页面

2012年10月18日星期四

评论: MIT经管教授黄亚生谈中国与印度 政治自由、民主制度和经济发展

MIT经管教授黄亚生谈中国与印度 政治自由、民主制度和经济发展 http://lihlii.blogspot.com/2012/10/mit.html ; http://post.ly/9ab0G

录像下载:
https://www.wuala.com /renyun.net/People/H/黄亚生/2009/06/
https://www.wuala.com /renyun.net/Topic/印度/对比/中国/


http://comment.news.163.com/news2_bbs/573CIJMV00012Q9L.html
热门跟贴 (跟贴212条 有7122人参与)
网易山东省临沂市网友 ip:124.201.*.* 2009-04-17 09:11:49 发表
学软件,民主和免费医疗!这是肺腑之言!
顶[906]
网易陕西省西安市网友 ip:219.145.*.* 2009-04-17 09:05:04 发表
不要再叫阿三,人家比我们厉害
顶[603]
网易辽宁省沈阳市沈河区网友 ip:218.25.*.* 2009-04-17 09:46:38 发表
赞同这一观点!国家应该投资于教育医疗等民生工程。这才是长久发展之路。
顶[455]
网易广东省广州市网友 ip:58.248.*.* 2009-04-17 09:25:43 发表
不知道 印度让说话不???
顶[442]
网易重庆市渝北区网友 ip:222.178.*.* 2009-04-17 09:15:10 发表
印度相当于中国三分之一的领土,确拥有中国样多的人口,印度从没称其人多,人多是印度的娇傲,谁控制生育,谁就下课,人口红利及英语红利使印度得 益。
顶[418]
网易广东省深圳市网友 ip:119.122.*.* 2009-04-17 10:50:14 发表
说说我的拙见,中国银行之所以不愿意把钱贷给中小企业,以此拉动中国的经济发展,我想,是由于中国的国民素质决定的,一些人特别是一些和政府搭得 上关系的心怀不轨之人,总会想通过各种非正常手段从银行获得贷款,然后却久久拒不还贷,一副死猪不怕开水烫的样子,几年过后,通过收买银行的高 管,由银行做为坏帐处理了.如果我国能建立一套比较好的资金监管体系,和法制体系,杜绝政府官员腐败,加大政府官员的职务犯罪成本,这样,在大部 分信誉好的企业,且有发展前景的企业则可获得银行的支持,从而提高国内企业在GDP中的贡献.
顶[392]
网易广东省东莞市网友 ip:121.13.*.* 2009-04-17 10:24:47 发表
网易广东珠海网友(116.194.*.*) 的原贴:1
经济起飞主要取决于良好的民心,阿三戾气十足,到处树敌.
别成天阿三阿三地喊,自己不害臊???

顶[299]


葛郎台 [网易湖南省长沙市网友]: 2009-04-17 09:20:32 发表
先学学他们的火车票
顶[249]
网易江苏省苏州市网友 ip:58.211.*.* 2009-04-17 09:45:03 发表
要发展政府就得改掉暴发户的心态
顶[240]
网易山东省临沂市网友 ip:124.201.*.* 2009-04-17 18:31:01 发表
网易印度网友(210.212.*.*) 的原贴:1
印度是免费医疗吗?你去过印度的公立医院吗?里面非常阴暗,病房连最落后的乡镇的一个小旅馆的房间都不如,就4张床,没有医护人员,而且大部分都 空着。因为住不起。多数的病人都是躺在走廊上挂点滴。这种情况,如果是你,能忍受?
网易安徽六安网友(60.173.*.*) 的原贴:2
不知道你去过医院的住院部没有,在医院走道里打点滴的人少吗?当然如果有人的话除外!!
印度从1956年就实行全民免费医疗,难道还有人怀疑吗?!你冒充印度网友丝毫不能证明你在说实话?!

顶[95]

网易黑龙江省哈尔滨市网友 ip:125.211.*.* 2009-06-06 18:18:48 发表
以后就去MIT
顶[0]
网易黑龙江省哈尔滨市网友 ip:125.211.*.* 2009-06-06 18:17:22 发表
MIT好啊
顶[0]
网易江苏省苏州市网友 ip:221.224.*.* 2009-05-14 19:31:43 发表
网易广东广州网友(58.62.*.*) 的原贴:1
100年前俺们跟日本人争锋,100年后俺们跟印度争锋
再过100年我们和索马里争锋
网易广东广州网友(222.200.*.*) 的原贴:2
100年前俺们跟日本人争锋,100年后俺们跟印度争锋
再过100年我们和索马里争锋
网易河南焦作网友(115.56.*.*) 的原贴:3
100年前俺们跟日本人争锋,100年后俺们跟印度争锋
再过100年我们和索马里争锋
网易江苏徐州网友(122.194.*.*) 的原贴:4
100年前俺们跟日本人争锋,100年后俺们跟印度争锋
再过100年我们和索马里争锋
网易广东中山网友(59.33.*.*) 的原贴:5
100年前俺们跟日本人争锋,100年后俺们跟印度争锋
再过100年我们和索马里争锋 继续100年后我们和阿富汗争锋
网易陕西西安网友(117.22.*.*) 的原贴:6
100年前俺们跟日本人争锋,100年后俺们跟印度争锋
再过100年我们和索马里争锋 继续100年后我们和阿富汗争锋
100年前俺们跟日本人争锋,100年后俺们跟印度争锋
再过100年我们和索马里争锋 继续100年后我们和阿富汗争锋

顶[4]


panyujun001 [网易安徽省淮南市网友]: 2009-04-21 19:13:52 发表
好的要学习。坏的要抛弃,,怎么都没人开眼看世界呢。
顶[5]
网易陕西省西安市网友 ip:117.22.*.* 2009-04-21 18:03:17 发表
网易广东广州网友(58.62.*.*) 的原贴:1
100年前俺们跟日本人争锋,100年后俺们跟印度争锋
再过100年我们和索马里争锋
网易广东广州网友(222.200.*.*) 的原贴:2
100年前俺们跟日本人争锋,100年后俺们跟印度争锋
再过100年我们和索马里争锋
网易河南焦作网友(115.56.*.*) 的原贴:3
100年前俺们跟日本人争锋,100年后俺们跟印度争锋
再过100年我们和索马里争锋
网易江苏徐州网友(122.194.*.*) 的原贴:4
100年前俺们跟日本人争锋,100年后俺们跟印度争锋
再过100年我们和索马里争锋
网易广东中山网友(59.33.*.*) 的原贴:5
100年前俺们跟日本人争锋,100年后俺们跟印度争锋
再过100年我们和索马里争锋 继续100年后我们和阿富汗争锋
100年前俺们跟日本人争锋,100年后俺们跟印度争锋
再过100年我们和索马里争锋 继续100年后我们和阿富汗争锋

顶[3]
网易广东省深圳市网友 ip:203.86.*.* 2009-04-21 08:55:04 发表
网易印度网友(210.212.*.*) 的原贴:1
印度是免费医疗吗?你去过印度的公立医院吗?里面非常阴暗,病房连最落后的乡镇的一个小旅馆的房间都不如,就4张床,没有医护人员,而且大部分都 空着。因为住不起。多数的病人都是躺在走廊上挂点滴。这种情况,如果是你,能忍受?
网易安徽六安网友(60.173.*.*) 的原贴:2
不知道你去过医院的住院部没有,在医院走道里打点滴的人少吗?当然如果有人的话除外!!
网易山东临沂网友(124.201.*.*) 的原贴:3
印度从1956年就实行全民免费医疗,难道还有人怀疑吗?!你冒充印度网友丝毫不能证明你在说实话?!
网易重庆网友(220.114.*.*) 的原贴:4
冒牌托不是那么做的
网易河北保定网友(221.192.*.*) 的原贴:5
一楼编故事也要编圆滑点才行呀,既然是免费了,就不存在住不起的道理。
网易浙江金华义乌网友(218.75.*.*) 的原贴:6
印度那么好,就移民过去哦,去印度很简单
网易福建三明网友(222.78.*.*) 的原贴:7
印度那么好,就移民过去哦
网易广东深圳网友(61.141.*.*) 的原贴:8
6.7楼王8
网易福建三明网友(222.78.*.*) 的原贴:9
楼上阿三的后代?
阿三,有什么好的,哎

顶[3]
网易广东省深圳市网友 ip:203.86.*.* 2009-04-21 08:53:31 发表
网易陕西西安网友(219.145.*.*) 的原贴:1
不要再叫阿三,人家比我们厉害
网易河南郑州网友(123.12.*.*) 的原贴:2
本来就是,sb粪青老叫人家阿三,无比蔑视,可人家培植出了两项世界领先的产业,IT,制药,反观我国,一个都没有,怎么解释?两年前我曾看过一 介绍印度的片子,老外拍的,从各个角度说明印度50年内会超越美国,而中国,比比,中国的粪青除了叫嚣还有什么?拍这片子的老外是不是就是"美 奸"(他们的逻辑,不能说本国的任何不足,更不能说别国的优势)我们的优势劣势是什么?粪青是从来不会考虑的!
知己知彼,百战不殆,中国古人所说的不知中国如今的所唯"现代人"记得领悟的还有多少?
网易福建三明网友(222.78.*.*) 的原贴:3
有人愿意移民印度吗?
没有

顶[4]
网易福建省三明市网友 ip:222.78.*.* 2009-04-19 22:01:05 发表
网易印度网友(210.212.*.*) 的原贴:1
印度是免费医疗吗?你去过印度的公立医院吗?里面非常阴暗,病房连最落后的乡镇的一个小旅馆的房间都不如,就4张床,没有医护人员,而且大部分都 空着。因为住不起。多数的病人都是躺在走廊上挂点滴。这种情况,如果是你,能忍受?
网易安徽六安网友(60.173.*.*) 的原贴:2
不知道你去过医院的住院部没有,在医院走道里打点滴的人少吗?当然如果有人的话除外!!
网易山东临沂网友(124.201.*.*) 的原贴:3
印度从1956年就实行全民免费医疗,难道还有人怀疑吗?!你冒充印度网友丝毫不能证明你在说实话?!
网易重庆网友(220.114.*.*) 的原贴:4
冒牌托不是那么做的
网易河北保定网友(221.192.*.*) 的原贴:5
一楼编故事也要编圆滑点才行呀,既然是免费了,就不存在住不起的道理。
网易浙江金华义乌网友(218.75.*.*) 的原贴:6
印度那么好,就移民过去哦,去印度很简单
网易福建三明网友(222.78.*.*) 的原贴:7
印度那么好,就移民过去哦
网易广东深圳网友(61.141.*.*) 的原贴:8
6.7楼王8
楼上阿三的后代?

顶[3]
网易广东省深圳市网友 ip:61.141.*.* 2009-04-19 19:46:59 发表
网易印度网友(210.212.*.*) 的原贴:1
印度是免费医疗吗?你去过印度的公立医院吗?里面非常阴暗,病房连最落后的乡镇的一个小旅馆的房间都不如,就4张床,没有医护人员,而且大部分都 空着。因为住不起。多数的病人都是躺在走廊上挂点滴。这种情况,如果是你,能忍受?
网易安徽六安网友(60.173.*.*) 的原贴:2
不知道你去过医院的住院部没有,在医院走道里打点滴的人少吗?当然如果有人的话除外!!
网易山东临沂网友(124.201.*.*) 的原贴:3
印度从1956年就实行全民免费医疗,难道还有人怀疑吗?!你冒充印度网友丝毫不能证明你在说实话?!
网易重庆网友(220.114.*.*) 的原贴:4
冒牌托不是那么做的
网易河北保定网友(221.192.*.*) 的原贴:5
一楼编故事也要编圆滑点才行呀,既然是免费了,就不存在住不起的道理。
网易浙江金华义乌网友(218.75.*.*) 的原贴:6
印度那么好,就移民过去哦,去印度很简单
网易福建三明网友(222.78.*.*) 的原贴:7
印度那么好,就移民过去哦
6.7楼王8

顶[0]
网易浙江省杭州市网友 ip:115.193.*.* 2009-04-19 18:16:30 发表

纪念蒋经国百年诞辰! 走在俄罗斯古老的大地,你磨练自己,像矿工寻找中国未来的燃煤;在赣南你深入最贫困的家庭,想建设公平幸福的人间;在上海,你和特权战斗,凸显清廉正直的 价值。"
顶[4]
网易广东省惠州市网友 ip:59.33.*.* 2009-04-19 17:37:33 发表
支持黄教授
顶[4]
网易山东省济南市网友 ip:124.128.*.* 2009-04-19 13:37:03 发表
高论
顶[0]
网易山东省烟台市网友 ip:218.56.*.* 2009-04-18 22:12:20 发表
我们的金融业为何能向外资开放,而不能给民营资本一个成长的机会哪,只有民营企业兴旺发达了,我们的国家才能更强大。
顶[2]
网易天津市网友 ip:60.28.*.* 2009-04-18 19:55:24 发表
这个姓黄的是美国大学里有名的捧印贬中派,哈佛商学院案例里也有他和一印度裔合写的中印文章,总之,反反复复找各种理由证明印度比中国好。其实, 他的很多逻辑都是禁不起推敲的。中印效率差异主要是产业发展道路的差异,印度走的是精英服务业,其投资量和投入产出比、以及能耗等自然要比以制造 业为主的中国小,但印度的路是西方体系下的附庸,作为大国没有制造业走不通、走不远,现在一位吹捧印度其心可诛。
顶[4]
网易印度网友 ip:210.212.*.* 2009-04-18 19:10:06 发表
网易印度网友(210.212.*.*) 的原贴:1
印度是免费医疗吗?你去过印度的公立医院吗?里面非常阴暗,病房连最落后的乡镇的一个小旅馆的房间都不如,就4张床,没有医护人员,而且大部分都 空着。因为住不起。多数的病人都是躺在走廊上挂点滴。这种情况,如果是你,能忍受?
网易安徽六安网友(60.173.*.*) 的原贴:2
不知道你去过医院的住院部没有,在医院走道里打点滴的人少吗?当然如果有人的话除外!!
网易山东临沂网友(124.201.*.*) 的原贴:3
印度从1956年就实行全民免费医疗,难道还有人怀疑吗?!你冒充印度网友丝毫不能证明你在说实话?!
网易云南昆明网友(116.52.*.*) 的原贴:4
在中国人们看不起病,主要是中国医院是已药养医,10元钱能看好的病不花你个1百元,医生医院怎么活啊
网易广东佛山网友(116.5.*.*) 的原贴:5
人家在印度讲话,比你们说得可信吧
网易江西南昌网友(220.175.*.*) 的原贴:6
火星人说话更可靠
火星网友出来说句话
网易广东网友(113.65.*.*) 的原贴:7
纯粹来盖楼的。
有没有看《贫民窟的百万富翁》?除去里面情节,我们看电影里的画面,你就知道印度穷人活的怎么样了。还要说明的是,电影里大部分镜头是在大城市拍 的,不是印度的穷山僻壤。譬如他们偷鞋子的镜头,那是在安哥拉,从镜头里可以看见泰姬陵。而孟买的贫民窟更恐怖,你从飞机上往下看,基本看不到一 个发达城市的样子,你眼里都是贫民窟的棚户。
印度是实行了免费医疗和教育,但是实际情况穷人还是看不起病,穷人的孩子还是上不起学。

顶[2]
网易河南省新乡市网友 ip:123.8.*.* 2009-04-18 14:06:54 发表
提防此人
顶[1]
网易福建省三明市网友 ip:222.78.*.* 2009-04-18 11:26:23 发表
网易印度网友(210.212.*.*) 的原贴:1
印度是免费医疗吗?你去过印度的公立医院吗?里面非常阴暗,病房连最落后的乡镇的一个小旅馆的房间都不如,就4张床,没有医护人员,而且大部分都 空着。因为住不起。多数的病人都是躺在走廊上挂点滴。这种情况,如果是你,能忍受?
网易安徽六安网友(60.173.*.*) 的原贴:2
不知道你去过医院的住院部没有,在医院走道里打点滴的人少吗?当然如果有人的话除外!!
网易山东临沂网友(124.201.*.*) 的原贴:3
印度从1956年就实行全民免费医疗,难道还有人怀疑吗?!你冒充印度网友丝毫不能证明你在说实话?!
网易重庆网友(220.114.*.*) 的原贴:4
冒牌托不是那么做的
网易河北保定网友(221.192.*.*) 的原贴:5
一楼编故事也要编圆滑点才行呀,既然是免费了,就不存在住不起的道理。
网易浙江金华义乌网友(218.75.*.*) 的原贴:6
印度那么好,就移民过去哦,去印度很简单
印度那么好,就移民过去哦

顶[1]
网易广东省广州市网友 ip:121.8.*.* 2009-04-18 10:49:35 发表
网易陕西西安网友(219.145.*.*) 的原贴:1
不要再叫阿三,人家比我们厉害
不要紧,人家可以叫我们"小三"

顶[0]
网易福建省三明市网友 ip:222.78.*.* 2009-04-18 10:39:57 发表
网易陕西西安网友(219.145.*.*) 的原贴:1
不要再叫阿三,人家比我们厉害
网易河南郑州网友(123.12.*.*) 的原贴:2
本来就是,sb粪青老叫人家阿三,无比蔑视,可人家培植出了两项世界领先的产业,IT,制药,反观我国,一个都没有,怎么解释?两年前我曾看过一 介绍印度的片子,老外拍的,从各个角度说明印度50年内会超越美国,而中国,比比,中国的粪青除了叫嚣还有什么?拍这片子的老外是不是就是"美 奸"(他们的逻辑,不能说本国的任何不足,更不能说别国的优势)我们的优势劣势是什么?粪青是从来不会考虑的!
知己知彼,百战不殆,中国古人所说的不知中国如今的所唯"现代人"记得领悟的还有多少?
有人愿意移民印度吗?

