Yasheng Huang: Does democracy stifle economic growth?


My topic is economic growth in China and India. And the question I want to explore with you is whether or not democracy has helped or has hindered economic growth. You may say this is not fair, because I’m selecting two countries to make a case against democracy. Actually, exactly the opposite is what I’m going to do. I’m going to use these two countries to make an economic argument for democracy, rather than against democracy. The first question there is why China has grown so much faster than India. Over the last 30 years, in terms of the GDP growth rates, China has grown at twice the rate of India. In the last five years, the two countries have begun to converge somewhat in economic growth. But over the last 30 years, China undoubtedly has done much better than India. One simple answer is China has Shanghai and India has Mumbai. Look at the skyline of Shanghai. This is the Pudong area. The picture on India is the Dharavi slum of Mumbai in India. The idea there behind these two pictures is that the Chinese government can act above rule of law. It can plan for the long-term benefits of the country and in the process, evict millions of people — that’s just a small technical issue. Whereas in India, you cannot do that, because you have to listen to the public. You’re being constrained by the public’s opinion. Even Prime Minister Manmohan Singh agrees with that view. In an interview printed in the financial press of India, He said that he wants to make Mumbai another Shanghai. This is an Oxford-trained economist steeped in humanistic values, and yet he agrees with the high-pressure tactics of Shanghai. So let me call it the Shanghai model of economic growth, that emphasizes the following features for promoting economic development: infrastructures, airports, highways, bridges, things like that. And you need a strong government to do that, because you cannot respect private property rights. You cannot be constrained by the public’s opinion. You need also state ownership, especially of land assets, in order to build and roll out infrastructures very quickly. The implication of that model is that democracy is a hindrance for economic growth, rather than a facilitator of economic growth. Here’s the key question. Just how important are infrastructures for economic growth? This is a key issue. If you believe that infrastructures are very important for economic growth, then you would argue a strong government is necessary to promote growth. If you believe that infrastructures are not as important as many people believe, then you will put less emphasis on strong government. So to illustrate that question, let me give you two countries. And for the sake of brevity, I’ll call one country Country 1 and the other country Country 2. Country 1 has a systematic advantage over Country 2 in infrastructures. Country 1 has more telephones, and Country 1 has a longer system of railways. So if I were to ask you, “Which is China and which is India, and which country has grown faster?” if you believe in the infrastructure view, then you will say, “Country 1 must be China. They must have done better, in terms of economic growth. And Country 2 is possibly India.” Actually the country with more telephones is the Soviet Union, and the data referred to 1989. After the country reported very impressive statistics on telephones, the country collapsed. That’s not too good. The picture there is Khrushchev. I know that in 1989 he no longer ruled the Soviet Union, but that’s the best picture that I can find. (Laughter) Telephones, infrastructures do not guarantee you economic growth. Country 2, that has fewer telephones, is China. Since 1989, the country has performed at a double-digit rate every year for the last 20 years. If you know nothing about China and the Soviet Union other than the fact about their telephones, you would have made a poor prediction about their economic growth in the next two decades. Country 1, that has a longer system of railways, is actually India. And Country 2 is China. This is a very little known fact about the two countries. Yes, today China has a huge infrastructure advantage over India. But for many years, until the late 1990s, China had an infrastructure disadvantage vis-a-vis India. In developing countries, the most common mode of transportation is the railways, and the British built a lot of railways in India. India is the smaller of the two countries, and yet it had a longer system of railways until the late 1990s. So clearly, infrastructure doesn’t explain why China did better before the late 1990s, as compared with India. In fact, if you look at the evidence worldwide, the evidence is more supportive of the view that the infrastructure are actually the result of economic growth. The economy grows, government accumulates more resources, and the government can invest in infrastructure — rather than infrastructure being a cause for economic