India vs China at $4 Trillion – The Brutal Infrastructure Reality

[kankan326]

Obvious root reasons: Religion and democracy.
Easy to say. Hard to make changes.

 

[Nimble]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Love this double stack container train.... along with 3.5 kms VASUKI freight train our another pride is 4.5 kms long RUDRASTRA freight train....

 

[Sam6536]

Obvious root reasons: Religion and democracy.
Easy to say. Hard to make changes.

No system is perfect, it depends on the local set of circumstances and the crop of leaders you get.

Religion is a talking point for right wing governments, us vs them is a easy way to pander to a particular segment of population for votes. India's economic apathy/disparity has more to do with policy and red tapism over religion.

Democracy is a wide term. There is no consistent usage of democracy, every country modifies it to their domestic setup. Most democracies are unitary democracies with the Centre retaining more power than the states but the states are still left to govern and make laws on non core matters of the nation.

Recently the BJP has been facing a lot of flak for failing policies and lack of accountability. BJP is not averse to this aspect of democracy.

America is as capitalistic as it gets but Mamdani's "Socialist Democratic" policies have been pretty good for NYC.

 

[MH.Yang]

In fact, although both countries have populations of 1.4 billion, this competition was not fair to India.

First, China is an ethnically homogeneous nation with a tradition of centralized rule spanning thousands of years; the Chinese central government has never had to worry about securing support from local regions or ethnic groups. This has been highly conducive to economic development.

Second, by the 1950s, China already possessed a relatively complete heavy industrial base and had resolved the issues of peasants and land through land reform. India, on the other hand, lacked an industrial foundation and was burdened by a massive population of impoverished peasants. This allowed China to invest directly in industry, while India had to rely on the service sector for its initial capital accumulation while simultaneously supporting agriculture.

Third, China expelled colonial powers through war, allowing it to build an efficient modern social system from scratch. India, on the other hand, had to inherit a corrupt and inefficient colonial administrative system.

Although China and India started on the same footing for a long time, internal factors had long since determined the outcome of the competition.

 

[MH.Yang]

Indeed $4T today can only be compared to maybe around $2T 15 years ago. So that would put China at around year 2005 but then you'd need to readjust the inflation. Let's say approx year 2000.

Which means India when it reaches over $4T GDP should in this GDP linear scaling theory be comparable to year 2000 China. Overall that probably lines up fairly well BUT I think China back then was still a lot more orderly and clean than India is overall. But this conjecture doesn't have much to do with cleanliness or order because North Korea is currently much more orderly than India but North Korea's GDP is nothing.

The inflation issue is already pointed out so instead of comparing with 2010 China, it's more accurate to compare with 2000 China. But India's real GDP when you consider Rupee's value or rather lack of value and dropping value with China's pegging to USD at a rate and therefore also undervaluing RMB, the real differences is even greater. Again, commensurate with general observations and comparisons.

India's GDP is 4 trillion US dollars, accounting for 3.6% of the global total GDP. This data is equivalent to China in 2002.

In 2002, China's GDP was $1.24 trillion, accounting for 3.8% of the world's total GDP.

If inflation is to be excluded, measuring it as a percentage of global GDP is the most appropriate.

 

[hydrabadi_arab]

Indeed $4T today can only be compared to maybe around $2T 15 years ago. So that would put China at around year 2005 but then you'd need to readjust the inflation. Let's say approx year 2000.

Which means India when it reaches over $4T GDP should in this GDP linear scaling theory be comparable to year 2000 China. Overall that probably lines up fairly well BUT I think China back then was still a lot more orderly and clean than India is overall. But this conjecture doesn't have much to do with cleanliness or order because North Korea is currently much more orderly than India but North Korea's GDP is nothing.

The inflation issue is already pointed out so instead of comparing with 2010 China, it's more accurate to compare with 2000 China. But India's real GDP when you consider Rupee's value or rather lack of value and dropping value with China's pegging to USD at a rate and therefore also undervaluing RMB, the real differences is even greater. Again, commensurate with general observations and comparisons.

China in 2000 was manufacturing giant already with trade surplus running in hundreds of billion.

India today is where China was in 1975. Indian currency is now under severe pressure as foreign investors bow out and AI replace their IT services. India manufacturing exports will never enjoy the day in the sun like China.