顶[0]
网易广东省中山市网友 ip:59.33.*.* 2009-04-18 10:18:17 发表
网易广东广州网友(58.62.*.*) 的原贴:1
100年前俺们跟日本人争锋,100年后俺们跟印度争锋
再过100年我们和索马里争锋
网易广东广州网友(222.200.*.*) 的原贴:2
100年前俺们跟日本人争锋,100年后俺们跟印度争锋
再过100年我们和索马里争锋
网易河南焦作网友(115.56.*.*) 的原贴:3
100年前俺们跟日本人争锋,100年后俺们跟印度争锋
再过100年我们和索马里争锋
网易江苏徐州网友(122.194.*.*) 的原贴:4
100年前俺们跟日本人争锋,100年后俺们跟印度争锋
再过100年我们和索马里争锋
100年前俺们跟日本人争锋,100年后俺们跟印度争锋
再过100年我们和索马里争锋 继续100年后我们和阿富汗争锋

顶[6]
网易广东省中山市网友 ip:59.33.*.* 2009-04-18 09:40:31 发表
网易陕西西安网友(219.145.*.*) 的原贴:1
不要再叫阿三,人家比我们厉害
难道叫老二

顶[0]
网易广东省东莞市网友 ip:119.141.*.* 2009-04-18 08:05:16 发表
我支持我们的金融制度保守一些,应该比现在更保守
顶[0]
网易广东省广州市网友 ip:121.33.*.* 2009-04-18 07:44:57 发表
网易山东临沂网友(124.201.*.*) 的原贴:1
学软件,民主和免费医疗!这是肺腑之言!
印度有100多家企业符合医药疗效质量的标准,而中国只有两家公司

顶[10]


纯粹汉语 [网易重庆市网友]: 2009-04-18 06:48:53 发表
网易湖南长沙网友(222.240.*.*) 的原贴:1
先学学他们的火车票
你们知道印度的火车拥挤情况吗?火车顶上都没有空位。

顶[2]
网易广东省广州市网友 ip:113.65.*.* 2009-04-18 03:38:11 发表
网易印度网友(210.212.*.*) 的原贴:1
印度是免费医疗吗?你去过印度的公立医院吗?里面非常阴暗,病房连最落后的乡镇的一个小旅馆的房间都不如,就4张床,没有医护人员,而且大部分都 空着。因为住不起。多数的病人都是躺在走廊上挂点滴。这种情况,如果是你,能忍受?
网易安徽六安网友(60.173.*.*) 的原贴:2
不知道你去过医院的住院部没有,在医院走道里打点滴的人少吗?当然如果有人的话除外!!
网易山东临沂网友(124.201.*.*) 的原贴:3
印度从1956年就实行全民免费医疗,难道还有人怀疑吗?!你冒充印度网友丝毫不能证明你在说实话?!
网易云南昆明网友(116.52.*.*) 的原贴:4
在中国人们看不起病,主要是中国医院是已药养医,10元钱能看好的病不花你个1百元,医生医院怎么活啊
网易广东佛山网友(116.5.*.*) 的原贴:5
人家在印度讲话,比你们说得可信吧
网易江西南昌网友(220.175.*.*) 的原贴:6
火星人说话更可靠
火星网友出来说句话
纯粹来盖楼的。

顶[1]
网易上海市普陀区网友 ip:58.41.*.* 2009-04-18 00:57:33 发表
希望领导能先把建设好国家,再考虑其他事情呵呵
顶[2]
网易广东省佛山市网友 ip:58.255.*.* 2009-04-18 00:55:39 发表
有道理啊。是好的我们都要虚心学,古人都有言啦。这是中国的名言名语了。不可忘啊。
顶[3]
网易浙江省金华市义乌市网友 ip:218.75.*.* 2009-04-18 00:35:28 发表
网易印度网友(210.212.*.*) 的原贴:1
印度是免费医疗吗?你去过印度的公立医院吗?里面非常阴暗,病房连最落后的乡镇的一个小旅馆的房间都不如,就4张床,没有医护人员,而且大部分都 空着。因为住不起。多数的病人都是躺在走廊上挂点滴。这种情况,如果是你,能忍受?
网易安徽六安网友(60.173.*.*) 的原贴:2
不知道你去过医院的住院部没有,在医院走道里打点滴的人少吗?当然如果有人的话除外!!
网易山东临沂网友(124.201.*.*) 的原贴:3
印度从1956年就实行全民免费医疗,难道还有人怀疑吗?!你冒充印度网友丝毫不能证明你在说实话?!
网易重庆网友(220.114.*.*) 的原贴:4
冒牌托不是那么做的
网易河北保定网友(221.192.*.*) 的原贴:5
一楼编故事也要编圆滑点才行呀,既然是免费了,就不存在住不起的道理。
印度那么好,就移民过去哦,去印度很简单

顶[3]
网易江西省南昌市网友 ip:220.175.*.* 2009-04-18 00:25:04 发表
网易印度网友(210.212.*.*) 的原贴:1
印度是免费医疗吗?你去过印度的公立医院吗?里面非常阴暗,病房连最落后的乡镇的一个小旅馆的房间都不如,就4张床,没有医护人员,而且大部分都 空着。因为住不起。多数的病人都是躺在走廊上挂点滴。这种情况,如果是你,能忍受?
网易安徽六安网友(60.173.*.*) 的原贴:2
不知道你去过医院的住院部没有,在医院走道里打点滴的人少吗?当然如果有人的话除外!!
网易山东临沂网友(124.201.*.*) 的原贴:3
印度从1956年就实行全民免费医疗,难道还有人怀疑吗?!你冒充印度网友丝毫不能证明你在说实话?!
网易云南昆明网友(116.52.*.*) 的原贴:4
在中国人们看不起病,主要是中国医院是已药养医,10元钱能看好的病不花你个1百元,医生医院怎么活啊
网易广东佛山网友(116.5.*.*) 的原贴:5
人家在印度讲话,比你们说得可信吧
火星人说话更可靠
火星网友出来说句话

顶[0]
网易广东省茂名市网友 ip:125.90.*.* 2009-04-18 00:11:56 发表
这帖子要被和谐
顶[0]


网易浙江省金华市义乌市网友 ip:218.75.*.* 2009-04-18 00:03:44 发表
网易广东广州网友(58.248.*.*) 的原贴:1
不知道 印度让说话不???
还是不要说为好...

顶[0]
网易江苏省徐州市网友 ip:122.194.*.* 2009-04-18 00:02:44 发表
网易青海西宁网友(125.72.*.*) 的原贴:1
1)"如果我们重视就业和居民的收入。。。"真正可持续拉动内需靠的不是那些急功近利的手段,而正是这个!。。。'罗斯福新政'曾力挽美国经济危 机狂澜靠的就是"还利于民,重视民生"的政策结果!!!历史会教育人类!!!
2)"浪费了大量的、昂贵的资源用于建设毫无经济利益的摩天大楼和政府建筑,它们本应该投资于教育及医疗。这种高度依赖政府投入的经济增长对中国 消费潜力造成了最严重的破坏。。。"这就是为什么这么多年了,是人都知道'教育内容'与'社会实际需求'脱节,看病'贵'。。。医疗与教育本是基 础民生却给'市场化'了。原来'钱'都跑这儿去了。。。
说句哲理的话,'世间万事万物一切皆会有因果报应!';说句老土话:'出来混迟早是要还的'。。。
1)"如果我们重视就业和居民的收入。。。"真正可持续拉动内需靠的不是那些急功近利的手段,而正是这个!。。。'罗斯福新政'曾力挽美国经济危 机狂澜靠的就是"还利于民,重视民生"的政策结果!!!历史会教育人类!!!
2)" 浪费了大量的、昂贵的资源用于建设毫无经济利益的摩天大楼和政府建筑,它们本应该投资于教育及医疗。这种高度依赖政府投入的经济增长对中国消费潜力造成了 最严重的破坏。。。"这就是为什么这么多年了,是人都知道'教育内容'与'社会实际需求'脱节,看病'贵'。。。医疗与教育本是基础民生却给'市 场化' 了。原来'钱'都跑这儿去了。。。
说句哲理的话,'世间万事万物一切皆会有因果报应!';说句老土话:'出来混迟早是要还的'。。。

顶[1]
网易山东省淄博市网友 ip:124.134.*.* 2009-04-18 00:01:52 发表
国民的素质是第一的。
顶[2]
网易江苏省徐州市网友 ip:122.194.*.* 2009-04-17 23:58:55 发表
网易广东广州网友(58.62.*.*) 的原贴:1
100年前俺们跟日本人争锋,100年后俺们跟印度争锋
再过100年我们和索马里争锋
网易广东广州网友(222.200.*.*) 的原贴:2
100年前俺们跟日本人争锋,100年后俺们跟印度争锋
再过100年我们和索马里争锋
网易河南焦作网友(115.56.*.*) 的原贴:3
100年前俺们跟日本人争锋,100年后俺们跟印度争锋
再过100年我们和索马里争锋
100年前俺们跟日本人争锋,100年后俺们跟印度争锋
再过100年我们和索马里争锋

顶[2]
网易甘肃省兰州市网友 ip:61.178.*.* 2009-04-17 23:58:54 发表
印度的典章制度固然有许多可取之处,但其经济基础较为薄弱,掣肘颇多,当局穷兵黩武,前些年经济快速增长泡沫偏大,不足为训。当然,我们也有许多 事情要做。当前我们应做的是不骄不躁,不卑不亢,练好内功,谨慎行事
顶[2]
网易广东省深圳市网友 ip:58.251.*.* 2009-04-17 23:42:09 发表
网易广东广州网友(58.62.*.*) 的原贴:1
100年前俺们跟日本人争锋,100年后俺们跟印度争锋
再过100年我们和索马里争锋
网易广东广州网友(222.200.*.*) 的原贴:2
100年前俺们跟日本人争锋,100年后俺们跟印度争锋
再过100年我们和索马里争锋
网易河南焦作网友(115.56.*.*) 的原贴:3
100年前俺们跟日本人争锋,100年后俺们跟印度争锋
再过100年我们和索马里争锋
100年前俺们跟日本人争锋,100年后俺们跟印度争锋
再过100年我们和索马里争锋

顶[3]
网易西班牙网友 ip:87.221.*.* 2009-04-17 23:27:53 发表
网易广东珠海网友(116.194.*.*) 的原贴:1
经济起飞主要取决于良好的民心,阿三戾气十足,到处树敌.
网易广东东莞网友(121.13.*.*) 的原贴:2
别成天阿三阿三地喊,自己不害臊???
不知道谁到处树敌了。。。阿三做学位还是比较踏实的

顶[4]
网易湖北省荆门市网友 ip:119.36.*.* 2009-04-17 22:50:17 发表
网易重庆渝北网友(222.178.*.*) 的原贴:1
印度相当于中国三分之一的领土,确拥有中国样多的人口,印度从没称其人多,人多是印度的娇傲,谁控制生育,谁就下课,人口红利及英语红利使印度得 益。
网易广东深圳福田网友(119.123.*.*) 的原贴:2
你知道恒河上飘多少尸体?你知道印度饿死多少人?越生越穷,越穷越生,你这种人和你的后代活该穷死。
楼上的知识面太窄怎么连印度提倡计划生肓也不知道呢?

顶[0]
网易广东省广州市网友 ip:119.130.*.* 2009-04-17 22:39:35 发表
网易广东广州网友(58.248.*.*) 的原贴:1
我提问:中国银行如果进行私有化,那么谁会获得银行的股权?政府怎样对银行进行控制?
日,按你的道理美国更没法控制

顶[2]
网易广东省佛山市网友 ip:116.5.*.* 2009-04-17 22:30:13 发表
网易印度网友(210.212.*.*) 的原贴:1
印度是免费医疗吗?你去过印度的公立医院吗?里面非常阴暗,病房连最落后的乡镇的一个小旅馆的房间都不如,就4张床,没有医护人员,而且大部分都 空着。因为住不起。多数的病人都是躺在走廊上挂点滴。这种情况,如果是你,能忍受?
网易安徽六安网友(60.173.*.*) 的原贴:2
不知道你去过医院的住院部没有,在医院走道里打点滴的人少吗?当然如果有人的话除外!!
网易山东临沂网友(124.201.*.*) 的原贴:3
印度从1956年就实行全民免费医疗,难道还有人怀疑吗?!你冒充印度网友丝毫不能证明你在说实话?!
网易云南昆明网友(116.52.*.*) 的原贴:4
在中国人们看不起病,主要是中国医院是已药养医,10元钱能看好的病不花你个1百元,医生医院怎么活啊
人家在印度讲话,比你们说得可信吧

顶[2]
网易河北省保定市网友 ip:221.192.*.* 2009-04-17 22:28:26 发表
网易印度网友(210.212.*.*) 的原贴:1
印度是免费医疗吗?你去过印度的公立医院吗?里面非常阴暗,病房连最落后的乡镇的一个小旅馆的房间都不如,就4张床,没有医护人员,而且大部分都 空着。因为住不起。多数的病人都是躺在走廊上挂点滴。这种情况,如果是你,能忍受?
网易安徽六安网友(60.173.*.*) 的原贴:2
不知道你去过医院的住院部没有,在医院走道里打点滴的人少吗?当然如果有人的话除外!!
网易山东临沂网友(124.201.*.*) 的原贴:3
印度从1956年就实行全民免费医疗,难道还有人怀疑吗?!你冒充印度网友丝毫不能证明你在说实话?!
网易重庆网友(220.114.*.*) 的原贴:4
冒牌托不是那么做的
一楼编故事也要编圆滑点才行呀,既然是免费了,就不存在住不起的道理。

顶[0]
网易巴基斯坦网友 ip:202.83.*.* 2009-04-17 22:26:08 发表
外国很多好的东西,拿到中国就走样,这是为什么?这是根本点。不要以为在印度能成功,拿过来在中国就行。我看这篇文章也是书呆子的理想,没有实际 意义。
顶[3]
网易河南省平顶山市网友 ip:222.85.*.* 2009-04-17 22:19:58 发表
网易重庆渝北网友(222.178.*.*) 的原贴:1
印度相当于中国三分之一的领土,确拥有中国样多的人口,印度从没称其人多,人多是印度的娇傲,谁控制生育,谁就下课,人口红利及英语红利使印度得 益。
网易广东深圳福田网友(119.123.*.*) 的原贴:2
你知道恒河上飘多少尸体?你知道印度饿死多少人?越生越穷,越穷越生,你这种人和你的后代活该穷死。
信仰所致,朝圣者临死前会前往恒河。。

顶[2]
网易江苏省苏州市网友 ip:58.211.*.* 2009-04-17 22:14:53 发表
把钱用在刀刃上,而不是低效率重复、浪费性搞基建。放大的仇恨打不倒任何敌人。唯有增强自身素质,驾驭和把握时机积聚力量,不断发展壮大,自强方 能受尊重,全面超越,人方认你强。中国人的脖子不可能祈求于美日军钢刀下的仁慈。不要到时候才说:以前荒废了,还没准备好,以前太不抓紧了、不够 努力,太注意表面,钱花错方向、留着外汇没派实质用场,没有 储备足够的粮食、原材料、原油,没有准备足够的防空设施,没有保留足够的人才团队,没有以壮士断背的决心严肃纲纪,没有装备盟国,没有......
顶[2]
网易重庆市涪陵区网友 ip:222.179.*.* 2009-04-17 22:12:43 发表
网易广西南宁网友(113.12.*.*) 的原贴:1
给自己一点自信和勇气,学一学人家的优点与长处,不要老拿肮脏、贫穷笑话人,自己的绝症尚未有治疗良方之时,不要耻笑人家的痔疮。
给自己一点自信和勇气,学一学人家的优点与长处,不要老拿肮脏、贫穷笑话人,自己的绝症尚未有治疗良方之时,不要耻笑人家的痔疮。

顶[3]
网易江苏省徐州市网友 ip:222.45.*.* 2009-04-17 22:08:21 发表
世界卫生组织每年从全球医药厂家购买便宜的医药以救助非洲贫困地区,其中印度、中国和巴西等国家的企业是主要来源。印度有100多家企业符合医药 疗效质量的标准,而中国只有两家公司
顶[4]
网易山东省青岛市网友 ip:123.235.*.* 2009-04-17 22:01:56 发表
网易重庆渝北网友(222.178.*.*) 的原贴:1
印度相当于中国三分之一的领土,确拥有中国样多的人口,印度从没称其人多,人多是印度的娇傲,谁控制生育,谁就下课,人口红利及英语红利使印度得 益。
网易辽宁大连网友(60.20.*.*) 的原贴:2
此论点差矣!中国国土虽然为印度三倍,但中国多高原山脉,印度多平原。中国的可耕地面积比印度少得多!中国实行计划生育政策是完全正确的!
自我安慰

顶[1]
网易河南省许昌市网友 ip:115.56.*.* 2009-04-17 21:56:06 发表
网易广东广州网友(58.62.*.*) 的原贴:1
100年前俺们跟日本人争锋,100年后俺们跟印度争锋
再过100年我们和索马里争锋
网易广东广州网友(222.200.*.*) 的原贴:2
100年前俺们跟日本人争锋,100年后俺们跟印度争锋
再过100年我们和索马里争锋
100年前俺们跟日本人争锋,100年后俺们跟印度争锋
再过100年我们和索马里争锋

顶[1]
网易广东省深圳市网友 ip:61.141.*.* 2009-04-17 21:49:01 发表
大力提高中国学生研究创造能力,提高科技,教育和农村基础设施的建设,才能将印度远远抛在身后
顶[0]
网易重庆市网友 ip:58.17.*.* 2009-04-17 21:42:23 发表
网易广东东莞网友(116.18.*.*) 的原贴:1
大家都知道,就是不敢说,怕被跨省追捕。
网易山西网友(113.25.*.*) 的原贴:2
说到点子上了。这你都敢说?佩服。
我也佩服

顶[2]
网易湖北省黄石市网友 ip:58.54.*.* 2009-04-17 21:41:27 发表
网易北京网友(219.142.*.*) 的原贴:1
说的有一定道理,但是你娘的狗屁专家也太贬低中国了吧,你是吃中国的人奶长大的吗,是不是觉得美国的屎都比中国香。
你真狗娘生的粪青,狗屁不通,有你这种人渣中国永远只能落后,幸好你这种杂种只是少数!!!!!

顶[6]
网易浙江省金华市义乌市网友 ip:218.75.*.* 2009-04-17 21:36:49 发表
网易重庆渝北网友(222.178.*.*) 的原贴:1
印度相当于中国三分之一的领土,确拥有中国样多的人口,印度从没称其人多,人多是印度的娇傲,谁控制生育,谁就下课,人口红利及英语红利使印度得 益。
怪不得穷亲那么穷

顶[0]
网易重庆市沙坪坝区网友 ip:219.153.*.* 2009-04-17 21:35:28 发表
取长补短,学会接受别人的意见,方为上策.如果我国还以政府投入基础设施来发展经济的话,再过几年,我国的发展就没有后劲的动力.
顶[4]
网易重庆市巴南区网友 ip:219.152.*.* 2009-04-17 21:25:36 发表
支持呀,沙发呀。。。嘿嘿~~~都已经说了;我只有默默的支持。
顶[1]
网易湖北省宜昌市网友 ip:119.36.*.* 2009-04-17 21:23:03 发表
"十年树木,百年树人!"教育投入与产出的比是最大的,政府应该对教育持续的、大笔的投入,而不是短视的、吝啬的投入。有了足够多的人才,国家何 愁不兴?
顶[2]
网易河北省石家庄市网友 ip:211.138.*.* 2009-04-17 21:14:14 发表
网易印度网友(210.212.*.*) 的原贴:1
印度是免费医疗吗?你去过印度的公立医院吗?里面非常阴暗,病房连最落后的乡镇的一个小旅馆的房间都不如,就4张床,没有医护人员,而且大部分都 空着。因为住不起。多数的病人都是躺在走廊上挂点滴。这种情况,如果是你,能忍受?
网易安徽六安网友(60.173.*.*) 的原贴:2
不知道你去过医院的住院部没有,在医院走道里打点滴的人少吗?当然如果有人的话除外!!
网易山东临沂网友(124.201.*.*) 的原贴:3
印度从1956年就实行全民免费医疗,难道还有人怀疑吗?!你冒充印度网友丝毫不能证明你在说实话?!
强烈建议3楼到印度去看一下,连欧美国家都做不到免费医疗,印度竟然能做到,这么简单的道理都想不通吗

顶[0]
网易湖南省郴州市网友 ip:124.231.*.* 2009-04-17 21:13:33 发表
狗屁论!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
顶[0]
网易广西南宁市网友 ip:113.12.*.* 2009-04-17 21:06:04 发表
给自己一点自信和勇气,学一学人家的优点与长处,不要老拿肮脏、贫穷笑话人,自己的绝症尚未有治疗良方之时,不要耻笑人家的痔疮。
顶[22]
网易广东省深圳市福田区网友 ip:119.123.*.* 2009-04-17 20:53:20 发表
喜欢印度的,反对计划生育的去印度混吧,正好给中国解决人口问题。
顶[2]
网易广东省深圳市福田区网友 ip:119.123.*.* 2009-04-17 20:51:38 发表
网易重庆渝北网友(222.178.*.*) 的原贴:1
印度相当于中国三分之一的领土,确拥有中国样多的人口,印度从没称其人多,人多是印度的娇傲,谁控制生育,谁就下课,人口红利及英语红利使印度得 益。
你知道恒河上飘多少尸体?你知道印度饿死多少人?越生越穷,越穷越生,你这种人和你的后代活该穷死。

顶[3]


网易上海市网友 ip:220.234.*.* 2009-04-17 20:48:58 发表
无须想得太多,
好好地做好自己的事就行
顶[0]
网易重庆市网友 ip:220.114.*.* 2009-04-17 20:48:47 发表
网易印度网友(210.212.*.*) 的原贴:1
印度是免费医疗吗?你去过印度的公立医院吗?里面非常阴暗,病房连最落后的乡镇的一个小旅馆的房间都不如,就4张床,没有医护人员,而且大部分都 空着。因为住不起。多数的病人都是躺在走廊上挂点滴。这种情况,如果是你,能忍受?
网易安徽六安网友(60.173.*.*) 的原贴:2
不知道你去过医院的住院部没有,在医院走道里打点滴的人少吗?当然如果有人的话除外!!
网易山东临沂网友(124.201.*.*) 的原贴:3
印度从1956年就实行全民免费医疗,难道还有人怀疑吗?!你冒充印度网友丝毫不能证明你在说实话?!
冒牌托不是那么做的

顶[4]
网易陕西省西安市网友 ip:222.91.*.* 2009-04-17 20:39:45 发表
网易印度网友(210.212.*.*) 的原贴:1
印度是免费医疗吗?你去过印度的公立医院吗?里面非常阴暗,病房连最落后的乡镇的一个小旅馆的房间都不如,就4张床,没有医护人员,而且大部分都 空着。因为住不起。多数的病人都是躺在走廊上挂点滴。这种情况,如果是你,能忍受?
网易安徽六安网友(60.173.*.*) 的原贴:2
不知道你去过医院的住院部没有,在医院走道里打点滴的人少吗?当然如果有人的话除外!!
网易山东临沂网友(124.201.*.*) 的原贴:3
印度从1956年就实行全民免费医疗,难道还有人怀疑吗?!你冒充印度网友丝毫不能证明你在说实话?!
免费?我国更早呢.有用吗?1949年就实施了呢.后来又取消了.阿三也这样.一切向我国"学习"呢.