growth. And this is clearly the story of the Chinese economic growth. Let me look at this question more directly. Is democracy bad for economic growth? Now let’s turn to two countries, Country A and Country B. Country A, in 1990, had about $300 per capita GDP as compared with Country B, which had $460 in per capita GDP. By 2008, Country A has surpassed Country B with $700 per capita GDP as compared with $650 per capita GDP. Both countries are in Asia. If I were to ask you, “Which are the two Asian countries? And which one is a democracy?” you may argue, “Well, maybe Country A is China and Country B is India.” In fact, Country A is democratic India, and Country B is Pakistan — the country that has a long period of military rule. And it’s very common that we compare India with China. That’s because the two countries have about the same population size. But the more natural comparison is actually between India and Pakistan. Those two countries are geographically similar. They have a complicated, but shared common history. By that comparison, democracy looks very, very good in terms of economic growth. So why do economists fall in love with authoritarian governments? One reason is the East Asian Model. In East Asia, we have had successful economic growth stories such as Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore. Some of these economies were ruled by authoritarian governments in the 60s and 70s and 1980s. The problem with that view is like asking all the winners of lotteries, “Have you won the lottery?” And they all tell you, “Yes, we have won the lottery.” And then you draw the conclusion the odds of winning the lottery are 100 percent. The reason is you never go and bother to ask the losers who also purchased lottery tickets and didn’t end up winning the prize. For each of these successful authoritarian governments in East Asia, there’s a matched failure. Korea succeeded, North Korea didn’t. Taiwan succeeded, China under Mao Zedong didn’t. Burma didn’t succeed. The Philippines didn’t succeed. If you look at the statistical evidence worldwide, there’s really no support for the idea that authoritarian governments hold a systematic edge over democracies in terms of economic growth. So the East Asian model has this massive selection bias — it is known as selecting on a dependent variable, something we always tell our students to avoid. So exactly why did China grow so much faster? I will take you to the Cultural Revolution, when China went mad, and compare that country’s performance with India under Indira Gandhi. The question there is: Which country did better, China or India? China was during the Cultural Revolution. It turns out even during the Cultural Revolution, China out-perfomed India in terms of GDP growth by an average of about 2.2 percent every year in terms of per capita GDP. So that’s when China was mad. The whole country went mad. It must mean that the country had something so advantageous to itself in terms of economic growth to overcome the negative effects of the Cultural Revolution. The advantage the country had was human capital — nothing else but human capital. This is the world development index indicator data in the early 1990s. And this is the earliest data that I can find. The adult literacy rate in China is 77 percent as compared with 48 percent in India. The contrast in literacy rates is especially sharp between Chinese women and Indian women. I haven’t told you about the definition of literacy. In China, the definition of literacy is the ability to read and write 1,500 Chinese characters. In India, the definition of literacy, operating definition of literacy, is the ability, the grand ability, to write your own name in whatever language you happen to speak. The gap between the two countries in terms of literacy is much more substantial than the data here indicated. If you go to other sources of data such as Human Development Index, that data series, go back to the early 1970s, you see exactly the same contrast. China held a huge advantage in terms of human capital vis-a-vis India. Life expectancies: as early as 1965, China had a huge advantage in life expectancy. On average, as a Chinese in 1965, you lived 10 years more than an average Indian. So if you have a choice between being a Chinese and being an Indian, you would want to become a Chinese in order to live 10 years longer. If you made that decision in 1965, the down side of that is the next year we have the Cultural Revolution. So you have to always think carefully about these decisions. If you cannot chose your nationality, then you will want to become an Indian man. Because, as an Indian man, you have about two years of life expectancy advantage vis-a-vis Indian women. This is an extremely strange fact. It’s very rare among countries to have this kind of pattern. It shows the systematic discrimination and biases in the Indian society against women. The good news is, by 2006, India has closed the gap between men and women in terms of life expectancy. Today, Indian women have a sizable life expectancy edge over Indian men. So India is reverting to the normal. But India still has a lot of work to do in terms of gender equality. These are the two pictures taken of garment factories in Guangdong Province and garment factories in India. In China, it’s all women. 