>China , India and Indonesia became independent about 50 years ago.
>It's last 50 years that matter. That's when the capital accumulation
>really begins on a significant scale. That's too short period to
>draw any conclusions. Anyway, the point was about the denial of
>growth in absolute terms, not the relative ranking. India's GDP
>today is 7 t0 8 times its GDP in 1950. That's hardly a picture of
>stagnation and decline.
Never claimed it was. I'm not a member of the things are getting ever-worser immiseration school.
>Per capita income in India now is $3000 on PPP basis, not $300.
>Fairy tales about $1 per day should be buried.
The World Bank has it at $2,500, but let's not quibble over $500. Still, a large proportion of the Indian population, according to the Bank, is living on less than $1 a day - that's PPP-adjusted. Infant- and under-5 mortality rates are twice those of Brazil. There's no denying that India has a robust technological sector, an expanding urbanized middle class, etc. But there's no denying that there are still lots of very poor Indians. That's not a fairy tale.
>That partly explains differential decline in poverty between China
>and India. It's my impression that economic growth in East and South
>East Asia is export led. Growth in India is largely driven domestic
>market. That's one reason why Indian growth rates are less
>impressive. China is a darling of Imperialism.
Tell that to the American yahoos who were sounding the alarm about the Cnooc tender for Unocal. A large portion of the US elite is worried about China as a potential rival, and with good reason.
> >> Why Cuba is led by the same person for 45 years? How long the
>current regimes in China and Cuba will survive?
>
>> Who knows? How's that relevant?
>
>What we knew as socialism in the 20 Century is dead. Nobody wants to
>discuss the crisis of socialism. The regimes like PRC
>are anachronisms.
Really? They've done a pretty masterful job in managing the transition to capitalism. Cuba's another story entirely, of course.
> > All I claimed was that it's very difficult for poor countries to
>become less poor.>
>
>Why it is more difficult than it was for Europe and US? Are the
>developed countries the real barrier to growth in poor countries
>like China, India and Indonesia?
To some degree - through intellectual property restrictions, for example. India doesn't have much of a debt problem, but a lot of other poor countries do. Export-oriented development can distort investment allocations at the expense of local populations. Poverty itself can be a barrier - hungry people aren't the best workers, education budgets are pinched, infrastructure sucks, kids have to work rather than go to school, etc.
Doug