顶[1]


cyq225 [网易福建省厦门市湖里区网友]: 2009-04-17 20:36:07 发表
中国人存钱,是因为房子
顶[3]
网易江苏省苏州市网友 ip:117.83.*.* 2009-04-17 20:20:35 发表
本文来源:中国江西网 .江西这五年的发展有超过广东浙江的趋势
顶[0]


ujzhang40126 [网易青海省西宁市网友]: 2009-04-17 20:06:56 发表
1)"如果我们重视就业和居民的收入。。。"真正可持续拉动内需靠的不是那些急功近利的手段,而正是这个!。。。'罗斯福新政'曾力挽美国经济危 机狂澜靠的就是"还利于民,重视民生"的政策结果!!!历史会教育人类!!!
2)"浪费了大量的、昂贵的资源用于建设毫无经济利益的摩天大楼和政府建筑,它们本应该投资于教育及医疗。这种高度依赖政府投入的经济增长对中国 消费潜力造成了最严重的破坏。。。"这就是为什么这么多年了,是人都知道'教育内容'与'社会实际需求'脱节,看病'贵'。。。医疗与教育本是基 础民生却给'市场化'了。原来'钱'都跑这儿去了。。。
说句哲理的话,'世间万事万物一切皆会有因果报应!';说句老土话:'出来混迟早是要还的'。。。
顶[7]
网易上海市网友 ip:59.79.*.* 2009-04-17 20:05:01 发表
网易福建厦门网友(218.85.*.*) 的原贴:1
是男女不平等,妇女的地位很低,我觉得这是它非常大的问题。经济学统计证明,哪些国家男女关系更平等,哪些国家的经济发展速度就更快。印度在上世 纪60年代、70年代、80年代一直到90年代,一直到2000年以前,印度的妇女平均寿命要比男人短,在中国、日本、美国妇女肯定是要比男人的 寿命长,
日本的男女平等?你是什么砖家哟。狗屁不通!
估计这斯是AV片看多了

顶[2]
网易上海市网友 ip:59.79.*.* 2009-04-17 20:03:20 发表
网易重庆渝北网友(222.178.*.*) 的原贴:1
印度相当于中国三分之一的领土,确拥有中国样多的人口,印度从没称其人多,人多是印度的娇傲,谁控制生育,谁就下课,人口红利及英语红利使印度得 益。
知道印度为什么不控制人口数量吗?
不知道就别在这瞎嚷嚷!

顶[0]
网易四川省广安市网友 ip:118.118.*.* 2009-04-17 19:57:07 发表
网易广东广州网友(58.248.*.*) 的原贴:1
不知道 印度让说话不???
让投票

顶[4]


草榴社区网友 [网易云南省昆明市网友]: 2009-04-17 19:44:16 发表
网易印度网友(210.212.*.*) 的原贴:1
印度是免费医疗吗?你去过印度的公立医院吗?里面非常阴暗,病房连最落后的乡镇的一个小旅馆的房间都不如,就4张床,没有医护人员,而且大部分都 空着。因为住不起。多数的病人都是躺在走廊上挂点滴。这种情况,如果是你,能忍受?
网易安徽六安网友(60.173.*.*) 的原贴:2
不知道你去过医院的住院部没有,在医院走道里打点滴的人少吗?当然如果有人的话除外!!
网易山东临沂网友(124.201.*.*) 的原贴:3
印度从1956年就实行全民免费医疗,难道还有人怀疑吗?!你冒充印度网友丝毫不能证明你在说实话?!
在中国人们看不起病,主要是中国医院是已药养医,10元钱能看好的病不花你个1百元,医生医院怎么活啊

顶[4]


草榴社区网友 [网易云南省昆明市网友]: 2009-04-17 19:40:52 发表
网易重庆渝北网友(222.178.*.*) 的原贴:1
印度相当于中国三分之一的领土,确拥有中国样多的人口,印度从没称其人多,人多是印度的娇傲,谁控制生育,谁就下课,人口红利及英语红利使印度得 益。
网易辽宁大连网友(60.20.*.*) 的原贴:2
此论点差矣!中国国土虽然为印度三倍,但中国多高原山脉,印度多平原。中国的可耕地面积比印度少得多!中国实行计划生育政策是完全正确的!
中国实行计划生育是必行之路,中国几千年的传统,重男轻女,

顶[3]
网易江苏省南京市网友 ip:121.237.*.* 2009-04-17 19:38:00 发表
啊三 ,我呸
顶[0]
网易辽宁省鞍山市铁西区网友 ip:218.25.*.* 2009-04-17 19:29:41 发表
网易广东东莞网友(116.18.*.*) 的原贴:1
大家都知道,就是不敢说,怕被跨省追捕。
网易山西网友(113.25.*.*) 的原贴:2
说到点子上了。这你都敢说?佩服。
1L完蛋了 竟然说实话 小心晚上被抓- -

顶[5]
网易辽宁省鞍山市铁西区网友 ip:218.25.*.* 2009-04-17 19:25:42 发表
网易广东珠海网友(116.194.*.*) 的原贴:1
经济起飞主要取决于良好的民心,阿三戾气十足,到处树敌.
网易广东东莞网友(121.13.*.*) 的原贴:2
别成天阿三阿三地喊,自己不害臊???
1楼那类人很多的 整天埋汰这个 损那个 搞了半天也没明白
是自己树敌太多

顶[1]
网易重庆市网友 ip:123.147.*.* 2009-04-17 19:25:34 发表
印度有100多家企业符合医药疗效质量的标准,而中国只有两家公司
是那两家公司哦 以后买药都放心点
顶[5]


hzylawyer [网易广东省广州市网友]: 2009-04-17 18:48:23 发表
学佛
顶[2]
网易江苏省镇江市网友 ip:221.6.*.* 2009-04-17 18:34:07 发表
我们在执迷不悟,喜欢装的话,
看到别人的优点就是死不承认,
不虚心学习人家的优点,
被印度超过是早晚的事情
顶[25]
网易山东省临沂市网友 ip:124.201.*.* 2009-04-17 18:31:01 发表
网易印度网友(210.212.*.*) 的原贴:1
印度是免费医疗吗?你去过印度的公立医院吗?里面非常阴暗,病房连最落后的乡镇的一个小旅馆的房间都不如,就4张床,没有医护人员,而且大部分都 空着。因为住不起。多数的病人都是躺在走廊上挂点滴。这种情况,如果是你,能忍受?
网易安徽六安网友(60.173.*.*) 的原贴:2
不知道你去过医院的住院部没有,在医院走道里打点滴的人少吗?当然如果有人的话除外!!
印度从1956年就实行全民免费医疗,难道还有人怀疑吗?!你冒充印度网友丝毫不能证明你在说实话?!

顶[95]
网易陕西省西安市网友 ip:222.91.*.* 2009-04-17 18:30:48 发表
教授说的这些,在中国永远不可能,因为什么地球人都知道
顶[47]
网易广东省广州市网友 ip:58.248.*.* 2009-04-17 18:24:42 发表
我提问:中国银行如果进行私有化,那么谁会获得银行的股权?政府怎样对银行进行控制?
顶[22]
网易辽宁省大连市网友 ip:60.20.*.* 2009-04-17 18:22:49 发表
网易重庆渝北网友(222.178.*.*) 的原贴:1
印度相当于中国三分之一的领土,确拥有中国样多的人口,印度从没称其人多,人多是印度的娇傲,谁控制生育,谁就下课,人口红利及英语红利使印度得 益。
网易江苏苏州网友(117.82.*.*) 的原贴:2
印度的领土仅中国的六分之一。
二楼错了,印度领土295万平方公里,接近中国三分之一。

顶[15]
网易浙江省金华市义乌市网友 ip:60.12.*.* 2009-04-17 18:21:05 发表
为什么老拿别人的缺点和自己的优点比,这能进步吗?只有经常拿别人的优点和我们的缺点比这样我们才能进步,才能强大.谦受益,满招损.
顶[25]
网易辽宁省大连市网友 ip:60.20.*.* 2009-04-17 18:12:32 发表
网易重庆渝北网友(222.178.*.*) 的原贴:1
印度相当于中国三分之一的领土,确拥有中国样多的人口,印度从没称其人多,人多是印度的娇傲,谁控制生育,谁就下课,人口红利及英语红利使印度得 益。
此论点差矣!中国国土虽然为印度三倍,但中国多高原山脉,印度多平原。中国的可耕地面积比印度少得多!中国实行计划生育政策是完全正确的!

顶[17]
网易广东省深圳市网友 ip:116.30.*.* 2009-04-17 18:11:01 发表
网易广东深圳网友(119.122.*.*) 的原贴:1
说说我的拙见,中国银行之所以不愿意把钱贷给中小企业,以此拉动中国的经济发展,我想,是由于中国的国民素质决定的,一些人特别是一些和政府搭得 上关系的心怀不轨之人,总会想通过各种非正常手段从银行获得贷款,然后却久久拒不还贷,一副死猪不怕开水烫的样子,几年过后,通过收买银行的高 管,由银行做为坏帐处理了.如果我国能建立一套比较好的资金监管体系,和法制体系,杜绝政府官员腐败,加大政府官员的职务犯罪成本,这样,在大部 分信誉好的企业,且有发展前景的企业则可获得银行的支持,从而提高国内企业在GDP中的贡献.
呵呵,中国多数富豪都是这样生产出来的.

顶[22]
网易福建省厦门市网友 ip:218.85.*.* 2009-04-17 18:09:16 发表
是男女不平等,妇女的地位很低,我觉得这是它非常大的问题。经济学统计证明,哪些国家男女关系更平等,哪些国家的经济发展速度就更快。印度在上世 纪60年代、70年代、80年代一直到90年代,一直到2000年以前,印度的妇女平均寿命要比男人短,在中国、日本、美国妇女肯定是要比男人的 寿命长,
日本的男女平等?你是什么砖家哟。狗屁不通!
顶[3]
网易山西省网友 ip:113.25.*.* 2009-04-17 18:06:15 发表
网易广东东莞网友(116.18.*.*) 的原贴:1
大家都知道,就是不敢说,怕被跨省追捕。
说到点子上了。这你都敢说?佩服。

顶[27]
网易江苏省无锡市网友 ip:218.90.*.* 2009-04-17 18:03:52 发表
我同样希望中国的总理能看到这篇报道。。。。。。不能光靠房产,靠固定资产投资来拉动经济增长,这是会出问题的,国家得有软实力,软环境。这才能 科学发展,可持续发展。不要光顾着眼前的经济形势,得注重经济增长的后劲。
顶[15]


appleliu [网易四川省成都市网友]: 2009-04-17 17:59:27 发表
网易广东珠海网友 [hewei2008-ab] 的原贴:1
长盛必衰,久衰必胜
网易云南昆明网友(116.54.*.*) 的原贴:2
这是何道理?!久衰必亡还差不多。
一楼有道理哈

顶[1]
网易四川省成都市网友 ip:221.10.*.* 2009-04-17 17:37:45 发表
印度有100多家企业符合医药疗效质量的标准,而中国只有两家公司
顶[25]
网易广东省深圳市网友 ip:61.144.*.* 2009-04-17 17:35:56 发表
最紧迫的是学习人家的M Z!学习人家的让人说话!
顶[11]




bowanju [网易天津市网友]: 2009-04-17 17:35:20 发表
不能完全认同,如果中国的所谓"经济"处在印度的水平,而基础设施处于上世纪80年代的水平,我们可都经历过,那住和行的水平是现在社会和民众所 不能容忍的!住和行的的改善也是经济发展的重要方面!况且,基础设施建设限制了人们的消费能力,也不全面,国家投入基础建设的钱,最终要流转到为 基础设施建设做出贡献的人们的口袋里(贪污受贿部分暂不考虑,因为在其他领域投入同样存在),也就是消费者的口袋里,通过增加了基础设施建设,也 增加了消费者的购买力。教育和医疗是该投入,现在也在考虑,我认为这是先改善哪一块,后改善哪一块的问题,改善哪一块可更快地使政府有钱,就应该 先改善哪一块,这样,政府会具有更大的力量改善其它,最后达到总体上的最优效果。回顾30年来改革开放的发展过程,我们取得的效果还是得到国内外 广泛认可的。寻找美中不足,追求锦上添花,是应该的,但对以前的做法,只能补充完善,不可轻易否定,因为事实已经证明总体上是成功的,并且我和大 多数人一样,对前景更加看好。
顶[4]
网易广东省广州市网友 ip:222.200.*.* 2009-04-17 17:28:02 发表
网易广东广州网友(58.62.*.*) 的原贴:1
100年前俺们跟日本人争锋,100年后俺们跟印度争锋
再过100年我们和索马里争锋
100年前俺们跟日本人争锋,100年后俺们跟印度争锋
再过100年我们和索马里争锋

顶[32]
网易广东省深圳市网友 ip:58.60.*.* 2009-04-17 17:16:12 发表
中国应该向印度学习他们的长处,但不要老是拿她来和中国比。我们应该同日本比,同美国比,向所有比中国强大的国家比。这样我们才有可能成为世界的 老大。
顶[13]
网易上海市网友 ip:116.234.*.* 2009-04-17 17:12:57 发表
学吹牛!印度为什么那么珍惜牛!因为再不保护全被他们吹死了!肯定有碍国精蝇来吠什么中国人更能吹!后面在来个SB跟贴叫本来就是!
顶[3]
网易河南省郑州市网友 ip:123.12.*.* 2009-04-17 17:09:52 发表
网易印度网友(210.212.*.*) 的原贴:1
印度是免费医疗吗?你去过印度的公立医院吗?里面非常阴暗,病房连最落后的乡镇的一个小旅馆的房间都不如,就4张床,没有医护人员,而且大部分都 空着。因为住不起。多数的病人都是躺在走廊上挂点滴。这种情况,如果是你,能忍受?
网易安徽六安网友(60.173.*.*) 的原贴:2
不知道你去过医院的住院部没有,在医院走道里打点滴的人少吗?当然如果有人的话除外!!
中国是免费医疗吗?您去过中国的公立医院吗?里面冠冕堂煌,病房连酒店都不如,有的是医生,护士,而且大部份都满着,因为住不起,多数病人都治几 回就回家等死了,这种情况,如果是你,能忍受?

顶[10]
网易辽宁省沈阳市网友 ip:113.224.*.* 2009-04-17 17:05:59 发表
如凯雷收购徐工案,这都是限制内资企业贷款的政策所导致的结果。
以前可怜的徐工
现在可怜的汇源。
国字头还会少谁!?
哎!
顶[6]
网易河南省郑州市网友 ip:123.12.*.* 2009-04-17 17:05:30 发表
网易陕西西安网友(219.145.*.*) 的原贴:1
不要再叫阿三,人家比我们厉害
本来就是,sb粪青老叫人家阿三,无比蔑视,可人家培植出了两项世界领先的产业,IT,制药,反观我国,一个都没有,怎么解释?两年前我曾看过一 介绍印度的片子,老外拍的,从各个角度说明印度50年内会超越美国,而中国,比比,中国的粪青除了叫嚣还有什么?拍这片子的老外是不是就是"美 奸"(他们的逻辑,不能说本国的任何不足,更不能说别国的优势)我们的优势劣势是什么?粪青是从来不会考虑的!
知己知彼,百战不殆,中国古人所说的不知中国如今的所唯"现代人"记得领悟的还有多少?

顶[24]
网易山东省临沂市网友 ip:222.132.*.* 2009-04-17 16:59:44 发表
其实我们的很多政策和领导人的做法是在卖国,他们不懂经济怎么真正发展,他们从开始就不懂务实,
顶[20]
网易湖南省岳阳市网友 ip:124.229.*.* 2009-04-17 16:56:02 发表
国家如果投资100元,至少3成进了腐败分子腰包,投资效率怎么能高?
顶[24]
网易天津市网友 ip:221.238.*.* 2009-04-17 16:52:25 发表
说的挺好的,制度上的弊病很让人无奈
顶[17]
网易广东省深圳市龙岗区网友 ip:218.17.*.* 2009-04-17 16:51:17 发表
网易上海网友(211.147.*.*) 的原贴:1
一个对外国人比对自己人都要好的国家,一个为外国人停火车,把自己人绑死的国家。还有什么好说的呢?一个强制要求说外语的国家,一个可以什么都不 会却一定要外语考得好的国家!!
人家的用意你不了解就少说话呀,学好外语就是要你走出去,别在家受这气,你不走出去估计几代人还是会在这受这气

顶[13]
网易河南省南阳市网友 ip:61.163.*.* 2009-04-17 16:51:10 发表
印度领导坐的是自已国产车,印度国防部用的还是风扇,印度的土地所有权归公民个人所有。就这一点就比别人差得多。
顶[26]
网易广东省深圳市网友 ip:210.21.*.* 2009-04-17 16:51:05 发表
太片面。
顶[0]
网易宁夏石嘴山市网友 ip:124.224.*.* 2009-04-17 16:44:49 发表
难得一见的好文章
顶[9]
网易江西省鹰潭市网友 ip:115.148.*.* 2009-04-17 16:44:31 发表
网易重庆渝北网友(222.178.*.*) 的原贴:1
印度相当于中国三分之一的领土,确拥有中国样多的人口,印度从没称其人多,人多是印度的娇傲,谁控制生育,谁就下课,人口红利及英语红利使印度得 益。
人家的耕地可比中国多 自己看看 中国大概只有领土面积13个百分点的耕地

顶[8]
网易甘肃省网友 ip:116.244.*.* 2009-04-17 16:42:19 发表
印度的明天肯定是超过中国的明天的。
顶[4]
网易广东省东莞市网友 ip:116.18.*.* 2009-04-17 16:24:05 发表
大家都知道,就是不敢说,怕被跨省追捕。
顶[31]
网易云南省昆明市网友 ip:221.213.*.* 2009-04-17 16:22:21 发表
无形胜有形该学学老祖宗的东西拉
顶[7]
网易安徽省六安市网友 ip:60.173.*.* 2009-04-17 16:20:34 发表
网易印度网友(210.212.*.*) 的原贴:1
印度是免费医疗吗?你去过印度的公立医院吗?里面非常阴暗,病房连最落后的乡镇的一个小旅馆的房间都不如,就4张床,没有医护人员,而且大部分都 空着。因为住不起。多数的病人都是躺在走廊上挂点滴。这种情况,如果是你,能忍受?
不知道你去过医院的住院部没有,在医院走道里打点滴的人少吗?当然如果有人的话除外!!