60 to 80 percent of the workforce in China is women in the coastal part of the country, whereas in India, it’s all men. Financial Times printed this picture of an Indian textile factory with the title, “India Poised to Overtake China in Textile.” By looking at these two pictures, I say no, it won’t overtake China for a while. If you look at other East Asian countries, women there play a hugely important role in terms of economic take-off — in terms of creating the manufacturing miracle associated with East Asia. India still has a long way to go to catch up with China. Then the issue is, what about the Chinese political system? You talk about human capital, you talk about education and public health. What about the political system? Isn’t it true that the one-party political system has facilitated economic growth in China? Actually, the answer is more nuanced and subtle than that. It depends on a distinction that you draw between statics of the political system and the dynamics of the political system. Statically, China is a one-party system, authoritarian — there’s no question about it. Dynamically, it has changed over time to become less authoritarian and more democratic. When you explain change — for example, economic growth; economic growth is about change — when you explain change, you use other things that have changed to explain change, rather than using the constant to explain change. Sometimes a fixed effect can explain change, but a fixed effect only explains changes in interaction with the things that change. In terms of the political changes, they have introduced village elections. They have increased the security of proprietors. And they have increased the security with long-term land leases. There are also financial reforms in rural China. There is also a rural entrepreneurial revolution in China. To me, the pace of political changes is too slow, too gradual. And my own view is the country is going to face some substantial challenges, because they have not moved further and faster on political reforms. But nevertheless, the system has moved in a more liberal direction, moved in a more democratic direction. You can apply exactly the same dynamic perspective on India. In fact, when India was growing at a Hindu rate of growth — about one percent, two percent a year — that was when India was least democratic. Indira Gandhi declared emergency rule in 1975. The Indian government owned and operated all the TV stations. A little-known fact about India in the 1990s is that the country not only has undertaken economic reforms, the country has also undertaken political reforms by introducing village self-rule, privatization of media and introducing freedom of information acts. So the dynamic perspective fits both with China and in India in terms of the direction. Why do many people believe that India is still a growth disaster? One reason is they are always comparing India with China. But China is a superstar in terms of economic growth. If you are a NBA player and you are always being compared to Michael Jordan, you’re going to look not so impressive. But that doesn’t mean that you’re a bad basketball player. Comparing with a superstar is the wrong benchmark. In fact, if you compare India with the average developing country, even before the more recent period of acceleration of Indian growth — now India is growing between eight and nine percent — even before this period, India was ranked fourth in terms of economic growth among emerging economies. This is a very impressive record indeed. Let’s think about the future: the dragon vis-a-vis the elephant. Which country has the growth momentum? China, I believe, still has some of the excellent raw fundamentals — mostly the social capital, the public health, the sense of egalitarianism that you don’t find in India. But I believe that India has the momentum. It has the improving fundamentals. The government has invested in basic education, has invested in basic health. I believe the government should do more, but nevertheless, the direction it is moving in is the right direction. India has the right institutional conditions for economic growth, whereas China is still struggling with political reforms. I believe that the political reforms are a must for China to maintain its growth. And it’s very important to have political reforms, to have widely shared benefits of economic growth. I don’t know whether that’s going to happen or not, but I’m an optimist. Hopefully, five years from now, I’m going to report to TEDGlobal that political reforms will happen in China. Thank you very much. (Applause)

