to label it therefore 'socialist'. Singapore was also Fabian socialist. These abstractions can all be implemented differently. Licensing would not have been a problem if the licenses were actually readily granted. I would say that Nehru and post-Nehru policy is pretty different than Fabianism and probably should qualify as its own thing especially since the "end goal" of the Indian state wasn't in any way Marxist. quote:In any case, I think many countries would be thankful to have 8% growth for two decades, rather than merely 2-3%. If growth never reaches 8% again, that's still a large improvement. Presently it's at 5%? Thats the thing, growth of even 5% may not be sustainable and that of liberalism that is widely lauded also leads to booms and busts without a steady market for export growth. Ultimately, the different between Asian economies of that period and India was also largely political, India was a non-aligned state (unlike Taiwan, Korea, Japan) and didn't have open trade access to the West, especially the United States. This obviously changed, but it could be argued it came too late for India that India is now already competing with so many other nations for exports to the first world there isn't much room for growth and if anything growth likely will decline or stagnant. The lower of value of the Rupee makes their exports cheaper but also causes a lot of other issues that may be dangerous for them in the long run. quote:Personally I regard the reasons for premature de-industrialization in India as a question with obvious candidates - the Mumbais of India have already reached a low-end first world quality of life, but India is not maintaining urbanization at the same pace; it's run out of all the readily-upgradable areas of urban India accumulated during the license-raj period. If it wants to maintain high growth, the states need to divert infrastructure investment to their more rural reaches. Granting land titles is a good start but it's incredibly slow. Trying to reform pockets of slums is difficult when any incremental improvement just leads to yet more people moving in from the countryside; what India needs is more cities, not merely more neighbourhoods. But this is not my area of focus so it's very much a casual analysis. I would say parts of Mumbai maybe are first world or near to it, but lets not be ridiculous here, there is also ridiculous amounts of poverty and have nots in Mumbai and other Indian cities. Mass urbanization of that sort in India will probably require a turn to authoritarianism and massive expense, and has the real possibility of going sour. That said, it is also going to also require a fundamental realignment of wages and expense in India, if India doesn't have an export market there isn't going to a large middle class you could put into those cities unless you redistribute wealth in some manner. quote:I do fully admit that I'm coming from one of the GBS India rape threads, but I really feel that this should be posted when discussing the current state of the country. Just in case anybody here hasn't seen it yet, it's a bunch of very pictures covering the extreme poverty that plagues the place. It shows photos of dead and decaying bodies as well as people with disfiguring diseases, so don't click if you're feeling squeamish. It may not be the most unbiased source, but it's still worth looking through just to get an idea of what parts of the place are like. Granted, those GBS threads are pretty ridiculous and I think real borderline in my honest opinion. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 06:15 on Mar 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
ronya posted:I think the geopolitical effect on trade of being NAM during the Cold War are overstated - Tito's Yugoslavia, Suharto's Indonesia, Mahathir's Malaysia were all part of NAM. Mahathir spent a decade attacking the US, Israel, and Zionism whilst cultivating both the US and Israel as major trade partners (albeit with the latter proxied through Thai ports). Granted, you could say some states were more "non-aligned" than others and at a certain extent that will be reflected in their domestic policy. Ultimately, to do trade with the US, you are going to have to offer something to them to some extent or at least be a state they have the hope for having a foot hold in. Yugoslavia was obviously a state the West wanted on it's side (for strategic reasons obviously) even if it was communist, the non-friend of my enemy. India made a very obvious choice to go in a different direction, which ultimately meant that autarky was a more ready option than exports. After 1991, this obviously changed and India opened up to globalized liberalism that in return allowed in to access foreign markets in the first world. However, right now is a bit more of a question since demand in the first world still remains very tepid and there likely isn't going to be such a dramatic growth in exports while competition still remains fierce. China itself just reported a dramatic reduction of exports, which wasn't the general expectation a few years ago. I think India may very well be in a situation where it could start running increasing trade deficits which will sap growth even though India isn't actually fully industrialized yet which means dramatic plans to change the social landscape of India will come into a crisis. Btw, I also think there is a big difference between recognizing India's problems and some of the really malicious things I have been hearing (not in this thread). I do think falls for neo-colonialism need to be laughed off even if the very real social problems of India need to be addressed and I admit there isn't a magic bullet to fix them. quote:If it continues 8% growth, I think India would already be improving as well can be reasonably wished. The same thing was said of China, and I don't think growth of either extent is sustainable and current Indian growth is around 4.4-4.7%.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:I'm not even super enthusiastic about the importance of workers democracy in India right now, given how dire the situation is. Good-old fashioned State Capitalism would do the trick well enough. It is a good question if state capitalism would actually make a difference, ultimately India's issue is going to be capital and a growing currency deficit would undercut any larger growth. Indian debt levels seem to be shrinking which gives them some room but not that much especially with a weak rupee. Personally, I think we are on the edge of seeing some of the deficits of a state capitalist approach in China where developed has happened but it also has lead to a growth debt bubble that hasn't replaced capital brought in from trade.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2014 08:31