顶[12]
网易浙江省绍兴市网友 ip:60.190.*.* 2009-04-17 16:10:09 发表
网易广东深圳网友(119.122.*.*) 的原贴:1
说说我的拙见,中国银行之所以不愿意把钱贷给中小企业,以此拉动中国的经济发展,我想,是由于中国的国民素质决定的,一些人特别是一些和政府搭得 上关系的心怀不轨之人,总会想通过各种非正常手段从银行获得贷款,然后却久久拒不还贷,一副死猪不怕开水烫的样子,几年过后,通过收买银行的高 管,由银行做为坏帐处理了.如果我国能建立一套比较好的资金监管体系,和法制体系,杜绝政府官员腐败,加大政府官员的职务犯罪成本,这样,在大部 分信誉好的企业,且有发展前景的企业则可获得银行的支持,从而提高国内企业在GDP中的贡献.
有句流行语:贷款贷款,贷到就宽.许多贷款人从有贷款想法的那一天起,就没有还款的意思.不贷白不贷,视贷款为高效净收益.不缺钱的也想贷.

顶[12]
网易江苏省苏州市网友 ip:222.92.*.* 2009-04-17 16:03:43 发表
网易广东珠海网友(116.194.*.*) 的原贴:1
经济起飞主要取决于良好的民心,阿三戾气十足,到处树敌.
网易广东东莞网友(121.13.*.*) 的原贴:2
别成天阿三阿三地喊,自己不害臊???
网易浙江温州网友(125.109.*.*) 的原贴:3
94,天天阿三,小日本,棒子的,有本事在军事,经济,文化上都比人家强,在网上骂人是底气不足的表现。
我们是阿四,阿五阿六……

顶[10]
网易江苏省苏州市网友 ip:117.82.*.* 2009-04-17 15:56:05 发表
网易重庆渝北网友(222.178.*.*) 的原贴:1
印度相当于中国三分之一的领土,确拥有中国样多的人口,印度从没称其人多,人多是印度的娇傲,谁控制生育,谁就下课,人口红利及英语红利使印度得 益。
印度的领土仅中国的六分之一。

顶[6]


jcq312 [网易云南省昆明市网友]: 2009-04-17 15:53:44 发表
网易广东珠海网友 [hewei2008-ab] 的原贴:1
长盛必衰,久衰必胜
这是何道理?!久衰必亡还差不多。

顶[4]
网易湖北省武汉市网友 ip:119.96.*.* 2009-04-17 15:52:06 发表
制度和现实是要相对的结合起来才行。
顶[2]
网易山西省吕梁市网友 ip:124.165.*.* 2009-04-17 15:35:01 发表
这让我想起博古、李德领导红军的年代!
顶[3]
网易湖南省湘西州网友 ip:58.44.*.* 2009-04-17 15:29:42 发表
说的好啊!!真是百年遇知己!!支持!!
顶[6]
网易广东省广州市网友 ip:58.62.*.* 2009-04-17 15:13:41 发表
100年前俺们跟日本人争锋,100年后俺们跟印度争锋
再过100年我们和索马里争锋
顶[35]
网易上海市网友 ip:211.147.*.* 2009-04-17 15:10:02 发表
一个对外国人比对自己人都要好的国家,一个为外国人停火车,把自己人绑死的国家。还有什么好说的呢?一个强制要求说外语的国家,一个可以什么都不 会却一定要外语考得好的国家!!
顶[39]
网易浙江省温州市网友 ip:125.109.*.* 2009-04-17 15:01:58 发表
网易广东珠海网友(116.194.*.*) 的原贴:1
经济起飞主要取决于良好的民心,阿三戾气十足,到处树敌.
网易广东东莞网友(121.13.*.*) 的原贴:2
别成天阿三阿三地喊,自己不害臊???
94,天天阿三,小日本,棒子的,有本事在军事,经济,文化上都比人家强,在网上骂人是底气不足的表现。

顶[12]
网易俄罗斯网友 ip:92.124.*.* 2009-04-17 14:27:56 发表
不可信中国官方数字,这是中国经济指数虚报最大原因。一个列子固特异轮胎在辽宁小镇投资,官方数字那是天文,实际固特异从本土带来了这个数字吗?
顶[25]


网易江苏省苏州市网友 ip:121.227.*.* 2009-04-17 14:27:29 发表
"如果我们重视就业和居民的收入,那么就会重视内资企业的发展",可惜考核官员业绩的指标是GDP,是摩天大楼和漂亮的"统计数据"。不是居民生 活水平。
顶[28]
网易浙江省杭州市网友 ip:122.233.*.* 2009-04-17 14:22:06 发表
教授的话说得非常专业和客观!
顶[27]
网易河南省郑州市网友 ip:115.60.*.* 2009-04-17 14:20:55 发表
金融和软件就能成就强国梦吗?
顶[1]
网易广东省肇庆市端州区网友 ip:218.15.*.* 2009-04-17 14:15:12 发表
网易重庆渝北网友(222.178.*.*) 的原贴:1
印度相当于中国三分之一的领土,确拥有中国样多的人口,印度从没称其人多,人多是印度的娇傲,谁控制生育,谁就下课,人口红利及英语红利使印度得 益。
网易广东广州网友(119.131.*.*) 的原贴:2
印度的人口质量其实很低下,人口的健康程度不高,一个国家人口的数量也许不是问题,但人口的质量更加重要!!!
思想健康比身体健康更重要。

顶[29]
网易山西省太原市网友 ip:218.26.*.* 2009-04-17 14:09:26 发表
不知道 印度让说话不???
顶[10]
网易辽宁省鞍山市网友 ip:59.44.*.* 2009-04-17 14:02:51 发表
认为印度好的人,都去实现你们的理想吧 滚到印度去,你到印度一定会得到民主的
顶[4]
网易北京市网友 ip:123.103.*.* 2009-04-17 14:02:00 发表
网易广东深圳网友(119.122.*.*) 的原贴:1
说说我的拙见,中国银行之所以不愿意把钱贷给中小企业,以此拉动中国的经济发展,我想,是由于中国的国民素质决定的,一些人特别是一些和政府搭得 上关系的心怀不轨之人,总会想通过各种非正常手段从银行获得贷款,然后却久久拒不还贷,一副死猪不怕开水烫的样子,几年过后,通过收买银行的高 管,由银行做为坏帐处理了.如果我国能建立一套比较好的资金监管体系,和法制体系,杜绝政府官员腐败,加大政府官员的职务犯罪成本,这样,在大部 分信誉好的企业,且有发展前景的企业则可获得银行的支持,从而提高国内企业在GDP中的贡献.
外资银行进入中国,中国那些银行还能活吗?别看现在挺牛,其实老百姓对他们意见很大。。。。

顶[16]
网易浙江省金华市义乌市网友 ip:60.12.*.* 2009-04-17 13:55:51 发表
网易贵州网友(58.16.*.*) 的原贴:1
我相信印度比中国强。
迟早的事

顶[31]
网易广西玉林市网友 ip:222.83.*.* 2009-04-17 13:50:57 发表
不学别的,只要可以把一变成三就可以了!
顶[2]
网易广西南宁市网友 ip:58.59.*.* 2009-04-17 13:47:16 发表
中国浪费了大量的、昂贵的资源用于建设毫无经济利益的摩天大楼和政府建筑,它们本应该投资于教育及医疗
说得不错!
顶[27]
网易印度网友 ip:210.212.*.* 2009-04-17 13:44:43 发表
印度是免费医疗吗?你去过印度的公立医院吗?里面非常阴暗,病房连最落后的乡镇的一个小旅馆的房间都不如,就4张床,没有医护人员,而且大部分都 空着。因为住不起。多数的病人都是躺在走廊上挂点滴。这种情况,如果是你,能忍受?
顶[5]
网易北京市网友 ip:219.142.*.* 2009-04-17 13:43:26 发表
网易广东珠海网友(116.194.*.*) 的原贴:1
经济起飞主要取决于良好的民心,阿三戾气十足,到处树敌.
网易广东东莞网友(121.13.*.*) 的原贴:2
别成天阿三阿三地喊,自己不害臊???
怎么不能啊?你对硬度很感兴趣啊

顶[0]
网易印度网友 ip:210.212.*.* 2009-04-17 13:41:53 发表
研究了一家印度公司,就敢于评论印度和中国的区别,而且还找出那么多的原因。居然还有学习方法。作者太天真了。
顶[1]
网易北京市网友 ip:219.142.*.* 2009-04-17 13:41:26 发表
说的有一定道理,但是你娘的狗屁专家也太贬低中国了吧,你是吃中国的人奶长大的吗,是不是觉得美国的屎都比中国香。
顶[0]
网易江西省南昌市网友 ip:59.52.*.* 2009-04-17 13:40:34 发表
西方的金融体制很好?怎么弄出了危机?我国的银行怎么没出危机?
顶[2]


野牛 [网易广东省江门市网友]: 2009-04-17 13:39:28 发表
又一个发臆症"钻家"
顶[1]
网易广东省珠海市网友 ip:58.254.*.* 2009-04-17 13:37:19 发表
长盛必衰,久衰必胜
顶[1]


孟辉0 [网易福建省厦门市网友]: 2009-04-17 13:35:21 发表
经济发展取决于良好体制
顶[5]
网易广东省珠海市网友 ip:58.254.*.* 2009-04-17 13:33:58 发表
再坚持几年吧哎,因为我们完全撑握了历史的发展规律。
顶[4]
网易上海市网友 ip:116.231.*.* 2009-04-17 13:15:11 发表
归根结底,缺失法制.
顶[18]
网易四川省成都市网友 ip:218.6.*.* 2009-04-17 13:05:45 发表
网易陕西西安网友(219.145.*.*) 的原贴:1
不要再叫阿三,人家比我们厉害
小子,你很可悲。你才是当今中国的阿三:自大,盲目

顶[2]
网易广东省深圳市南山区网友 ip:218.18.*.* 2009-04-17 13:02:43 发表
我们的房价涨到均价100000/平米,不信GDP增速赶不上印度。
顶[15]
网易上海市网友 ip:61.129.*.* 2009-04-17 13:01:29 发表
网易湖南长沙网友(222.240.*.*) 的原贴:1
先学学他们的火车票
他们的火车你敢坐吗?

顶[1]
网易山西省阳泉市网友 ip:218.26.*.* 2009-04-17 12:55:31 发表
我们是贱人
顶[9]
网易湖北省武汉市网友 ip:58.19.*.* 2009-04-17 12:51:36 发表
中国不差钱,印度差钱
顶[2]
网易火星网友 ip:unknown 2009-04-17 12:38:04 发表
精辟
顶[11]
网易北京市网友 ip:202.108.*.* 2009-04-17 12:34:27 发表
说在非常对!!!
顶[12]
网易广东省深圳市网友 ip:116.30.*.* 2009-04-17 12:28:15 发表
分析的比较客观,很有道理
顶[9]
网易北京市网友 ip:124.126.*.* 2009-04-17 12:23:10 发表
网易山东临沂网友(124.201.*.*) 的原贴:1
学软件,民主和免费医疗!这是肺腑之言!
不懂装懂,要学体制。体制不改,那么东西能变吗

顶[24]
网易浙江省网友 ip:115.103.*.* 2009-04-17 12:20:16 发表
向阿三學習!
顶[8]


网易江西省鹰潭市贵溪市网友 ip:218.64.*.* 2009-04-17 12:15:06 发表
建铁路公路更基础设以应对微机是非长错误的
顶[5]
网易浙江省绍兴市网友 ip:60.187.*.* 2009-04-17 12:08:11 发表
学民主,学真正的市场经济
顶[8]
网易辽宁省大连市网友 ip:218.25.*.* 2009-04-17 12:04:57 发表
不透明是中国投资利用率低的主要因素。
顶[13]
网易江苏省苏州市昆山市网友 ip:222.92.*.* 2009-04-17 12:00:01 发表
dds
顶[0]
网易广东省广州市网友 ip:119.131.*.* 2009-04-17 11:59:42 发表
网易重庆渝北网友(222.178.*.*) 的原贴:1
印度相当于中国三分之一的领土,确拥有中国样多的人口,印度从没称其人多,人多是印度的娇傲,谁控制生育,谁就下课,人口红利及英语红利使印度得 益。
印度的人口质量其实很低下,人口的健康程度不高,一个国家人口的数量也许不是问题,但人口的质量更加重要!!!

顶[4]
网易广东省佛山市网友 ip:61.142.*.* 2009-04-17 11:58:37 发表
网易山东临沂网友(124.201.*.*) 的原贴:1
学软件,民主和免费医疗!这是肺腑之言!
网易江苏镇江网友(117.90.*.*) 的原贴:2
学软件,民主和免费医疗!这是肺腑之言!
网易广东佛山网友(116.20.*.*) 的原贴:3
学软件,民主和免费医疗!这是肺腑之言!
学软件,民主和免费医疗!这是肺腑之言!

顶[7]
网易重庆市网友 ip:202.202.*.* 2009-04-17 11:53:56 发表
没看见印度整天拿人多说事。
顶[9]
网易广东省广州市网友 ip:59.37.*.* 2009-04-17 11:49:44 发表
网易广东江门网友(125.92.*.*) 的原贴:1
目前没有跟贴显示,欢迎你发表观点,不过只当你放P,不会显示哦
目前没有跟贴显示,欢迎你发表观点,不过只当你放P,不会显示哦

顶[0]
网易北京市网友 ip:59.108.*.* 2009-04-17 11:41:20 发表
网易浙江杭州网友(222.205.*.*) 的原贴:1
说了半天,看不出什么东西,半天也没放出个屁
水平太低,多看点书

顶[12]


宇宙风地盘 [网易天津市网友]: 2009-04-17 11:32:04 发表
飘过
顶[0]


宇宙风地盘 [网易天津市网友]: 2009-04-17 11:30:54 发表
闪过
顶[0]
网易江西省赣州市网友 ip:59.53.*.* 2009-04-17 11:30:23 发表
蠢货,你是阿3吧?
顶[0]
网易江苏省盐城市网友 ip:211.103.*.* 2009-04-17 11:28:16 发表
  铁路一定要大量扩建,实行全国网格化。铁路不耗油、省人力、运量大、相对公路安全、受气候影响小,在今后核聚变产电的形势下,必然是靠铁路。 留下油给航空航海、给万代子孙。
顶[9]
网易北京市网友 ip:123.119.*.* 2009-04-17 11:13:27 发表
击中要害,一针见血。这样的专家,一个顶仨。不过,说了等于没说。可能还会另某些人觉得讨厌。
顶[11]
网易河南省新乡市网友 ip:219.154.*.* 2009-04-17 11:11:13 发表
网易山东临沂网友(124.201.*.*) 的原贴:1
学软件,民主和免费医疗!这是肺腑之言!
向印度学,免费医疗

顶[6]
网易江苏省苏州市网友 ip:221.225.*.* 2009-04-17 11:05:24 发表
。由于不受舆论监督及土地私有权的约束,中国浪费了大量的、昂贵的资源用于建设毫无经济利益的摩天大楼和政府建筑,它们本应该投资于教育及医疗。 这种高度依赖政府投入的经济增长对中国消费潜力造成了最严重的破坏,进一步提高了中国对发达国家市场的依赖度。
顶[17]
网易北京市网友 ip:202.108.*.* 2009-04-17 11:05:06 发表
网易山东临沂网友(124.201.*.*) 的原贴:1
学软件,民主和免费医疗!这是肺腑之言!
网易江苏镇江网友(117.90.*.*) 的原贴:2
学软件,民主和免费医疗!这是肺腑之言!
网易广东佛山网友(116.20.*.*) 的原贴:3
学软件,民主和免费医疗!这是肺腑之言!
学软件,民主和免费医疗!这是肺腑之言!

顶[3]
网易贵州省黔南州网友 ip:58.16.*.* 2009-04-17 11:02:52 发表
我相信印度比中国强。
顶[13]
网易广西南宁市网友 ip:222.216.*.* 2009-04-17 11:00:46 发表
我以前也一直想不通,为什么外资企业很多可以免税,这明显是短期得利,风险很大啊,估计全世界也就中国是这样一个政策吧.这也可以反映为什么普遍 世人看不起中国人的原因吧
顶[12]
网易江西省宜春市网友 ip:218.87.*.* 2009-04-17 10:58:29 发表
这两个国家都是半斤八两。。但是两个国家的人都看不起对家。。这是什么的共同点啊。。
顶[2]
网易四川省成都市网友 ip:118.112.*.* 2009-04-17 10:51:04 发表
不要再说别个是阿三了,我从昨天看到消息后,就觉得我是阿三十啊!
顶[53]
网易广东省深圳市网友 ip:119.122.*.* 2009-04-17 10:50:14 发表
说说我的拙见,中国银行之所以不愿意把钱贷给中小企业,以此拉动中国的经济发展,我想,是由于中国的国民素质决定的,一些人特别是一些和政府搭得 上关系的心怀不轨之人,总会想通过各种非正常手段从银行获得贷款,然后却久久拒不还贷,一副死猪不怕开水烫的样子,几年过后,通过收买银行的高 管,由银行做为坏帐处理了.如果我国能建立一套比较好的资金监管体系,和法制体系,杜绝政府官员腐败,加大政府官员的职务犯罪成本,这样,在大部 分信誉好的企业,且有发展前景的企业则可获得银行的支持,从而提高国内企业在GDP中的贡献.
顶[392]
网易广西河池市网友 ip:222.83.*.* 2009-04-17 10:48:49 发表
网易广东广州网友(58.248.*.*) 的原贴:1
不知道 印度让说话不???
印度不让说不好听的话不??/

顶[23]
网易北京市网友 ip:125.34.*.* 2009-04-17 10:48:38 发表
金融改革,外资政策改革,教育、医疗改革。
顶[15]
网易广东省佛山市网友 ip:116.20.*.* 2009-04-17 10:46:59 发表
网易山东临沂网友(124.201.*.*) 的原贴:1
学软件,民主和免费医疗!这是肺腑之言!
网易江苏镇江网友(117.90.*.*) 的原贴:2
学软件,民主和免费医疗!这是肺腑之言!
学软件,民主和免费医疗!这是肺腑之言!

顶[24]


jsyeung [网易江苏省常州市网友]: 2009-04-17 10:46:26 发表
赞成
顶[9]
网易广东省东莞市网友 ip:121.13.*.* 2009-04-17 10:24:47 发表
网易广东珠海网友(116.194.*.*) 的原贴:1
经济起飞主要取决于良好的民心,阿三戾气十足,到处树敌.
别成天阿三阿三地喊,自己不害臊???

顶[299]
网易河南省郑州市网友 ip:123.15.*.* 2009-04-17 10:23:46 发表
体制不一样,学不成。
顶[22]
网易江苏省镇江市网友 ip:117.90.*.* 2009-04-17 10:11:50 发表
网易山东临沂网友(124.201.*.*) 的原贴:1
学软件,民主和免费医疗!这是肺腑之言!
学软件,民主和免费医疗!这是肺腑之言!

顶[18]
网易广东省东莞市网友 ip:221.4.*.* 2009-04-17 10:02:51 发表
网易广东珠海网友(116.194.*.*) 的原贴:1
经济起飞主要取决于良好的民心,阿三戾气十足,到处树敌.
不知是谁,戾气十足,到处树敌.
人家的民心,比中国好十倍都不止.