Maurice Vega

100 Responses

  1. @roidroid That's your reason for not supporting a more logical and reasonable solution?…you didn't like how the material was presented? I'm sorry, but if that's your basis for eschewing a more sound solution to the current existing global issues…then your opinion does not bode well for your continued support of a system that encourages mass murder. Thank you for your response, though…peace be with you.

  2. @mdlittle5466 i just don't like taking advice from a documentary that can't even get it's facts straight.
    Obviously conclusions drawn from incorrect facts are bogus. Wouldn't you agree?

    I actually thought it was a fun and exciting documentary. A lot of the stuff in it was verifiably true and i learned some cool stuff (after fact checking to make sure it was true). But also a lot was verifiably false, and that pisses me off. I don't like getting lied to, understandable no?

  3. @roidroid I can agree upon not wanting to take advice from a documentary that can't even get it's facts straight…which is more the reason why I support the Venus Project and the Zeitgeist Movement over any other proposition offered thus far as they are derived purely upon speculation and assumption rather then actual fact. I have no desire to spread falsehood and I concur that not wishing to be lied to is a very respectable position to maintain. Peace be with you…

  4. Dishonest. China's economic liberalization happened in the 70s, India's in the 90s. So China had a 20 year head start.
    Yes democracy can be hindrance, but assuming that your tyrannical govt will be competent, is a huge gamble.

  5. The idea was initially challenging, which is good. The argument, is HORRIBLY bad for humanity. And the details he used to explain, were VERY faulty.

  6. Comments here shows that most indian cannot understand the points Yasheng Huang made due to lack of education or more directly – a low level of IQ.

  7. This looks like an issue of micromanagement. The more the top tries to micromanage the bottom, the more inefficient things are. Liberalization allows towns to manage themselves where the situation is different from other towns and as such the towns can be more efficient.

  8. @H1TMANactual
    excuses, excuses
    China started developing in 1979, practically the 80s, it was a 10 yr head start not a 20 yr head start. get your facts straight before you harp on about the pathetic excuse that is India; as Yasheng Huang said, democracy is NOT hindrance or are you that stupid that you can't understand english comprehension?

  9. @MrSeekerofjustice chinese are various from place to place. i dont hate japanese at all. And also, its a FACT that Chinese has a higher average IQ than Indian which has been proved by thousands of researches done by west scientists, not Chinese scientists. So, I highly suggest u to go through this lecture again and again to figure out what points this economist is actually making. then u may find that it is not neccessary to make hatred comments.

  10. @Sakredlight Do u mean that science is ignorant? Say this to those scientists who made this conclusion :" Indian has an average low IQ of 85." They are SCIENTISTS, and U R jst a jokk. LOL

  11. @MrSeekerofjustice There are differences between different races. its undeniable fact. Blacks run faster. and indian people have a low level of IQ, average of 85. Those west scientists have significant statistical data to support these arguments. so what do you have? you have NOTHING. On one hand you keep saying that indian are more intellengent than Chinese admitting the difference between races. On the other hand, you said that those researches are "ridiculed." too naive, kid.

  12. @H1TMANactual 20yrs… a good excuse, huh?
    "If we clean the sht quicker and start 20years earlier, we can beat you Chinese!"
    "If we did not have the culture revolution, our economy size may has surpassed the U.S. and we can kick westerner's ass"

  13. Maybe I didn't got it, but is he really saying "Because China grew better and has less infrastructure, this means Infrastructure is not important to growth" ???

    (The rest of the argument pairs seem to follow the same fallacy)

  14. @MrSeekerofjustice where are chinese invention?? wow how ignorant of you. even wikipedia can give you a long list 😉 Indian pride huh? 😉

  15. @MrSeekerofjustice Kay 1. Inventions? How about the compass, paper and gunpowder, 3 of the most useful tools in history they were integral parts of the industrial revolution and the only reason the americas were discovered. 2. Center of all human history? No thats egypt and babylon And why only till the 18th century? O ya. The british stepped all over you. 3. Truth is. India is quite a bit behind china right now.

  16. @MrSeekerofjustice See, i dont mind a little bit of a friendly argument but when your as offensive and biased as you are, someone has to break the truth to you. I get it. You love india and theres nothing wrong with that. It is a great empire and what not but you cant just deface china and glorify india with childish, untrue arguments. Have a nice day o and no. Britanica had a much larger gdp in the 18th century. Where are you getting your facts?

  17. To be true, China is ahead of India in many areas, not because of Indian is worse than Chinese, but because India has a lot of in fighting among its govt officials and not united and up to now i think they still have the caste system. However , i do like Buddhism which is spread to China and other countries from India.I hope India could quicken its economic reforms and join China in its modernisation process ASAP.