|
|
|
It seems a rather circular argument unless India dramatically changes economically, at a certain level, it is material. To be honest, if I had to bet, I don't think it is going to change and Westerns will condemn Indian culture when it fact there isn't any realistic way to change it. State capitalism requires capital, and there is a honest question of where it is come from at this point especially if for a variety of reasons it isn't allocated in a efficient manner.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:All the big software/accounting firms are already looking to move away from India as well. Ultimately, I don't think cultural change is going to happen without materialistic change, if you go around hanging elders doing awful poo poo people are going to revolt even if we think what they did was wrong. From their frame of reference, the government came down and just killed their elder for something that was uncontroversial. If education is still minimal, why would think differently? Also, I think the track since the 1990s of attracting manufacturing and IT work has reached it's limits (as you say) and India is facing competition not only from China but a multitude of countries at this point. Honestly, I think it is going to come with new solutions, and not a "glass desert" cop out. Btw, the US doesn't have a wide spread Maoist insurgency while India does, if you want to "cram" new culture by force there is probably going to be a counter-reaction because the rule of law is already very weak in so many areas. So if you want to do a "Western cultural revolution" there probably is going to necessitate a familiar amount of causalities. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 05:38 on Mar 12, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
So purge all of Indian culture by gunpoint, kill off all the Naxalites, education funding and attaching advanced manufacturing what next?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
The US doesn't have rape as punishment or mass kidnappings but also it isn't clear the US government or Americans in general really have a way of recommending any course of actions beyond "just be like us." Nation building outside of the industrialized world been a disaster and quite often as proven to make things even worse. So Americans can give a pat on their backs that they are "more advanced" than India but thats about it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2014 08:29
|
|
|
ronya posted:intellectual masturbation over a question like "is the existence of untouchables objectively wrong" is a lovely rhetorical bait-and-switch. The switch is a self-righteous insistence that $_SIMPLISTIC_SOLUTION will readily win acquiescence and justify violence against any opposition, because the caste problem is so self-evidently wrong Granted, it wouldn't be the first time and if anything I think you can see that "objectively wrong" events or aspects can be used to tar and belittle a culture with pretty in-creditable malice with little to show for it. India obviously does have problems but to be honest most of the solutions I have heard from Americans and other Westerns especially have been absolutely awful.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2014 08:38
|
|
|
Ultimately, in the case of India centralization of the extent you want will necessitate a likely heavy degree of centralization, and mass industrialization may not even be really possible to that extent unless India wants to take another stab at ISI. In addition, to be frank it is also probably going to require a cultural revolution with the threat of force. It is a bit ironic that China is held up as a great counter-example when there isn't an honest acknowledgement that some very brutal things happened for modern-day China to get its current point. Yeah, you can say "well lets have a cultural revolution, in-creditable centralization of 1.2 billion people and mass industrialization without nastiness" but unfortunately I don't think the world works like that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
Another thing about Stalinism, is that the USSR was able to industrialize with minimal exterior trade because the USSR had vast natural resources of its own that could be exploited (many times at high human cost). India is going to have to be reliant on imports for whatever it does more than China already is. That said, a state capitalist approach to crash industrialization would run up a similar issues.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
Yeah, I don't really buy actual revenue being a decisive factor since it is imperialism impact on the population itself not revenue which is important. If you look at something like salt politics, then it is very apparent there was exploitation occurring that caused significant discord. Why else would the salt hedge exist?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
ronya posted:Salt was taxed in India since before even the Mughals Even if salt was taxed in India before didn't mean it continued to be a giant issue especially since the British were likely far more effective at it. Even if the British helped undermine itself through education, didn't mean they deserved all the criticism they got. The fate of the salt tax in a counter-factual world of no British influence isn't really that useful either since the British had influence in India for such a considerable amount of time. quote:I think that if the British had stayed for one or two more generations, like in Hong Kong, they might have made lasting progress and change possible in India. I'm not defending the actions of the Empire in 1857, but by 1967 the British were radically different in their attitudes towards the colonies. Keep in mind that by this time Rhodesia and South Africa had both been strongly criticized for their racial policies, and had left the Commonwealth. It could very well be argued they had to adapt because the lost of India was such a blow (beyond just revenue) not to mention the loss of the vast majority of their colonies at that point. The British Empire was on its last legs, and to be honest there wouldn't be too much to hold India to it beyond "beneficial Western influence." Also, Thatcher quite clearly didn't issue sanctions on South Africa during her entire tenure. I don't see it working out even if Hong Kong built some cool skyscrapers.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2014 07:24
|
|
|