顶[37]




猎过狐 [网易山西省运城市网友]: 2009-04-17 09:59:48 发表
打酱油!!!!!!#95
顶[0]
网易广东省江门市网友 ip:125.92.*.* 2009-04-17 09:54:58 发表
目前没有跟贴显示,欢迎你发表观点,不过只当你放P,不会显示哦
顶[11]
网易陕西省西安市网友 ip:219.145.*.* 2009-04-17 09:54:04 发表
目前没有跟贴,欢迎你发表观点
顶[2]


huashanke [网易陕西省西安市网友]: 2009-04-17 09:49:43 发表
说得好!
顶[4]
网易辽宁省沈阳市沈河区网友 ip:218.25.*.* 2009-04-17 09:46:38 发表
赞同这一观点!国家应该投资于教育医疗等民生工程。这才是长久发展之路。
顶[455]
网易江苏省苏州市网友 ip:58.211.*.* 2009-04-17 09:45:03 发表
要发展政府就得改掉暴发户的心态
顶[240]
网易上海市网友 ip:58.247.*.* 2009-04-17 09:38:06 发表
有道理!
顶[4]
网易山东省滨州市网友 ip:218.56.*.* 2009-04-17 09:38:02 发表
三人行,必有吾师。别人有长处,我们就要学习。只有不断地取长补短。我们的国家才能发展的更快。
顶[50]
网易重庆市网友 ip:123.145.*.* 2009-04-17 09:37:02 发表
当前中小企业贷款确实是个难题,虽然国家再三强调加大对中小企业的贷款力度,但现实中,无法推行!!!!
顶[18]
网易北京市网友 ip:211.156.*.* 2009-04-17 09:33:06 发表
说得很好
顶[6]
网易湖南省娄底市网友 ip:220.170.*.* 2009-04-17 09:28:52 发表
阿三也是这样看中国的
顶[3]
网易广东省广州市网友 ip:58.248.*.* 2009-04-17 09:25:43 发表
不知道 印度让说话不???
顶[442]
网易湖北省武汉市网友 ip:59.173.*.* 2009-04-17 09:25:21 发表
龟兔赛跑
顶[6]
网易福建省福州市网友 ip:222.76.*.* 2009-04-17 09:25:03 发表
非常认同!
顶[6]
网易广东省珠海市网友 ip:116.194.*.* 2009-04-17 09:24:20 发表
经济起飞主要取决于良好的民心,阿三戾气十足,到处树敌.
顶[12]
网易广东省深圳市罗湖区网友 ip:61.141.*.* 2009-04-17 09:24:09 发表
银行改革要慎重。相当多的西方金融垃圾图谋搞乱中国金融,进而控制国家,这个,一定要小心西方豺狼。
顶[9]
网易浙江省杭州市网友 ip:222.205.*.* 2009-04-17 09:22:42 发表
说了半天,看不出什么东西,半天也没放出个屁
顶[0]
网易广东省广州市海珠区网友 ip:218.19.*.* 2009-04-17 09:21:10 发表
目前没有跟贴,欢迎你发表观点
顶[1]
网易广东省东莞市网友 ip:119.127.*.* 2009-04-17 09:20:49 发表
支持
顶[2]
网易广西玉林市网友 ip:116.253.*.* 2009-04-17 09:20:36 发表
学习制造神油。
顶[0]


葛郎台 [网易湖南省长沙市网友]: 2009-04-17 09:20:32 发表
先学学他们的火车票
顶[249]
网易河南省郑州市网友 ip:123.52.*.* 2009-04-17 09:16:56 发表
试试IP
顶[1]
网易重庆市渝北区网友 ip:222.178.*.* 2009-04-17 09:15:10 发表
印度相当于中国三分之一的领土,确拥有中国样多的人口,印度从没称其人多,人多是印度的娇傲,谁控制生育,谁就下课,人口红利及英语红利使印度得 益。
顶[418]
网易辽宁省大连市网友 ip:60.20.*.* 2009-04-17 09:14:02 发表
我是打酱油的。
顶[1]
网易山东省临沂市网友 ip:124.201.*.* 2009-04-17 09:11:49 发表
学软件,民主和免费医疗!这是肺腑之言!
顶[906]
网易陕西省西安市网友 ip:219.145.*.* 2009-04-17 09:10:30 发表
目前没有跟贴,欢迎你发表观点
顶[1]
网易辽宁省鞍山市网友 ip:60.19.*.* 2009-04-17 09:09:37 发表
体质!哈哈
顶[0]
网易陕西省西安市网友 ip:219.145.*.* 2009-04-17 09:05:04 发表
不要再叫阿三,人家比我们厉害
顶[603]
网易四川省成都市网友 ip:125.71.*.* 2009-04-17 09:01:54 发表
有些道理。
顶[3]
网易浙江省杭州市网友 ip:122.234.*.* 2009-04-17 09:00:07 发表
说的不错!
顶[3]

网易山东省济南市网友 ip:218.57.*.* 2009-04-17 09:00:01 发表
娘西皮,干屁用
顶[0]

一路删 [网易广东省广州市网友]: 2009-04-17 08:57:38 发表
最重要的一点竟然没讲
顶[6]


http://comment.news.163.com/news2_bbs/4VF409UC00012Q9L.html
热门跟贴 (跟贴17条 有212人参与)手机也能看跟贴>>
网易上海市闵行区网友 ip:210.22.*.* 2009-04-13 09:30:37 发表
黄先生不愧是真正的学者!
顶[32]
网易四川省成都市网友 ip:222.210.*.* 2009-01-13 13:51:51 发表
我相信农民伯伯!
顶[26]
网易广东省深圳市南山区网友 ip:61.144.*.* 2009-04-13 13:01:50 发表
网易上海闵行网友(210.22.*.*) 的原贴:1
黄先生不愧是真正的学者!
多几个这样的学者,国人会明白,我们要的是什么?

顶[24]
网易广东省中山市网友 ip:125.92.*.* 2009-04-14 00:03:32 发表
金玉良言啊!
顶[17]
网易陕西省西安市网友 ip:124.114.*.* 2009-04-17 09:12:30 发表
有道理,指出了中国问题的所在!
顶[14]


huashanke [网易陕西省西安市网友]: 2009-04-17 09:50:36 发表
向黄先生致敬!!!
顶[12]


sgt0901 [网易广东省江门市网友]: 2009-04-17 11:37:08 发表
这才是中国的问题所在,应该让中国的决策层领悟,并实施.强烈支持推荐!!!!!!
顶[9]
网易广东省广州市海珠区网友 ip:220.113.*.* 2009-04-17 13:09:30 发表
中国要走自已的路,应该重用农田,保护农田,把更多的人吸引到农村去,不是把更多的农村人吸引到城市来。
顶[9]
网易江苏省常州市网友 ip:222.185.*.* 2009-04-14 09:25:13 发表
支持
顶[8]
网易江苏省盐城市网友 ip:218.92.*.* 2009-04-17 17:27:46 发表
网易上海闵行网友(210.22.*.*) 的原贴:1
黄先生不愧是真正的学者!
说的是真话,可惜没人理

顶[7]
最新跟贴 (跟贴17条 有212人参与)
网易广东省东莞市网友 ip:116.4.*.* 2009-04-19 10:44:31 发表
这才是真正的专家
顶[2]


37382495 [网易广东省佛山市南海区网友]: 2009-04-18 15:57:40 发表
旁观者清啊!
顶[2]
网易广东省广州市网友 ip:116.21.*.* 2009-04-18 15:23:12 发表
看了这么多的文章,只有这篇觉得有点道理,不错
顶[2]
网易广东省梅州市网友 ip:116.5.*.* 2009-04-18 14:26:43 发表
这才是教授说的话!
顶[2]
网易湖北省武汉市网友 ip:219.140.*.* 2009-04-18 12:50:39 发表
一针见血!!!中国政府应该多听听黄先生的建议!!!
顶[4]
网易广东省佛山市三水区网友 ip:219.132.*.* 2009-04-18 12:21:14 发表
中国的城市化有一个非常关键的条件,就是土地的价格很低?
顶[4]
网易江苏省盐城市网友 ip:218.92.*.* 2009-04-17 17:27:46 发表
网易上海闵行网友(210.22.*.*) 的原贴:1
黄先生不愧是真正的学者!
说的是真话,可惜没人理

顶[7]
网易广东省广州市海珠区网友 ip:220.113.*.* 2009-04-17 13:09:30 发表
中国要走自已的路,应该重用农田,保护农田,把更多的人吸引到农村去,不是把更多的农村人吸引到城市来。
顶[9]

sgt0901 [网易广东省江门市网友]: 2009-04-17 11:37:08 发表
这才是中国的问题所在,应该让中国的决策层领悟,并实施.强烈支持推荐!!!!!!
顶[9]

huashanke [网易陕西省西安市网友]: 2009-04-17 09:50:36 发表
向黄先生致敬!!!
顶[12]
网易陕西省西安市网友 ip:124.114.*.* 2009-04-17 09:12:30 发表
有道理,指出了中国问题的所在!
顶[14]
网易江苏省常州市网友 ip:222.185.*.* 2009-04-14 09:25:13 发表
支持
顶[8]
网易广东省中山市网友 ip:125.92.*.* 2009-04-14 00:03:32 发表
金玉良言啊!
顶[17]
网易广西南宁市网友 ip:222.83.*.* 2009-04-13 21:32:48 发表
hao
顶[3]
网易广东省深圳市南山区网友 ip:61.144.*.* 2009-04-13 13:01:50 发表
网易上海闵行网友(210.22.*.*) 的原贴:1
黄先生不愧是真正的学者!
多几个这样的学者,国人会明白,我们要的是什么?

顶[24]
网易上海市闵行区网友 ip:210.22.*.* 2009-04-13 09:30:37 发表
黄先生不愧是真正的学者!
顶[32]
网易四川省成都市网友 ip:222.210.*.* 2009-01-13 13:51:51 发表
我相信农民伯伯!
顶[26]


http://bbs.chinasky.se/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2763
楼层#3  帖子由 graceg » 2011年 12月 29日 星期四 10:45 pm
我还真看了,
如果我没弄错,他把印巴对比,然后得出,民主促进经济发展/增长 哈哈
(印巴除了民主V.S.军队专制,其余都相似)

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/zh-cn/yasheng_huang.html
Comment on this Talk
319 total comments

    Lee Stanley
        0
        Reply
    Sep 11 2012: While he is so optimistic about the politic reform, I still didn't see the omen of that.
    Krishan Singh
        0
        Reply
    Sep 9 2012: unbiased and excellent
    Mario Perry
        0
        Reply
    Sep 6 2012: I thought it was interesting how he proved that authoritarian governments have just as a stable economy as a democracy. Even though China was able to succeed through their government, in India it failed. Also the comparison of the infrastructures made a clear picture that it does not guarantee economic growth. Last Huang really changed my idea of India. When people compare India to countries like China, there seems to be no competition. But really India is doing well compared to other average countries. In the end, China's success was more influenced by the people and less of the government were as India is an authoritarian government.
    Haley Smith
        0
        Reply
    Sep 6 2012: I found that Yasheng Haung provoked many thoughts from me/ While the main topic of China and i'ndia. While Yasheng Huang used this as his basis hew as bale to branch off and become more freely speaking with his argument. He explained that after when he explained how China was mostly authoritative and then become more Democratic. Which in his eyes is a very postie and reassuring that everything is going to get better as well as he ending saying he sees a bright future for china's economy.
    mark oconnor
        0
        Reply
    Sep 6 2012: I like how he talks about how governments success is not just based off one variable. Yasheng talks about how the literacy rate of China is substantially better even though to be literate in china is a bigger challenge then India. He believes that with better education a nation can get more economic stability. I also like how he talks about how India may be considered to have a poor economy in comparison to china but is still doing well and is on the rise.The part that i found surprising was when he spoke about how China needed to become more liberal for a more stable economy. Logically I thought that with one person who is able to think long term for a country and can also make immediate decisions would be the best for an economy.
    Julia Tucceri
        0
        Reply
    Sep 6 2012: I think that Yasheng Huang made some very good points about democracy holding India back economically. With China's authoritarian government, they were able to develop as a country extremely quickly because the government was able to make decisions that were best for China and they could do it as soon as they wanted. With India's democratic government there is much contrevercy over what should be done with the government money and people's overwhelming opinions slow down the improvement rate. I found it interesting when he spoke about life expectancy leading to economic growth because that's something you wouldn't typically lead directly to improvement of the economy, but Huang made some good points.
    Kaitlyn Hogan
        0
        Reply
    Sep 6 2012: I found Yasheng Huang's speech to be very interesting and thought that it made a lot of sense. One of the main reasons he pointed out that China's economic growth is more successful than India's is based on their individual governments. India differentiates from China because their government has to take the peoples opinions into huge consideration. Another reason Huang said about why India is not as advanced as China is the way India has treated their women. He showed the average age of death and for a while the female age was younger then the male age which is not scientifically correct. The ages of death for India were all together younger than China. He mentioned a lot of factors that lead to successful economic growth such as life span, women's rights, education and government type.
    Bobby McLaughlin
        0
        Reply
    Sep 6 2012: Yasheng Huang made some very interesting points about Democracy and economic growth. One point that stood out to me the most was his argument about human capital can lead to economic growth. If the people of the given country are better educated, have better health, live longer, etc., then they will most likely have a growing economy. Another interesting point was when he compared Infrastructure to the economy. Contrary to what I and many others thought, infrastructure doesn't help the economy grow, but is a result of a growing (or grown) economy. This makes sense because with a good economy the government has the money to invest in building the country's infrastructure. Finally, I liked how Huang finished with the Michael Jordan reference. Throughout the speech he compared China and India because they are similar in size, but ultimately this isn't fair. China has done really well as far as growing their economy, but this doesn't mean India isn't doing well too. Without being compared to China, India shows great economic growth on its own which is important to see.
    Joe Lally
        0
        Reply
    Sep 6 2012: I found Yasheng Huang's presentation reasonable; he pointed out both the pros and cons of China and India. He made clear how education and health are the two main advantages China holds over India and he believes these are the main reasons why China has experienced such rapid growth. Furthermore, his argument about the East Asia model is convincing. Making the claim authoritarian governments have a systematic edge over Democracies by using examples of China and South Korea is unfair; countries with authoritarian rule such as North Korea and the Philippines experienced limited economic growth or recession. Furthermore, the country with the largest economy in the world (USA), was founded and has always existed as a Democracy.
    Johnny Cooke
        0
        Reply
    Sep 6 2012: I can confidently agree with what Yasheng Huang is saying when he talks about how life expectancy has more of an importance to the economy than we think. Although I agree with what hes saying I would agrue that numbers could be different because of population in these countries. As Huang said you cannot compare a regular basketball player (India) to a super star (china). In hearing him talk about china and india's economy I firmly beleive that China is a very unstable economic powerhouse, where as india has stibility and is constantly increasing their ecnonmy. Both economys have their flaws but I would argue that china's flaws outweigh that of india's.
    Zach Phelps
        0
        Reply
    Sep 6 2012: Yasheng Huang's TED talk got me thinking of what the US would be like under a communist government. A communist society is more practical. Chinas system allows them to act above the rule of law, where in India they must take the peoples word into great consideration.That is why China has done better. I agree with Huang's proposal on why infrastructures do not guarantee economic growth. China's eduction has also helped them become successful.
        Joe Lally
            0
            Reply
        Sep 7 2012: Interesting perspective, Zach.
        Adam Smith
            0
            Reply
        Sep 21 2012: Communist society is not practical. We are greedy and selfish. Communism limits creativity and the aspirations of in individual. "Why should I do all this work when it will not benefit me long term?" It's hard to get everyone to be like-minded.

        China, though it calls itself communist, is not whatsoever communist and hasn't been for a while. It's a blended economy with a good portion of it capitalist. But, yes, the Chinese government does have alot of "say" into what gets done.
    Emily Haddad
        +1
        Reply
    Sep 6 2012: My thoughts after watching Yasheng Huang are pulled in two different directions, from what I believe and what he has said. Although he had some good arguments in favor of Chinas government he left out major problems with Chinas government. He spoke on how China was a "super star" but left out the conditions people work in and how public health is prioritized. India although it is not on the same level as China, still shows momentum and is making progress to get better but at a safe and steady pace. India has succeeded at the making of a better economy while still keeping the people safe. India is still fourth place for growing economy country's yet he still talks down about India like they are so much worse then China. Huangs arguments are a little exaggerated to make Chinas government look better.
    Khadijah Desanges
        0
        Reply
    Sep 6 2012: Economist Yasheng Huang is very interesting and informative. I liked how we learned a little about how China and India where doing economically and politically and how that affected their GDP's . I was wondering if Imperialism from Britain could have had an effect on their economy right now . Because they were both in a way imperialism by Britain , just in different portions . India which was taken fully while China only allowed Britain to take Hong Kong . I was in a way surprised about how the Soviet Union had more telephones yet had very poor economic growth . I was shocked how gender and literacy rate could effect the economy .
    Jared Leslie
        0
        Reply
    Sep 6 2012: I thoroughly enjoyed listening to Yasheng Huang talk about the economic growth patters of China and India, and I think he supported his claim that China needs to reform to become more liberal if they want to continue their current success. Huang explores how the importance of infrastructure for economic growth is minor, and his example is how China used to have much less transportation and highrises than India during the later 1990s, even though China was more powerful economically. However China has been well ahead of India in education and life expectancy for a longer time, thus showing how education and health may be a larger importance for economic success. Although China is proving that their authoritative government has caused the country great success, Huang argues that most governments like this do not survive. In order to continue down a path to a booming economy, China needs to reform politically in Huang's opinion; they have shown steady progress, but it is essential that the nation becomes more of a democracy than a communist nation. India is become a democratic nation, and they have been displaying steady growth. Ultimately, according to Huang's views, China must reform.
    Lizzy Orsini
        0
        Reply
    Sep 5 2012: In the video, economist, Yasheng Huang explains his views on the difference between a democratic society and a communist society by comparing India and China. He believes that the government should do more, and that "a strong government is necessary to promote growth". In fact, he uses China's rapid development over the years to demonstrate how a communist society is more practical. Huang says that China's system allows them to act above the rule of law rather than India's democracy where the government must listen to the people. While Huang seems to focus on the advantages and disadvantages between the two forms of government, he explains something completely unrelated to the subject. What he says is that China has an advantage over India. From human capital, education, literacy rate- (the ability to read and write 1500 chinese characters), life expectancy, etc. Huang seems to add random statistics about China- as if to make the country seem that much better off, just because it's a communist country?
    Melanie Walsh
        0
        Reply
    Sep 5 2012: This video explained the comparison of China and India economic wise. With China being communist and India being a democracy, the question is brought up: does democracy stifle economic growth? Most would think yes because in comparison, China is doing better off than Democratic India, and has grown two times more. But really, China is known for it's success and any country compared to it wouldn't look as good. This is why democracy is not the reason for India not being as successful as China.
    Jacqueline Whalen
        0
        Reply
    Sep 5 2012: Yasheng Huang made an intriguing argument. At first glance it seems as though Democracy hinders economic growth, but in reality that is not necessarily true. As Huang points out, a large contributor to economic growth is Human Capital. If India continues to improve in Human Capital, it may prove that democracy does not limit economic growth. New improvements in gender equality and education will create a stable country and with that better economics. The government may be less the cause of growth than the citizens are.
    Samantha Diehl
        0
        Reply
    Sep 5 2012: I think that democracy doesnt stifle the economic growth because India was still ranked number 4 on the list of emerging economies. China's communist government does not keep it from growing economicaly because the government can get things done faster without the publics concern. While India would have to listen to the public and respect everyones input. India has better working conditions and treatment because they're a democracy and since China is communist they have to suffer while working in factories and 'sweat shops'. India will continute to grow and will eventually surpass Chila because of the freedom and rights they have in their democratic government.
    Bridgette Fiumedora
        0
        Reply
    Sep 5 2012: This video explained to me the economic and political differences between china and india. China is communist while india is a democracy. China has grown 2x as fast as india and there is debate as to why that is true. China has the raw matirials they need to have better education. They have a higher literacy rate and used to have a higher life expectancy than india. there is debate as to if infostructures are the cause or a result of economic growth. In reality, things like telephones are the result of economic growth- not the cause of them. Although india may seem like a failure compared to china, in reality it is doing very well for itself as a developing country. It is always compared to china because of its location, size, and population but in reality china is just a super power, and just makes india look bad.
    Yu Qiao
        0
        Reply
    Sep 5 2012: When I was in China I did not know much about the political or economics issues there, but through this video I think I learned something about China's economic growth over the years, even though I could sense the "China is great" tone in his voice. Also I agree with Mr. Huang's comment on Mao ZeDong.