  18. I have a feeling that most of the over-sensitive people have not actually watched the whole talk (or not understood it if they have). He says China is performing well BUT democracy supports growth and hence India is on the RIGHT path by being democratic. Stop being so touchy people, this is an academic debate! I'm an Indian who has lived in Mumbai before and enjoyed my stay there. That doesn't mean that I wasn't aware of the problems of the city (while also appreciating its strengths).

  19. U r wrong, they can't understand it cuz they r 2 touchy.I bet most people didn't go beyond the the Dharavi slum pic before becoming completely outraged. Its true that India has made some major contributions (e.g. hotmail) bt large parts of the population remains uneducated.Its expected however, that since Indians also revere education, there will be major improvements in Indian student's performance. Looking at these comments I think 1 of India's challenges is going to be rising ethnocentricism.

  20. After reading through the comments, it seems many people don't understand what he is saying:
    Authoritarianism does not lead to economic growth. When people say that, they are only choosing the best examples. India should not be compared to China, as they have two very different situations.

  21. And yet there're homeless people on the streets, which is the same situation in VN.
    And yet again China and VN claim themselves to be Socialists.

  22. yeah I think so! Latin america is even doing well. I just think that when an empire is strong it does what ever it needs to so that others don't succeed. When the U.S dies the world will succeed.

  23. well as I mentioned I believe that othere nations not just china and India are doing well. A multi polar world is better.

  24. No I understood what you said, which is that you didn't read what I wrote.
    "and never will"
    Based on what model? Yes you claiming, makes it reality.
    India hasn't had the level of reforms that China had. Two of it's states, Kerala & West Bengal, until recently were ruled by the Communist Party. The PM just recently pushed through very moderate reforms, that were heavily opposed.
    Unlike China, when India has to do something, it has to go through a Democratic process.

  25. There are many flaws in his arguments. He mentioned that China has longer life expectancy, higher literate rate and so on and that's the reason China is ahead of India. But he didn't mention that this happened after the communist party took power after 1949. Before that 80% of the Chinese are illiterate and the average life expectancy is 35. Under authoritarian communist government, China successfully reform with the support of the peasants.

  26. I believe people just have some prejudice over authoritarian rule. It seems to me that for many people what happened in China is often without any negotiation with the public. However, as a Chinese who grow up in China, I should say this is complete a misunderstanding of China. On the Internet, there are thousands of criticism over our government. On the other hand, Chinese also respond to the people's need, recently we started a social ware program covering 1.3 billion people.

  27. He compared Taiwan and China. He claimed Taiwan to be more successful. But what he didn't mention is that Taiwan before 1990 was also an authoritarian government. And Taiwan was the formal colony of Japan which has better human capital and infrastructure. However, China was a poor agricultural land who fought with Americans later. But Mao successfully changed such nation into an industrial country with Atom bombs, cars, trains etc which laid the foundation for the later open-up.

  28. He also mentioned Korea. Actually before 1980, Park dictate South Korea and successfully lead the country out of poverty. And in 1970s North Korea actually has better living standards. The difficulty North Korea has is partly because of dictatorship but the mainly because of the embargo. With the right policies, authoritarian government is indeed more efficient. Democracy never facilitate growth but rather act as a stabilizer. Democracy is definitely not a efficient way but a more legal one.

  29. right from the beginning, he stressed that he argues for democracy, but not against it. don't understand why so many people listen but not hear.

  30. That is bs. Mao didn't bring much infrastructure…the infrastructure, most of it, was built after the 80s

  31. If only India had adopted the China model, it too would have become as prosperous.
    Unfortunately, India may never be able to that because of caste system and without a common language.

    China will rise and rise.

  32. There is one thing was intentionally ignored: China's economic development is the unbelievable cost of environment. This economic mode should have never adopted if China was a democratic country.