ronya posted:I am not sure the desert of criticism has anything to do with counterfactuals! I just don't think the British get a pass because they were unluckily having colonies during an era of national awakening (not just in India obviously). As far as the Mughals they were spent power by the early/mid 18th century anyway. I do think at a certain point Britain takes responsibility (either through the East India Company or the Empire) for the shape of modern India to a large extent by at least the early 19th century with emerging influence across the 18th century. They made the choices for they made for a reason but fortunately were trying to hold on to territory and that system in a period when concepts of a nation had radically changed. Anyway at a certain point if they wanted to exploit India they needed to educate some portion of its populace for manpower to supply the bureaucracy, the mechanics of colonialism ultimately helped in a form to shape its end. It maybe be ironic but I don't know how much credit you can give to the British since we just don't know really what India would be like at that point. To be honest, I don't think colonialism is that important in a negative or positive sense at this juncture. The problems of India are relatively clear, but I am not sure we have developed as of yet the right rules unless you use absolute force and that is no longer quite as acceptable as it once was be in a colonial form or a more invasive Maoist/Stalinist sense. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 08:32 on Mar 13, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2014 08:29
|
|
|
In some way I take the derail about imperialism as a symptom of the fact there isn't easy or even relatively clear solutions to India's situation. India has tried autarky and ISI, it obviously reached its limits by the 1960s and the switch to globalized neo-liberalism since the 1990s looks like it may be winding down as well. To be personally honest, I don't know if necessarily strict Marxist-Leninist or Maoist policy can be much of a help either since India in many ways is very reliant on trade (and has a trade deficit). Top-down centralization may lead to more efficiency in certain regards but also abuse of power and a cultural revolution is easier said than done. There is also the chance India will be isolated economically (more so than it was than a non-aligned state) if it took a sudden revolutionary lurch, something that would be devastating to the economy itself. However, there is also the issue of industrialization/urbanization and how many people Indian factories and cities can hold (which I don't think is infinite), this is especially an issue because India's birthrate is so high. People who move to the cities will still be replaced in the countryside. So India walks a pretty fine line, and to be honest has far less leeway than it appears. Obviously the real issue is the countryside itself, and that redistribution needs to happen within the context of still being acceptable politically and ideologically to India's trade partners. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Mar 13, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:I definitely don't agree with the autarky bit, I meant forcing industrialization in a way that serves the export market well, whether that is electronics or clothing or any other kind of good, and yes, subsidize the foreign capitalists by allowing for low wages but keep things improving for workers through social services and infrastructure improvement. Make India attractive for foreign capitalists by having a well-educated populace, lots of infrastructure and a strong central government. Cut into China's market share a bit. It initially wouldn't be very revolutionary, at least in a way that would threaten foreign capitalists and force some kind of response -- it would be even a little better for American corporations in the short term. Ultimately the issue is that India has been already trying that for the most part, and I am not certain a strong central government would be the game changer especially since any efficiency is going to come at a cost of likely disorder since India is very ethnically and linguistically pluralistic state. Also to be frank, China is going to do that better than India would ever hope to, and even China is having trouble with exports. To be honest, as I said in my previous post, I believe the market for exports may not expand as previous thought and that "market share" that India hopes to catch from China is going to be decreasing if not from actual real losses but from competition from every other part of the developing world. India wages may be a bit lower but ultimately they can only go so low which means its comparatively advantage is going to be marginal even if you somehow centralize a country that in some ways wasn't even centralized to that degree under the British. Deng Xiaopeng realized that China needed capital and trade with the US (and the rest of the west), as shown by the development of South Korea and Japan was going to be the quickest way to accomplish that but it ultimately had a lot of draw backs. It allowed China to develop to a considerable extent but created a lot of other problems for Chinese society. Yes, I think India would be envious of that type of growth but I don't think it is in the realistic realm of possibility at this point. If anything India may have to prepare for slower growth, and a increasing trade deficit while at the same time trying to improve infrastructure, and increase relative human development in rural areas.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:He was premier of Gujarat and is known for his "Gujarat model" that has lead to economic growth. Spoilers: the Gujarat model is just neoliberalism, and the growth has been very unevenly distributed. Doesn't stop the western media from fawning over him, though. I don't see the "Gujarat model" doing much for the country especially since the high economic growth that was happening there was just part of a local bubble and even then as you said it was unevenly distributed. It is clear why the Western media is enthralled with him. Anyway as discussed earlier, India needs exports to fuel that type of growth to begin with, and it is unclear what would be none otherwise since domestic consumption is still going to be low. I could Modi's attitude toward religion coupled with his developmental model as a potential recipe for disaster, religious intolerance plus even a greater gap between rich and poor isn't something that mixes well. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 19:26 on May 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 18, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 20, 2024 04:38 |
|
|
Torka posted:"Let's burn down the observatory so this never happens again!" I wonder what would in a Western country in 116+ F heat without air conditioning (not a dry heat either).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2014 13:49
|
|