    It would be better if he would use a less offensive tone when he talks about India.
        thumb
        Hang Du
            +1
            Reply
        Sep 5 2012: To you surprise, Mr. Huang is a HUGE fan of India and most of his research is try to prove that India democracy would fare better economic growth than an authoritarianism regime such as China. But he just can't make it. And given India 10%+ current account deficit and its newly downgraded credit ratings (no need to mention much slower growth rate), people should be confident that it won't happen for India to exceed China for quite a long time.

        Though Prof. Huang did point out the importance of education and gender equality. I have the fortune to work with extremely bright Indian men and women, hence I don't buy in the bullshit that Indian avg IQ is low. What I do believe is there is a big deal for India to handle in its education system. Elite specialist institutions such as IIT/IIM have neither produced ground-breaking fundamental research piece, nor provide quality education that accessible for the mass. To the contrary of many Indians, no global university ranking(neither publication/citation/top publication/nobel based Shanghai ranking nor THE/QS Rankings) ever put indian higher education institutions above China. Take a look at Nature Asia's top journal publish rank, India is nowhere close to what China stands now.

        Education isn't English language training or technical seminar, Indian higher education might be good to produce quality outsourcing labors, prepare young talents for emigration, but it fails to offer the country more talents for its growth needs. Moreover, quota system based on caste/tribe, poor elementary/secondary education enrollment, gender inequality for education opportunities aggravate the situation.

        I have no doubt that democracy empower people and give its citizens great privileges that average Chinese never enjoy. I just think India need to revamp its system. We all know British Empire triumphed French Republic for centuries, which simply tells us democracy isn't everything, though it is definitely one of the most important things.
            Yu Qiao
                0
                Reply
            Sep 6 2012: According to what you have said, "try to prove that India democracy would fare better economic growth than an authoritarianism regime such as China", Mr. Huang seems like pro India? Or pro democracy? But in this video he did not make a solid point out of it (just like what you have said as well)? I feel like he was trying to say how much better China's economic growth was compare to India's, although he did mention that China needs a political change.

            Fortunately I work for many Indians, and they are extremely intelligent people. Maybe education and gender inequality issues are still present in India, but many individuals are still highly educated.
    Scott W 20+
        0
        Reply
    Aug 31 2012: 2011 GDP per capita has Qatar as the best place on Earth.

    They're 37th in Inequality Adjusted Human Development Index for the same year.

    I'd say the old metrics the speaker is using don't hold much water personally, without even getting into the core of his argument or into the preposterous implications of continual economic (as we currently use it) growth.
    Nandu Madhekar
        0
        Reply
    Aug 24 2012: I do not know if democracy helps or hinders growth. But I do know that we have no choice - with India it is democracy or bust. Period.
    Natalia Gubina
        0
        Reply
    TED Translator
    Aug 19 2012: To add to this talk I'd say Russia also had great education, but the so-called "democratic" government stifled country's growth with its authoritarianism.
    thumb
    Don Kings
        +1
        Reply
    Aug 8 2012: TED will definitely have to do better in its speaker's selection. To invite an economist who promotes authoritarianism is a disaster in this modern day. His claims are baseless, wrongly presented, arrogant and perhaps offensive to the Indians.

    As an accountant myself, I advise him to go back to the basis of economics. He talks about growth from a very myopic and unprofessional perspective.

    I enjoy and appreciate TED but they really have to keep to getting speakers that have ideas worth spreading.
        daniel zamir
            +2
            Reply
        Aug 15 2012: He did not promote authoritarianism. The opposite is true. Please watch the whole video.
        Graeme Muir
            0
            Reply
        Aug 23 2012: He said that the form of government had no effect on economic growth and that it relied on other factors such as literacy.
    Shi Jie Qu
        0
        Reply
    Jun 15 2012: 黄先生对待中国经济的看法是单方面的,是不准确的,黄先生现在只会用西方人的眼光看待问题,完全不把民族特征考虑当中,对于看待中国经济在这样强制性经济 下不会好太久的看法,他完全没考虑中华民族的特性,那就是在任何环境下都能够快速的适应融入当下的环境中,可能在欧美,一切改变都要让民主的公民 怎样适应 怎样发展,但中华民族的特点并非如此,就好比这3000多年来一如既往一样,我们并不会要求国家应该如何按照我们的想法发展,而是迎合当下如何更 好的接入 当下的发展模式,黄先生如果只是考虑政治,经济,那您就错了。
    Aada Jones
        +4
        Reply
    Jun 13 2012: There is no conclusion to draw from this talk... some interesting figures, but they are all contradictory or arbitrarily compiled. At the end he says that India has the edge, because India is investing in infrastructure. At the beginning he says that infrastructure is not important.

    The speaker is out of touch - not only with reality, but with reason itself.

    I am stupider for watching this.
        C L
            0
            Reply
        Aug 15 2012: He was referring to educational infrastructure vs. physical infrastructure. Where India is now investing in education. His general argument, and admittedly he was not the most eloquent speaker, was that the overall education attainment of a population is most responsible for future growth and that India is hopefully now doing better in that respect. Whether you agree with him or not is up to you. But please listen more carefully. Also the title of the talk is very (and probably intentionally) misleading.
    Robert Ostman
        +1
        Reply
    May 27 2012: well now I am angry
    Ted is supposed to bring to us Ideas worth spreading & I don't see how is worth spreading the inhuman behavior of a country
    This is just wrong!
    millions upon millions subdued, law being bent arbitrarily by insane dogma and goals, yet China is not alone in this just ask the homeless people!, ask those unemployed, ask the people in need of proper health care!
    I find this talk insulting! and in so many levels! & I ask for respect!. not only that, I ask Ted to remove this "talk"... ASAP!
        thumb
        Hugo Zhang 50+
            +1
            Reply
        TED Translator
        Jul 25 2012: Hi Robert,
        I am ashamed to admit that this talk if from a Chinese guy. This is totally humiliating and insulting in every aspect. Democracy definitively creates motivation and determination because people are being taken care and they count for the country. The whole GDP growth crap is neither gonna make people truly happy nor make the economy any better. The numbers all come from socialized industries in which power is abused and money is distributed as personal usage. China is already on an edge of the stiff, and this talk is holding its back.
            thumb
            Hang Du
                0
                Reply
            Sep 5 2012: I don't see Prof. Huang advocate for Chinese regime at all.
            Your opinionated view simply shows your bigotry toward your own country.
            Democracy for sure is important, but it is actually not the key point of this lecture.
            As you're a Ted translator, I would humbly request you to take a look at Prof. Huang's research and listen to his points carefully.
            I cherish civil rights and am so sick of those infrastructure quality issues, broken roads/bridges, unsafe food. But if i have to choose, after excluding those meaningless GDP discussion, I would rather live in a country that provide safe water/food/traffic(relatively), decent housing which enable me to lead a healthier and longer life. Unfortunately, India falls behind in that regard compares to China.

            These plain facts are never an insult for India and Indian people. Nor do these prove the so-called Beijing consensus or China model. And by no means these aren't bashing democracy. The only thing we need to learn is that "democracy isn't every thing". Period.
        Graeme Muir
            0
            Reply
        Aug 23 2012: I believe his point was that having an authoritarian government does not give you an economic edge. This is an important point since it makes it harder for governments to say that removing democratic freedoms will benefit citizens economically.
    Ashton Lee
        0
        Reply
    May 22 2012: VERY MISLEADING DUDE.

    China had huge infrastructure advantages that lead to her growth.

    1.) SHIPS BRO LOTS OF SHIPS China's infrastructure advantage was and is huge in PORTS. Shipping goods out of the country to other parts of the world. That fueled the start of the China boom that we are all witnessing today.

    2.) MOTHER NATURE GIVEN INFRASTRUCTURE Goods were transported to these ports over giant rivers like the Yangzi. Even today 24/7 you will see huge shipping vessels shipping goods from the interior of the country out toward China's ports.

    Suggest Mr. Huang get out of the ivory tower and take a trip (by train ;) around China and see these obvious things for himself.

    It may not make for as interesting of a TED talk but it's reality.
    rishi vyas
        0
        Reply
    May 2 2012: Compare USA with USSR in 1980. USSR, no beggars officially, more nukes unofficially, better infrastructure, no Vietnam style mass agitations, huge land and resources and blah blah.

    In just more than 10 years, no USSR would be there. In 1980, if there was a comparision, the same would be said about USA which had its diplomats held hostage by a friend turned foe Iran. Why did USSR failed is question to obfuscate the simple truth in an avalanche of facts. The simple truth is that we are humans, we the people need liberty.

    In a year less than a decade, after winning the most gold medals in 1936, Nazi Germany died. In a more than a decade, after winning the most gold medals in 1980, Soviet Union died. Less or more than a year of a decade of 2009, China will die. Write it on the wall, write it on the ass, write it anywhere you want to, the end of China has begun. 2018 or 2020, it is all about the conjecture.
        thumb
        Hang Du
            0
            Reply
        Sep 5 2012: That's unfair. In 1980, average Americans led a much better life than avg USSR citizen.
        But that doesn't hold for average Indian versus average Chinese citizen. In fact, every single truth points to the contrary.

        China isn't a locked up country like USSR, if you wish, you could easily come and travel around the country. You could easily avoid any city/region that you think are showcase places and go to those poorer regions. Thanks to Chinese public transportation system and better infra, you would have access to even remotest places and do your own research.

        And by every means, gold medals are NOT negatively related to nation's powers, two perfect examples would be India and US. Nazi/USSR could easily be outliers. Even today, Germans and Russians are still lead better and longer life than India. The collapse of China (more accurately, the regime) you describe isn't scaring me, rather it makes me wonder how great my country would have been if it gets rid of the commie regime.

        Democracy is NOT a legitimate excuse for poverty. Before worrying about China, why not Indians put more efforts to improve its education/gender equality/healthcare(child mortality rate/malnutrition/life span/AIDS/, etc.)/infrastructure. Gee, that's a pretty long laundry list.

    Raveen Beemsingh
        +1
        Reply
    Mar 10 2012: i think the speaker has not been to to India that much, the first bit of comparison gave away the rest of the talk anyway where the comparison was done with Mumbai's Dharavi and Shanghai's Skyline, if the speaker wanted a proper comparison, that Dharavi picture would have been replaced by Mumbai Skyline :) yes, china has some advantages over india, and india has some over china, and they are factual, so we work around that :) i feel pity for the speaker to have come all this way to TED to show and tell what most people know already.
    taotao niu
        +3
        Reply
    Jan 30 2012: The topic is extremely interesting yet Prof. Huang's position is seriously mis-argued.

    It's no news that empowering women, education and public health are the engines behind all stories of economic takeoff. Amartya Sen pointed this out decades ago in the book "Development as Freedom". What Sen also pointed out and Prof. Huang careless (or deliberately) left out is that it's the Chinese communist party's authoritative rule after 1949 brought about 9 year compulsory education to the country thus drastically increased literacy rate from mere 20% to now almost 98%!! Similarly, after 1949, the authoritative Chinese government demanded that all women should get educated and participate in the workforce. This undoubtedly empowered women, who traditionally were considered second-class citizen compared to men. The authoritative government also launched a massive public health movement such that the majority Chinese could enjoy some very basic health care they couldn't before 1949. All these measured instituted by an authoritative government undoubtedly made the fast economic development possible.

    I am not expressing an opinion in support of authoritative government. I am just trying to point out the irony that Prof. Huang's argument cannot support his conclusion. On the contrary, it actually lends credits to the opposite. It's even more ironic if you consider that he actually cautioned against selecting on dependent variable bias during his talk.
    Ais Syariif
        +2
        Reply
    Jan 18 2012: Very interesting Idea, to not to be trapped between 'authoritarian vs. democratic form of government that benefit economic growth' paradigm. In Indonesia, most people here are disheartened with our economic growth and our democratic system. And some already entertain with the idea of going back to 'a Suharto era' of government, using justification of China's or Singapore's authoritarian example. Which of course, after seeing this tedtalk, I realized that it distracts us from the important issue that is investing in the 'human capital'. It would be unjust to credit Singapore or China success, simply for authoritarianism rather than for their efforts in nurturing and empowering their human capital. It is a more useful lesson to be focused on.
    Enrico Petrucco 20+
        0
        Reply
    Jan 8 2012: What argument is the kind sir actually making here?
    Infrastructure is a result of growth rather than to facilitate it? It is both!
    He makes many tenuous links and provides no substance. I feel like this talk is a case of propaganda. It does not show anything other than to spout a bunch of trivial numbers about how well China is doing. And then he says "I don't know if this will continue..."
    Does he not think that people will listen if he explicit shows how Democracy can be bad for economic growth?
    I would have much preferred a supported argument showing why China is doing so well. That would be useful information.
    OR to exhibit the real social and personal cost that the people of China have endured for the sake of 'growth'.

    Personally, I believe that there could be very useful implementation of a sort of 1 child policy tax incentive in many countries such as the USA. It facilitates a more sustainable future for many reasons, not least because it recognises that growth is not limitless. If China eliminated this policy I would be very scared of the worldwide consequences.

    An alteration to account for a couple who are each an 'only child' is great...
    for a scholarly educated couple it is not fair - this kind of policy could breed out important aspects of society that are poorly understood
    thumb
    gopala krishnan
        0
        Reply
    Dec 1 2011: Hi Johnny, I do business with Chinese companies, but my involvement with Child health and malnutrition is primarily in India. I spend over 50 percent of my time, working with 2 NGOs- one works to reduce child mortality, and the other, works to take useful health and sanitation information, to people who do not have easy access to reliable information.

    If you are in Mumbai or Delhi, I invite you to volunteer with us, and get a first hand feel for the problems I have referred to, and the mindboggling scale of the problem.

    It is very important that the problem is not brushed under the carpet . Every person who cares for the people of India must talk about this problem at every forum- in India and internationally. There is no shame in it. It is the way we can get more people to work on resolving the problem.

    Have a great day!
    thumb
    gopala krishnan
        0
        Reply
    Nov 30 2011: Hi Johnny,

    I can understand your sentiments. Maybe you are talking in purchasing power parity terms.

    My data source for per capita GDP, is the World Bank ( India per capita GDP at 1250 USD approx in 2009) - http://devdata.worldbank.org/AAG/ind_aag.pdf

    For income distribution, I have looked at various sources that confirm my inference , that 80-87% of the population earns under 2 dollars per day. A credible source that you can use is here -
    http://pdf.wri.org/hammond_india_profile_xls.pdf . As you can see, 20% of the population has 47% of the income. Lots of other credible sources - just Google " Income Distribution India"

    Have a nice day!
        Johnny Chikie
            +1
            Reply
        Dec 1 2011: It is a similar story in China as well! almost ALL of the millionaires in China are communist party members! And stop calling yourself "Gopalakrishnan". You are Chinese! Why don't you display your real name and we can have a REAL debate, instead of posing as an Indian and making disparaging remarks about India on a public forum!
        Mark Waugh
            0
            Reply
        Dec 1 2011: I recently travelled to China and what I saw was less than impressive, to put it in a polite way! It is nowhere close to being comparable to the west or Japan! The infrastructure in major cities, (there are only 2 or 3 of them) are good. The rest of the country is in the third world. An overwhelming majority of Chinese live on subsistence wages, just making about enough to survive. Poverty is a huge issue in China! It is just that it easier to conceal it, owing to the single party dictatorship! China is a poor country, as it has been many, many times historically. An overwhelming majority of Germans have a very bad impression of China and the Chinese owing to their poor record on intellectual property rights and human rights. In Germany, I can stay at home and my unemployment benefits give me more than enough to survive! China still has a long way to go. read the following articles:

        http://news.yahoo.com/photos/children-of-china-s-migrant-workers-1321494530-slideshow/

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/jul/15/david-sedaris-chinese-food-chicken-toenails

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/20/china-migrant-workers
            诚意 蔡
                0
                Reply
            Aug 14 2012: Hi,I am a chinese student in shanghai, First,I should admit that china is not very rich at all. But, compared to the last decades,Chinese are richer.The generation of my grandfather works for food. the generation of my father work for life.But the generation of me work for dream and a wonderful life. China is growing fast.One day,with our hard work,I think the generation of my son will stay at home and his unemployment benefits will give him more than enough to survive.Next, the Communist Party is better than you think, although is has a lot of problems.Although there is one party in china,but i can get the basic freedom I want,and I believe that there will be a political reform in Communist Party in the near future.(I am not a member of the Communist Party) Last, china is very rich from Tang Dynasty to Qing Dynasty.But after the invasion by 8 foreign countries including German,In this invasion, we began to be a weak country.You can read the History of china,you can find that China is very rich both in economy and culture.
    Johnny Chikie
        +1
        Reply
    Nov 27 2011: What a poorly constructed argument by Yasheng Huang! If that was the case, how was India the wealthiest civilization historically? According to economic historian Angus Maddison in his book "The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective", India had the world's largest economy from the first to the 18th century, with a 32.9% share of world GDP in the 1st century to 28.9% in 1000 AD, and in 1700 AD with 24.4%. There should be no argument about who is more intelligent. Besides, look at India's inventions and discoveries. The inventions and discoveries made by the civilization of India form the very foundation of human existence!
    thumb
    gopala krishnan
        +2
        Reply
    Nov 16 2011: The real issue impacting base IQ in India, is malnutrition. India is a country where 85% of the population lives on under 2 dollars a day and 50 percent on less than 1 dollar a day. The vast majority of the population is barely at subsistence levels. There is a real problem of low IQ among most Indian children (and therefore adults) because of this. The Economist had a great article a few months back on the impact of nutrition on intelligence.

    India has a dual problem with malnutrition - poverty is clearly a reason. Another reason is poor nutrient balance. A lot of Indians eat carb heavy and carb centric foods with insufficient protein and other nutrient intake. There is actually, quite a bit of malnutrition among kids of middle class, urban, Indians as a result. There was a report recently which reported that more than 40% of children in a city like Mumbai, are at some stage of malnutrition.
        Comment deleted
            thumb
            gopala krishnan
                0
                Reply
            Nov 24 2011: Hi Eric,

            I do not know much about politics in Malaysia.

            On the malnutrition and intelligence connection in India, here are a couple of links that may be of use-

            http://www.economist.com/node/17090948 (Child Malnutrition in India)

            http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001429/142929eo.pdf (The impact of malnutrition on the learning situation)

            India is a poor country with per capita GDP of about a thousand dollars. When this is combined with the extreme concentration of wealth in few hands, we have a situation where 85% (almost a billion people!) live on less than 2 dollars a day.