  33. What he left out is that why does China have the human capital but not democratic India? Because democracy stifle economic growth and infrastructure especially basic human needs such as food and medical care plus education system. 
    With so called democratic system like the one India has, it will continue lagging in delivering human capital. 

  34. 哪有讨论经济的时候不讨论当时的国际形势的?!89年西方封锁中国,电话中国又不能产,电话多了才怪呢。。这教授要么无知,要么就是故意误导,个人认为是后者。。。
    黄亚生最早我记得他预测中国经济08年就要崩盘(我可能记错了,大体差不多), 然后没实现就一直往后预测。。给我的感觉是他通过胡扯这些小概率事件,如果没发生,他就找个理由然后继续推迟预测,如果发生了,那他就一夜成为知名经济学家。。所以我对他真心没好感。。他已经脱离中国社会太远了,虽然他有个黄皮肤的脸,不过他真的离开中国太久,不理解现阶段的中国了(不信可以看看他的新浪微博,他说的东西一般都有道理但是大多都很幼稚)

  35. Both countries have the huge markets and economic liberalism. Now we can tell how important the role of a strong government is. Leaders in a group and one leader in a group must be different.

  36. Bullshit! In his other video, he supported the China model for that authoritarianism helps to makes faster decisions and faster changes, while india stumbles in making decisions, the process is much slower. India still has long way to go to catch up with China in terms of infrastructure and other reforms.

  37. of course, democracy stifle economic growth

    imagine you had

    100 chef to make a dish

    compared to

    10 chef to make a dish.

    every chef think that his idea is the BEST , not willing to compromise, negotiate.
    only his idea should been adopted.

    100 chef are bickering over such issue for 10 hours.

    while rival party already make dish and serve it for their customer.

  38. 民主与自由不一样。民主不一定能促进经济,但是繁荣经济必然离不开自由。民主是公民参与公共事务的方式,而自由是公民决定自己事务的权利。只有自由,才能创造充分的交换(换句话是市场),只有交换才能创造更多财富。对于把马恩全集视作圣经的中国,这个道理不可能不不知道。
    专制政府可以更有效的促进经济,但是一个剥夺公民自由的国家却不能。如果说能,那么改革开放前的中国应该更繁荣才对。所以,我们应该警惕那些借由中国繁荣而鼓吹独裁的学者。

  39. 别的不说,共产党“要想富,先修路”的政策肯定没错。
    既然认为基础设施没用的话,那赶快跑去印度叫他们别做呀。

  40. 这么快,五年了,先来感慨一下时光流逝。对于曾经的同胞黄亚生先生,我还是有很深的敬意的,他真的很敢说。
    由于有印度的关系,就算有很多的人对于中国现在的模式很是不屑,但却没有太多的人敢跳出来保证说如果切换成民主的模式后,中国也会出现这么多年的高速持续成长,甚至是那些六四祸国之后逃了出去而现在又专门靠抹黑中国来讨饭吃 的那些人也是如此。
    但是,黄亚生真的敢说,他在很早以前,他就以一种相当肯定的语气说,如果中国全境是民主的,那么中国的人均GDP就不会比台湾省差多少,记得当时台湾省是20000刀的,他说,那中国会有15000刀以上。不知道他想过没有,这意味着早在上个世纪,中国就超过了美国。
    不知道他有考虑过印度人的心情没有,现在的印度人还可以说是因为他们是烂民主的体制,才赶不上开明专制的中国,但是,如果真的如黄亚生所形容的那样的话,那印度又是因为什么呢?

  41. china started economic reforms at least 20 years before India, while today India is exactly only 10 years behind china in economy. Real growth in India is yet to come. India is already growing faster than China even if we consider bogus GDP data of China true. Let's meet again in 2025.

  42. India is so called" democracy country" but does Chinese want immigrate to India? the answer is "definitely NO". Interesting? If we say that there is no significant relation b/w economy growth and democracy, which one you prefer? for me, economic growth, the vote can not even full my stomach.

  43. As a political science student especially I think states don't need to authoritarian regimes for catch up with those kind of regimes. In democracies have another advantage during this system of unstability advantage of democracy we also known it as bureaucratic system, if democratic states can understand what is difference between government and state (bureaucracy) they can catch huge impact in their economic growth with stable economic plans based on institutions

  44. 按说这教授教育都是没有问题的,为什么观点这么奇怪,数据这么偏颇?教育,女性权利,寿命,那正是共产党当家之后才大幅提高的啊。这些数据怎么用来证明他自己的观点呢,我简直不理解啊。

  45. 制裁中国多少年怎么不提的,如果有印度一样的国际环境,中国会早10年崛起的。

  46. 楼上的喷子 你看清楚 他说的是基础设施优势不必然带来经济增长 他讨论的是因果关系 你拿国际形势反驳他是什么逻辑?再说 你要帮中国说话 能不能先过一下脑子 一个自己能搞出两弹一星的国家 因为西方封锁 就产不出电话了 你到底是夸她呢 还是骂她呢?出来看视频 就态度虚心点。你说人家教授无知 我看你不识字。

  47. Democracy is a result not a cause for economic growth. I think it's beyond dispute – those who argue otherwise are delusional.

  48. There are many kind of democracy. Ideal demoracy is good to everything, but just has never existed. We only see specific democray, Indian demoracy, USA democracy, Taiwan (China) democracy.,… and Africa's democracy.

  49. I really enjoyed my time watching the video and reading all the salty comments from 6 years ago. So many people were simply ignorant and being unreasonable, saying his arguments were weak. Well, you were not the one presenting and you only nitpicked his flaws and disregarded other strong and neutral arguments he made. Try to be an objective audience next time…

  50. China has plan called 100 Year Marathon China has started this plan in 1948 and has one goal Make China Superpower in 2048.
    in Short term time frame Communision may win over democracy but in log term communism always fails👎☹👎
    And other side democracy may loose in short term but in long term democracy always win🏆💪

  51. I think he's oversimplifying things. China's huge advantage over India is literacy rate? Come on man. It may be part of the reason but it just cannot be the defining factor. He didn't even explain the logical relationship between literacy rate and economic growth. It's like saying: ever since I was born, China achieved an economic miracle, therefore I'm the reason why China succeeded. This is ridiculous.

  52. This GUY is so Hypocritical, I am so shamed when I knew that this guy come from same province as me. The examples he collected is so purposely and subjectively to support his own idea. Very obviously, he is very selective on the cases he choose to justify this opinion , which cater to the WESTERN IDEOLOGY and full of empty and insincere talk. Really shamed on this guy, because what he did is just to cater for the mainstream in Western countris instead of speaking on his conscience. Shame on you . man !!!

  53. India cares about People and Money… China only cares about Money !! So Economically, China will always be ahead of India. China has literally demolished thousands of residential areas and sentiments of people living in those areas for the sake of infrastructures. In India, we cant even think of demolishing a mosque which was built by an invader in the early 16th century. Reason.. We care about the feelings and emotions attached by thousands of our citizens. We in India grow up on a debate and discussion culture, to ask questions, to disagree and counter each other. In China, its my way or highway. We in India, suffer therefore many times but the positive side is that, if we decide on something than the whole country is behind it. Please also understand that India is home to almost every religion in the world and those sentiments also go side by side and Government has to ride that line too. In China, its one dimension approach and in India its multi dimention approach. You are right, China is way ahead of India but i would dread that day when one morning a policeman comes to my home and says that from tomorrow you cannot live in this house because we are buliding a big shopping complex for the people. Lastly, dragons are good for scaring people but Elephants were and will always be more close to humans. All the best to China and India !! Peace to the humanity !!

  54. Lots of Wumao in the comments section. The CCP is built on western ideology! Karl Marx was a German! It was the Russians who spread Marxism!!
    Chinese people and Chinese civilisation are what make China great, not some corrupt pseudo Marxists, especially not Xi Jinping.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post comment