            Naturally, malnutrition is a problem.
                Johnny Chikie
                    +1
                Nov 27 2011: Your argument reflects your low level of intellect and your utter and complete ignorance about India! First of all, it is less than 35% of the Indian population that lives on less than 2$ a day. The percentage of people living on less than 2$ a day in China is staggering as well. almost 400 million, which works out to around 20% of the Chinese population! So let us check our facts before we disgorge words on a forum!
    Johnny Chikie
        +2
        Reply
    Nov 15 2011: I thoroughly disagree with the speaker, who, frankly speaking, doesn't have the profile or the intelligence to be featured in a TED talk! I would say that Indians are THE MOST intelligent group of people owing to their history. We had the intelligence to survive onslaughts by uncivilized barbarians and today, we are the world's oldest and oldest continuing civilization. The intellectual contribution of India is more than every other civilization combined! Almost EVERYTHING known to mankind in the area of maths, medicine, metaphysics and astronomy came out of India! I would strongly suggest that the speaker do his research before criticizing a civilization that is vastly superior to China in every aspect, including and especially, intellect!
        Z L
            +3
            Reply
        Nov 17 2011: While I do not agree with the speaker on some key points, I would think the claim of one civilization being "vastly superior" to another "in every aspect" seems suspiciously biased. While comparisons/contrasts are fun, we are all human beings after all, and we each have our own strengths and weaknesses, and so are the civilizations that we create.
            thumb
            gopala krishnan
                +1
                Reply
            Nov 18 2011: ZL- That is true. Saying that one civilisation is "vastly superior" to another, sounds wrong. And basing such views on some vague historical past that is several centuries or millennia removed, is weird. The Greeks could say that, and the Egyptians, the Iraqis (Mesopotamia), various South American countries (for the Mayans and the Inca), the Chinese, the Indians .....

            It makes more sense to talk about what exists today, and what the trends indicate about the emerging future.

            Disagreement with aspects of Yasheng Huang's ( excellent talk in my opinion), does not warrant such jingoism.
            Johnny Chikie
                +1
                Reply
            Nov 27 2011: Hu Shih, former Ambassador of China to USA:
            "India conquered and dominated China culturally for 20 centuries without ever having to send a single soldier across her border."
    Kalrav Acharya
        0
        Reply
    Nov 14 2011: Some interesting insights, but slightly biased comparison. The critical point for the difference in economic growth is due to the economic reforms. China went through a phase of economic liberalization in 1978, while India was still under socialist economic policy until 1991. That is a gap to thirteen years. Here, we are comparing the economic profiles of two countries, that are at clearly different stages in economic growth. And like huang says, 'why compare India to China?'.
    Intelligence does play a role in economic development, but so does global awareness. The Chinese political system and linguistic monotone are going to be the countries greatest barriers in the coming years. India's cultural rigidity will be its hardest battle. The effect of intelligence can be limited by political policies, and vice-versa. India might have a lower IQ average, yet it has the political institutions in place to leap ahead as the education system is revamped. Meanwhile, thought China's population may have a higher IQ, the political systems in place do not reflect the conditions of a free market, and will thus marginalize future growth, unless radical political changes are made in the near future.
    Enyu Zhang
        0
        Reply
    Nov 13 2011: Some mentioned that IQ tests are not fair or may not even be reliable when they are done by people in rural areas without modernisation. I had an IQ test when I was 11. Everyone had one in our grade at school (China). I don't even know why we had to have the test. Maybe for scientific research. Anyway, the IQ test I did actually had little to do with what you learn in school or modernisation. It was fun, eg: giving you a maze or something, mainly diagrams. Actually the test paper was a thick book full of diagrams (more than 300 pages), asking you all sort of interesting questions. I don't particularly see how people in rural area can't do a maze, so I guess it really depends on what sort of IQ test they do. Some may be more academic, others are based on common sense. There is also one thing to point out: even in the states, black students do not perform as well as Asian and white students according to the SAT college-entrance exam. So I don't think modernisation is the issue as black people in America are modernised anyway. I guess it is more to do with parenting and the study environment. The reason Chinese students are doing better in school is the culture of strict and competitive parents (not necessary a good thing) and the environment in schools - most students study like crazy. If you have less strict parents, you may give up education earlier or you may give up school if the gang culture is strong. I don't think black people are born different, but the culture is different.
    Kami sama
        0
        Reply
    Nov 5 2011: Chinese people well-educated, more hard work, but authoritarian hinder social development, may lead to future confusion.
    Ernestas Radvila
        0
        Reply
    Oct 30 2011: I cant shake off feeling, that we desperately want to prove our idealistic democratic rule to be superior. In this video, I saw a straw-man who with his linear thinking tries to show our righteous ways. Familiar, isn't it?
    thumb
    Tim Bailen
        0
        Reply
    Oct 27 2011: Would love to see him collaborate with Hans Rosling- maybe the picture would be clearer. I had a hard time following this talk.
    lulu zero
        0
        Reply
    Oct 24 2011: 中国的经济高速增长其实是靠的卖地和房地产产业!!完全是经济泡沫!!
    Sunny R
        0
        Reply
    Oct 10 2011: Well, Prof talk was not relevant to his topic at all. By comparing China Vs India he was trying to show to the world that communist is batter than democracy.

    The relay answer is China Vs Hong Kong. No more talk..... End .
    Sanjay Parekh
        +1
        Reply
    Oct 7 2011: If democracy was not working for India how come this article reports that number of affluent households in India is second only after China? This is after China started their reforms almost 2 to 3 decades before India.

    http://www.siliconindia.com/shownews/India_2nd_Only_to_US_With_3_Million_Affluent_Households-nid-93852-cid-1.html?utm_campaign=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=Subscriber
    thumb
    Andrew King
        0
        Reply
    Oct 6 2011: I don't understand how anybody can believe in the state over the individual. Without an individual there is no state. The purpose of a government is to help its people become more empowered, its NOT the people's job to empower their governments.
    thumb
    Jin Rui
        0
        Reply
    Oct 6 2011: The downside of government-controlled economy is that the fruit of the growth is usually considered by Chinese citizens in a superficial way. GDP is a useful data, but not convincing enough, as many Chinese people are still undergoing labor pains of rapid economic growth, e.g. forced eviction to ensure public infrastructures, wide gap between the poor and the rich, the incapability to afford houses and cars for young generation, other high cost of living, etc.

    But it is true of the examples on the positive approaches the speaker made, including the rural entrepreneurial revolution, indeed an unique phenomenon in China, meaning that a fair number of peasants shrudding off old-world traditions of 'born a farmer, forever a farmer', taking on economic reforms in the industrial structure in rural areas, by abandoning low-income heavy agricultural labours, turning to small-to-medium-scale manufacturing or processing industry, under the government's supervision and support, etc., thus making the rural areas gain wealth in a way that satisfies both ends.

    And the aforementioned reforms are major measures that the government has carries out in the recent decade(so far only seen in part of China), from which we can see that the government's decisions on the economic growing methods are intended for good, while the fruit of it are somehow tasty. However, as I suggested in the first place, balancing the labor pains and the rapid growth is the inevitable problem for Chinese government. We can only hope the decision makers are wise and considerate enough to avoid hurting and try benefiting those in their charge.
    Steven Why 30+
        +1
        Reply
    Oct 6 2011: I really find these comments rather sad, and i have read most of them.

    From the justification of racism based on differing IQ data, leading to the inherent support for eugenics. To the influence of "bad" religions on a country, to people's blind acceptance of governments regulations.

    But what I find the saddest of all, in fact is NOT even mentioned; that being this question...

    Since when is the wealth of a nation been solely based on it's gdp?

    Is that what the speaker wants us to believe, that only $ count?

    I take issue with all of this, I believe that there is more, a lot more than just a dollar value to a country and it's peoples.

    I believe that the way a country treats it people, their quality of life, their hope and dreams, their art, their music, their creativity, their freedom, their expression, their happiness, their safety, their opportunities, their heritage and lastly I believe the very heart and soul of people define the country, not the dollar bill.
    thumb
    Tao P 30+
        0
        Reply
    Oct 5 2011: Where's the talk on the next potential systems of governance (or non-governance)? The current system of capitalism and democracy have gotten us far (though the industrial revolution was a huge contributor as well) but these systems are a far cry from ideal. With the huge amount of wasted resources, skills, creativity and community that come capitalism there is obviously a much better system waiting to be discovered. It seems to make evolutionary sense that we would go from a system of the individual working for themselves to one in which groups of people work together for common goals. I'm not advocating for communism (especially for what passed as communism in Russia, which was more akin to state run capitalism anyway), but a new system in which people maximize their potential: their happiness, creativity, community and health. Any ideas???
    Raj Thamotheram
        +1
        Reply
    Oct 3 2011: I'm fascinated by Prof Huang's question: why do most economists (and I'd add investors) "fall in love with authoritarian governments"?

    This isn't just a matter for academic interest. It leads these influential players (mostly from allegedly democratic countries) to be anti efforts to improve workers rights, negative about democratic reforms which arent imposed from the top etc etc.

    Prof Huang's answer - that they mis-interpret the East Asian miracle and are guilty of quite basic selection bias - was quite an eye-opener.

    As was his reasoning that they over-credit physical infrastructure and miss the importance of human capital. The same is true at the micro-level - analysts routinely ignore HCM performance.

    I think there's another reason: there's a psychological resonance between the homo economicus/free market mental model and patriarchal/authoritarian leadership mindsets. See this article which explains this connection, albeit in the US context: http://huff.to/eQKJAs

    Any one else find this aspect of interest? Any views on the above?
    thumb
    Marinus Vesseur
        0
        Reply
    Oct 3 2011: The history of the world and the rise and fall of empires show that race has little to do with the wealth of nations. There are cultural reasons for desiring education for ones children or declining it. A nation that now lives in chaos may once have been a world empire and vice versa. On a national scale humans don't differ that much from one another. Not too long ago a Westerner would have declared a Chinese person inferior in intelligence, based on the perceived succes of Western civilization as compared to China. Look at the apparent 'intelligence' of the average American in the southern states today. Their backward religious views hamper their progress - their inherent abilities remain the same.

    john isaac
        +3
        Reply
    Sep 29 2011: The reasons for China growing faster than India can me enumerated and debated - but you are missing the point of the speech!

    His thesis is that democracy is a contributing factor for growth, not a determent. So why are you all talking about IQ? Is this YouTube now?
    Comment deleted
        Brian Lam
            0
            Reply
        Sep 30 2011: The data points are used as illustrations meant to fit the limited time given to a TED speech. His book and research papers would provide the more intensive study you seem to desire.
    thumb
    Manav sanghavi
        0
        Reply
    Sep 29 2011: I would appreciate your comparison but at one go it's look very biased and watch out some of your statements when you speak yourself as superstar.We all know US and UK is superstar to us in many terms and we give that due respect and they dont need to seek that respect from rest of the world.It's natural.You would have phrased your statement in more better way instead of saying "china being superstar ;India doesn't hold the status to be compared" and it's hurts the sentiments of many Indians.You seem to have some internal problem in your brain regarding India and people like you has infused similar thoughts about india in your young kids.I wouldn't be self boosting India as the way you are doing to china which doesn't mean we are jealous about china.we do have great humanitarian respect and sentiments which comes from ages and you miss it all the time and time will avert when your supposition is going to change.Therefore,your hypothesis being created here is liable to be rejected.I hope you improve this in your next talk or watch out my talk when i come to ted with similar agenda but in a very hospitable way.
    Prasenjit Mukherjee
        +2
        Reply
    Sep 29 2011: Pretty awesome talk..the first direct comparison of india and china I've seen in a while. However, to drive home the point he should have stressed that without political reform Chinas "superstar" growth is not sustainable and may even collapse. While Indias slower growth is more organic and is here to stay.
    Prasanth . 20+
        0
        Reply
    Sep 28 2011: Communism is Good only under Good & Smart rulers - As China has the advantage of the situation now.
    But when the Authority gets into wrong/less smart/over smart hands - China will face another bad history.

    India do not pollute the World - 50% of the fact is because of its Democracy.
    If China turn Democratic from Communist, no Nation in this world will have Chinese goods to buy AND The Advantage of it is at least 40% of the Global Pollution (Global warming )will be reduced.

    Communism could have provided NOW a life time of 60 years, but its political ambitions will lead people to have their Life time reduced to 50% around 30 years in the Future.
    Vasu Sastry
        0
        Reply
    Sep 28 2011: Ashman says "...Nearly all Nobel Prize winners in hard science have the IQ in the range of 115 to 125. If your IQ is higher than 125, you are not going to win the Nobel Prize in science because your brain is not creative. ..."

    I'd like a reference for your claim.

    As far as I know the average IQ of Nobel prize winners in hard science is not published anywhere. At best it can be *estimated*. This webpage has a reasonably credible estimate of the average IQ of Nobel prize winners (overall, not only hard science) which is is 144. It says that the dimmest bulb among them has an IQ of 139. See: http://lagriffedulion.f2s.com/dialogue.htm I doubt that "hard science" Nobelists have a signfiicantly smaller average IQ. The burden falls on you to prove this.

    This is not about left-wing or right-wing ideology. I know left-wingers often have blinders. I also submit that there could be ethnic differences in IQ (however you define it - classic, specialized, whatever). An IQ difference of more than 20 points between India on China on average is an extraordinary claim and it requires extraordinary evidence. The original study you cited has been criticized on its merits rather soundly and does not provide extraordinary evidence.

    Spouting off a lot of facts as if they are true makes you look very authoritative and indeed, I took you seriously earlier. But I think enough people have questioned your claims. So, my friend Ashman, please check your facts and your own hidden assumptions and prejudices before you engage in serious discussions and waste people's time.
    Siyu.Ray Lei
        0
        Reply
    Sep 27 2011: We are looking forward to Chinese political reforms as well:)
    Raphael Allez
        0
        Reply
    Sep 26 2011: I just want to say that development is not the most important, what it really is is the quality of life. I dont want to live in the most rich country in the world if it means work long hours day after day, and not be able to demand my rights. In adition I would like to know how many is the income per capita, without great fortunes of the country, I doubt that it be as many as Huang has said.
    Dustin Charles
        0
        Reply
    Sep 26 2011: Why is Howard trying so hard to forget that someone had to teach him how to wipe his...

    Is it getting to be that time again? How high is your IQ if you're next to someone who cares?

    Drop Howard off into "Black Africa" and see how long it takes him to ask one of those "unintelligent" natives for help.

    Spending large amounts of time trying to prove your superiority to yourself by spouting out data supporting your predispositions... Sounds like someone keeps buying the wrong lottery ticket hoping to win... But what is the prize exactly, aside from the constant drain on human capitol?
    Kerry Monroe
        0
        Reply
    Sep 26 2011: Hello,

    I think it can be said that we all excel under good government. Really the best government would be a Kingdom with a good king. Is a kingdom a dictatorship? I'm not sure. But Kingdoms and Dictatorships are bad when the leaders are bad. The other problem is one good leader does not mean the following leader will be any good. Also human life spans are too short for long term stability in this type of government.

    It was once said that no governments were good, but democracy is the best we humans can do.
        thumb
        João Rijo
            0
            Reply
        Nov 11 2011: the best government would be a Kingdom with a good king? HAha! I laugh without meaning any disrespect it's just was my initial reaction when I read your statement, I mean, It'd have to be some kind of superhero king to do better then the hundreds of people that today replace the job of the king-queen of old, in the modern nations that have a level of complexity several times higher then the successful nations that where ruled by kings. There still remain some rather successful nations that have a king or queen, like uk, spain, holand but the power and level of intervention of the royal has been reduced dramatically. a single ruler is only the best when one head thinks better then more then one. And even then like you said it would have to be a king that has good intentions towards the people that he/she rules. I don't think there is any nation that is simple and small enough today for the "one head is better then more" situation. at least not if that head is human, maybe in the future we develop somekind of supercomputerking that does the job better then all the hundereds of human heads combined but until then...
        Best regards
    thumb
    Stefan Alexiev
        0
        Reply
    Sep 25 2011: A corrupt democracy such as the one in America stifles economic growth. The hand of the free market is in handcuffs by the government. That is why we cannot pull out of this recession soon to be depression and maybe never will until we overthrow the blood sucking leeches in our white house. The worst part is that most people are unaware of the full situation, they dont know who to blame, and they dont know why to revolt. Everything is covered by an illusion of a free market, free society, and democracy. If people stopped listening to the brainwashing CNN and FOX NEWS maybe they can become a little more aware of what is going on in the world. If we continue to be misinformed and never ask questions or seek out the truth, we will always be the same manipulatable society that we are today. Plenty of alternative news networks that find the REAL NEWS have popped up such as http://www.moneytrendsresearch.com/ but no one likes to pay attention and support them. The financial system of the world is collapsing, and no one seems to care.
    Ankur Lodha
        0
        Reply
    Sep 25 2011: I think India is better off growing slow the Indian way rather then growing fast the Chinese way.
    Naresh J
        +1
        Reply
    Sep 24 2011: Dear Sir,

    The inherent difference lies in the definition of the Growth rate. Is GDP growth alone the only factor to measure a country's growth rate? Or is the collective growth, incorporating everyone in to the economy and without hurting in the process of development, the real measure of a country's growth ?
    Mere numbers don't speak whole the story all the time...Am I right?
        Daniel Kim
            +1
            Reply
        Sep 25 2011: No offense but judging that he is an economist, I think he used a general term for the better understanding for the audience.
    Vasanthi Rao
        +1
        Reply
    Sep 22 2011: or this one -

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/05/28/world/asia/20090528-kashgar-audioss/index.html
        thumb
        Stefan Alexiev
            0
            Reply
        Sep 23 2011: Stop getting your news from these biased networks controlled by the government. If you want to quote real, unbiased, and non controlled news go to:
        http://www.moneytrendsresearch.com/
        or other alternative news websites.
    Vasanthi Rao
        0
        Reply
    Sep 22 2011: I am guilty of watching only 1:22 minutes of the video before turning it off with utter disgust. At 1:22 he gives a "simple answer" (his words) and shows the skyline of Shanghai and Mumbai. What he fails to mention is that the skyline must have been raised by evicting people out of their ancestoral property giving them a 24-hour notice to leave homes that are also the final resting place of their ancestors. Here is an example of how they got their buildings - http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/06/05/us-olympics-beijing-housing-idUSPEK12263220070605
    Is this progress? You decide.
        Sarah Dougherty
            +2
            Reply
        Sep 23 2011: Actually, he says that the skyline was raised by evicting people not 30 seconds after he showed the picture. You would have heard that if you had continued to listen/watch.
        Steve Patton
            0
            Reply
        Sep 23 2011: Being cionvinced of your own views is a dangerous impediment to learning. If you do not hear the speaker out until the end you have no business commenting on what he says. He does say that the government used eviction to remove obsttacles to its goal. His poing if you ytakke time to listten is that while these tactics work well enough in the startup to attrack investment (he never seems to explore the reason that these economies fl;ourish. It seems that third world economists never want to credit the west for providing both the technical structure and teh early marketplace as well as teh capital, while they mainly provided the human capital.) He does make the poing about a more literate population which made China better able to suit itself to the imported technology that came with teh already in place market. I should make afurther poing that that industrial technology both depended on the whims of its market and teh labor of it such that its golden era from the west came only at the point when its market and producers were the same body of people. But one drove the other and it didn't really trake off until the labor force began to make enough to afford the product of their own labor and be able to influence the direction of product development. In teh case of adopting this system in the third world the Chinese model is only as good as its readily available market dictates. Until Social reforms allow greater freedom to teh workers teh domestic market will not be in control of production. Similarly in the west we are reversing teh trend that allowed us to reach our zenith by exporting teh workforce so that the income of teh market we once had domestically is shrinking and also teh feedback from the end user to manufacturing. that dictates design. There is also teh deliberate pegging of currency ratios but that is an artificial construct that only lasts until teh consumption by teh market exceeds its earning potential. Whiuch I see as already the case.
    Brian Moretta
        0
        Reply
    Sep 22 2011: To my mind a lot of the comments seem to arise from the flawed presentation. To 'analyse' such a complicated issue by basically using two examples is, at the very least, difficult and probably impossible. I'm sure most of us could have produced both a 'here's why China will do better' presentation or a 'here's why India will do better' (and some of the commentators do:)) As in many complex systems I believe there is no single reason, no neat explanation.

    The best work I have seen on this question is in Paul Collier's book 'War, Guns & Votes'. He refers to some statistical analysis of many countries and suggests theat democracy *does* affect economic growth. It is non-linear though - for poor countries more democracy is bad, for richer countries it is good. I can't remember the rich/poor cutoff point, but he observes that China is around that point now.
        Steve Patton
            0
            Reply
        Sep 23 2011: So true!. But I think China's early success was that it was ripe for a ready built market and a technology built to suit it. these three factors made it more readily adaptable other than it's higher literacy rate:
        1. It had been "borrowing" technology from teh west for a long time beginning almost as soon as it was establishe under Mao so it had an established template for educating technoligicallt literate workers.
        2 it had a Central government that had an iron hand on control of its population and an entire generation of workers styeeped in the egaliarian vision of its founders.
        3. It had a willing industrial system already established to suit a ready market anxious to exploit its potential.
        Is teh model sustainable? becomes teh question.
        My guess is that not unless like he says China developes a greater connect between its markets and its workers. It was the workers becoming able to share in teh rewards of their labors that fueled the prosperity of teh west. That is a model of democracy that I don't see happening anywhere the controls of the market are dictated by an elite body. Feudalism is still alive and well buit I see some indication that maybe it has a limited future as teh people of teh world begin to make their desires known.
        It might also depend on just how long we can sustain any system based on fosil fuel and indiscriminate use of resources. I see it as a race between teh two toward either destruction or salvation. Life's ultimate test of viability..
    thumb
    sundeep bhat
        0
        Reply
    Sep 22 2011: Mr Huang makes some very pertinent points, I am an Indian and i get to travel to many developed countries pretty regularly and i notice that the difference in Indian cities and other cities is quite stark, and i am not talking about infrastructure.
    The most important point which i felt was most relevant is the definition of literacy in different countries, i have always believed that an excellent education system shapes an excellent attitude towards society and towards nation - the bedrock of any economy.

    The fact that India is looking like a growth disaster in the last couple years is due to this : Increased paralysis in political and economic reforms, an increasingly archaic bureaucratic system and the most important, the attitude of Indians towards each other and the nation.

    Like Mr Huang , i remain optimistic but i am afraid time is running out, we do need to move urgenty.
    thumb
    foto murthy
        0
        Reply
    Sep 21 2011: PART 6

    About dragon vis-a-vis elephant

    As this Ted-Talk video was filmed in JULY 2011
    i read somewhere that it takes 8 to 30 years for a country to renew itself . . .

    If I promise to show a picture of the DANCING ELEPHANT in JULY 2041,
    what will YOU have you of 'The Dragon' doing ?
    _________________

    FLASH NEWS : you signed of with political reforms required for china ??
    Isn't your initial topic :Is democracy actually holding India back?
    What went wrong ?
    _________________

    On a parting note :

    Outsource your essays when you are lost.
    Never disrespect and discredit any country that is not your motherland.
    and do show my love to the victims of June Fourth Incident.

    ♥ from INDIA
    thumb
    foto murthy
        0
        Reply
    Sep 21 2011: PART 5

    60-to-80% workforce in china is women and India has long way to catch up with china?

    REALLY ? but we do believe our women are capable enough & trust them to lead us to the next level -
    by putting them on prime-ministerial, presidential, chief-minister-ship and top corporate chairs.

    you have some examples here 'Mr Yasheng Huang'
    ____________________

    Did democracy hinder growth in India ? NO!

    As we are adjusting the sociopolitical shortcomings -Rightly, Right Now.
    Give me a decade, i shall give you promising data on this.
    Else do visit us - if i don't get back.

    We both are just an airport away ;)
    Aren't we ?
    ____________________

    "India : a growth disaster VERSUS China : a superstar"

    About India is a growth disaster - Not Really.
    As we ( at least me ) do not have the time to correct absurd prejudices and old-fashioned arrogance -

    I attribute that to a kid learning to cycle the first time,
    its about time he got the heck of it. :)

    (We too are getting used to growth, reforms
    and being empowered et al, you see.)
    ____________________

    About China is superstar!
    "China is quite simply a Super-Sized-Star".
    ____________________

    About NBA - About Michael Jordon - About comparing with superstar is wrong -
    And about all such blah blah

    Remember HISTORY, the essential plugin you sometimes need for ECONOMICS too.

    Before Michael Jordon, there were other equally and sometime more talented players Like Lebron James, Magic Johnson, Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell Yao Ming, Dirk Nowitzki, Pau Gasol, Marc Gasol, Ricky Rubio, Peja Stojakovic, and Vlade Divac to name a few.

    As an economist, Don't you agree that Jordan was one of the most effectively marketed athletes of his generation ?
    _________________

    (continued...)
    thumb
    foto murthy
        0
        Reply
    Sep 21 2011: PART 4

    I accede only to the sole point of your's :
    HUMAN CAPITAL to be the secrets of china's growth all these years.
    But i fear you failed to see that there is slavery involved in your box-packing (labor system)

    Oh ! we almost have abolished zamindari system in India - for your information.
    ____________________

    Your literacy rate comparison needs attention too

    Right now, i agree China 95.9%
    Is far more literate than India 74.04%
    But then - so is Cuba at 99.9% and North Korea at 99.0%

    Both countries being the axis of evil and circumference of evil in mulitple ways.
    Also, there are more than sixty countries far more than literate than you. enough said.
    ____________________

    " Learning 1500 Chinese characters VERSUS
    Writing own name in India is the scale of literacy dictum"

    There are roughly 50 000 existing Chinese characters in use today. A native Chinese speaker only knows 5 000 to 10 000 characters. But you will only need to know 1,500 to start to read a newspaper.

    So it is important that, at least in the beginning, you learn only these 1,500 most useful characters, and NOT any of the 48 000 other characters.

    But our alphabetic structure is less complex yet concise and lucid enough to express - the whole thoughts and sounds - from 12 characters to few hundreds to the most, that's all we and other languages need.

    FLASH NEWS :
    Can you believe it ; i am typing all these, just using 26 characters and few punctuation marks.
    ____________________

    Human Development Index and other blah ??
    JUST SHUT UP!

    India and china does not deserve to use this overall human life maturity state in statistics. On the contrary, we both can top on Human Suppression Index - if there is one like that.
    ____________________

    (continued...)
    thumb
    foto murthy
        0
        Reply
    Sep 21 2011: PART 3

    Your story about soviet telephone (1989) and the Indian railways (1990) are "single-lick-candies"
    or perhaps "touch-go-strategies"

    *Soviet did not break of having too many phone connections !
    They got diluted / fell apart - due to bad economic policies and worst communist theories : both being implemented at the very same time.

    * Off course, Britishers gifted us railways - not as a goodwill, for allowing them to plunder us - But as the reliable mode of transport that helped them to draw straight lines through our rich land, minerals and treasure. A small gift perhaps - for such large folio of wealth they got / took in return.

    Is democracy bad for economic growth? and you point

    GDP in 1990 : India $317 PAKISTAN $461
    GDP in 2008 : India $714 PAKISTAN $650

    Pal, what is this - you do not want to compare the authoritative China with democratic India,

    But end up comparing INDIA with PAKISTAN :a rank 5 country in real GDP, with a rank 71 country.
    Have you not learned of their failed military leadership and their sincere contribution to world terrorism.
    Not to mention, do you know of Pakistan's marketing of nuclear weapons technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea.

    Mr Yasheng Huang are you still awake ? Nor are being one of of our sixth grades dozzing off in the last benches in the afternoons ?
    ____________________

    Which country did better ?
    1996 to 1976 annual growth real per capita GDP averaged 2.2% faster than India every year - This does not need attention, as the real GDP has been given above, We shall forego our grandparents economics and sit and talk about us and our children ;)

    Write it down in your scratch pad, The Next Economic Super Power
    This is going to be the wrestling arena / betting pool
    for INDIA, USA, CHINA, JAPAN, RUSSIA, BRAZIL . . .
    There is going to be definite fireworks, at least till 2050.

    Pal, Have you noticed my clues ?
    ____________________

    (continued...)
    thumb
    foto murthy
        +1
        Reply
    Sep 21 2011: PART 2

    The picture of Mumbai slums VERSUS Shanghai skyline - is so biasedI can do the same thing like post - slums / ghettos in USA and UK and compare it with the horizons in New Delhi or Mumbai

    But then - don't i end up looking - silly or stupid ?
    For an economist - well, it is more than stupid!

    Anyways, if you can't locate slums in your backyard (china),
    just Google Image Search : Slums China.
    ____________________

    You say, evicting millions of people is just a technical issue is it ?
    Here in India we also have 'slum eviction board', but then,
    we don't get monstrous when handling human emotions.

    One of the by products of democracy is the respect for human values
    and the respect for an absolute human life.
    ____________________

    You imply that - our premier "Manmohan Singh wants Mumbai to be another Shanghai.
    I sympathize with his limited imagination ;)
    There is nothing more to it than aiming FOR the current standard
    and reaching out TO BE the best by surpassing the current standard.

    Hope you have watched the athletics at the Beijing Olympics 2008.
    If you have not - well start with something you can get used to,
    like human aspirations : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usain_Bolt
    ____________________

    The-Pressure-Tactics-Model-also-known as-the-Shanghai-Model-of-Economic-Growth,
    the world over is called "force-accept-change-economic-module" - which might has / will have gross human-rights-violations and human-wrongs-attributions, in the long run.
    ____________________

    (continued...)
    thumb
    foto murthy
        +1
        Reply
    Sep 21 2011: PART 1

    Hello, 'Mr Yasheng Huang' wake up,Its 2011 here in India and kids in our 7th or 8th grade give better 'power'-point presentations than yours!
    ____________________

    You started with - Why democracy is bad for India and ended-up praying that china will / is thinking about - to have real-good social reforms.

    Well, since you took the trouble of enlightening the world by using 18 minutes and 52 seconds of your personal life with few goggled-up-economics (for unsuspecting gallery?)
    Lets sit down for business / gyan-update, immediately .
    ____________________

    Before i start - let tell me you of MY PROFILE
    I am a visual artist and a photographer, unlike the economist tag that you have, and i don't vouch or aspire to become a pseudo-intellectual ;)
    ____________________

    Q : Why china has grown so much faster than India ?
    A : The answer is in your own sweatshops than elsewhere.
    (Thank for emphasizing "china" and "so much faster", your extra efforts has been noticed)
    ____________________

    FLASH NEWS : China's GDP is twice as that of India,
    Off course it is and will be for sometime - Given your history, geographical distribution and the human resource you had and have. But why are you using redundant data of the last 30 years and why are you so-so obsessed with the 1990s

    Here is the latest real GDP for you, from two credible sources
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_real_GDP_growth_rate_%28latest_year%29
    AND
    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2003rank.html

    WE ARE RANKED 5th and CHINA IS RANKED 6th

    Is this presentation : your govt's propaganda to malign India's brand power or Is this seriously coming from the midnight oil burned in your home ?

    (continued...)

    Jeff Vanderwerf
        0
        Reply
    Sep 21 2011: In China, all major decisions are made from a single party, with virtually no dissent to hinder the party's visions of progress.
    In India, there are roughly 50 registered political parties, with dozens (hundreds?) more unregistered parties. Since India is a democracy, this means that all these disparate political elements get to have their say in what happens in the country. How can this fact NOT be an obstacle to change (then growth)?!
    It seems simple enough to me: When you have a country with so many people--each one of whom will have his or her own opinions on any matter--you can either have a few voices making the final decisions when "it counts" (China) or a cacophony (India).
    veena srinath
        0
        Reply
    Sep 20 2011: Okay Indians a show of hands , who is ready for a single child policy enforcement like China had ??? @Soumitra , you perhaps ?!! Are we willing to do what it takes ?
    Is it worth it ?!

    We are a different people, yes Democracy is slow and tedious especially in a country as diverse as India but why are we in such a rush anyway ?!!
        John Frum 20+
            0
            Reply
        Sep 20 2011: That is a big problem with many Indians, with the whole "I want to raise *my* child". So few are willing to adopt.
        The whole point of the single child policy is that this is something that's forced on people. Even the Chinese populace is not happy with it, and many flout the limit and pay higher taxes. What point were you trying to make with your question?
            veena srinath
                0
                Reply
            Sep 22 2011: This was the point-
            Forcing people to do something even if it is a good idea(As an example population control mechanisms) which is the way of communism; is efficient but not always nice... it leaves behind trauma and scars. This is like teenagers being "told" what to do, they rebel ...

            Whereas getting people involved and persuading them to do the same thing (population control) which the way of democracy is obviously slower and less efficient but in the people buy in and cooperate and take responsibility for their actions like adults or learn to live with the consequences of their actions...and only this will work , we have to learn how to make democracy work.

            the solution is not to stay as teenagers forever we have to learn to live as adults even if life is hard...


            hope this answers the questions
        thumb
        Soumitra Sen
            0
            Reply
        Sep 21 2011: Not sure what single child policy has to do with my comment! Do let me know.

        The point I am making is - Indian democracy is not ONE thing... it is made up of the sum total of the manner in which the federal states behave, since a lot of the "to do" developmental items sit in the STATE list, not the CENTRAL government list. Some states have done well - specially with investments in basics. Some states have NOT - their political will to develop their people is poor. That LACK OF POLITICAL WILL leads to a banana-democracy, where people either don't vote, or they vote for money-based politics,

        True development happens with investment in human capital. If democracies don't do that, they are not worth the paper they are voted in on. By the way, that's the point Mr Huang makes - about women in workforce et al.
    thumb
    Soumitra Sen
        0
        Reply
    Sep 20 2011: Uninformed, cut-copy-paste "democracies" could stifle growth. The lack of political will to tackle tough socio-economic problems is the issue.

    Look at India again, BY federal STATES - the definition of literacy is a politically expedient ability to "sign your name" BUT there are Indian states (mostly down south) where not just REAL literacy, but FEMALE EDUCATION is way above the national average. There are more women in the workforce, average voter turnout in elections is higher and in general, these Southern states have had governments with clear electoral majorities. The state of Kerala focuses heavily on vocational education - in local Malayalam, as well as English & Arabic since Kerala-ites have always had economic links with the Middle East. This helps economic welfare, and a BETTER INFORMED democracy in Kerala. The Southern Indian states boast of higher quality of human capital, and are more developed economically - the IT/BPO boom originated here. A literate, engaged citizenry is critical for sustained growth, not just the right to vote. More than 60% of rural populace in Northern states have never voted due to sheer apathy - same country, whither democracy?

    Bihar has always been bottom of the table. Yet, ONE well intentioned government has made it the second best governed state in India - via focus on improving governance, education and health services. And yet, the overall lack of political will on taxation lets a parallel black-cash economy flourish, tax paying citizens being only a small fraction of the 1 Billion population. Whither money for development?

    The right to choose is fundamental - but governments need to have the will to legislate and equip citizens with the ability to discern. That's the only thing standing between merit vs. money politics.

    True democracies need a maturity that doesn't happen overnight. And true growth is about improving human capital. One needs the other. China & India-let BOTH win with Enlightened, Emancipated citizens
    thumb
    William Poel
        0
        Reply
    Sep 19 2011: The influence of religion should not be overlooked - especially with regard to the treatment of women.
    Jonathan Taylor
        0
        Reply
    Sep 19 2011: I'm curious: does anyone else think that China's early advantages over India might have something to do with language? While both countries have a great diversity of language the more unified writing system in China would seem to be of some advantage. English has without doubt been of use to the Indian economy, but it suffers from being a foreign tongue there, spoken as a native language by almost no one (though it is very impressive how many Indians speak English quite well, notwithstanding). How have the efforts of the two countries to establish national languages fared, and how have these efforts affected the growth of the economy? I'd be very interested to hear from those of you who've seen it first hand.
    thumb
    Xiaoning Lee
        0
        Reply
    Sep 19 2011: First, i think the example of telephone in Union Soviet used by Yusheng Huang is ironic. How can he connect the collapstion of this country with the number of telephone? There is no clue to support his point. Appearly, he did not prepare supportive argument: to support his idea. I don't like this way to give a speech as many "chinese expects' or "relevant authority" do.
    Second, Is about the reponsibility of a country. Economic is not the only index to judge the development of a country.what can matain the growth of a country? i think the most important element is real human being. One-policy system rules the minds chinese that make chinese people lack of creation, energy that is the most factors of real human being. As some comments ,the way china growing fast is force the labours to impassible meachine.The reponsibility of a country is to protect it's people rights...china has a long way to do this.India surpass china a lot in this area.
    As a chinese, i love my country and proud of china's long history. But i think it is time for us to change, to insert different thoughts to the political system. Respect Confucianism , embrace other -isms.
    c a
        0
        Reply
    Sep 18 2011: Well, if we're going to compare two incredibly complex systems and then reduce them to a simple dichotomy, I would like to propose my own. There are those of us who think the system is here to serve the individual, and then there are those who think the individual is here to serve the system. China's economic success is the result of adopting the better ideas produced by the demoracies, and then applying those ideas with the addition of slave labour to feed the mindless consumption of the west. Too bad they stopped short of adopting the very best ideas, freedom and choice. Kudo's to the increase in the standard of living in China, now the prison the population live in have a few more creature comforts. They have the internet, they're just not allowed to read what's on it.

    I can only assume that your family didn't have their home demolished for the sake of urban planning. Funny, when it happens to someone else, it's progress, when it happens to you it's the trajic injustice that it truly is. Those two pictures comparing Shanghai and Mumbai, you're kidding, right? That kind of manipulation might work on your friends, but not on an educated audience. It is ironic that you used the 'sampling of lottery winners' example since that logic actually applies to your entire talk.

    PS. The Soviet Union didn't collapse because of all their telephones, it collapsed because it lost the cold war. Perhaps you're research is flawed due to Chinese censorship and not really your fault. Must be frustrating that you can't google anything.
        Jonathan Taylor
            0
            Reply
        Sep 19 2011: Did you actually listen to Yasheng Huang's talk? His point was that heavy-handed abuse of rights is NOT the reason for China's success. His point was that centralized planning and infrastructure is NOT the sole (or even a major) reason that China's wealth has increased faster than India's, that tearing down private property or abusing rights is NOT the key to success. His primary argument, it seems to me, was that basic education and supporting the independence of women are the keys to faster development.

        As for your ad-hominem attacks regarding censorship and Google: read the speaker's bio before making silly comments.
            c a
                0
                Reply
            Sep 20 2011: Yes Jonathan, I did listen to his talk and I disagree. China's economic success is partly due to not being worried about semantics like human life, individual rights or distribution of wealth. In 2003 China accounted for 80% of the world coal mining fatalities while producing 35% of the world's coal supply. The average wage of a chinese coal miner is $145/month as compared to a US coal worker's wage of $3,270/month. I am now trying to imagine how successful my business would be if I cut my employee's wages to 5% of their current levels and stopped concerning myself with providing a safe and healthy work environment. I assure you it would be much more profitable than it is now. An economic success by Huang's metric! I'm guessing that's why the multi-nationals move there to set up shop.

            The world's average ratio of males to females is 101 boys for every 100 girls. In China, it is 120 boys for every 100 girls. A testament to supporting the independence of women in China? What happened to all those girls jonathan?

            I'm glad you said "basic" education, because if I meet someone who was unable to study history or political science, I'm not sure I could consider them educated. Chinese censorship is an obstacle to acheiving what I personally consider an education. Very few Chinese could follow a path that leads to Huang's current status. If you look at the Chinese education system, you will find the majority of the population are trained for specific occupations. Training is not education.
                JIN ZHANG
                    0
                Sep 20 2011: "slave labor"? "prison"? man have you ever been to China???
                I ever lived in China for almost 20 years , I didnt find that. You did? aha
                maybe there are some case existing in somewhere, BUT in your opinion, when a citizen of a country is a killer, thus all of citizens of that country are killers?? aha funny!

                you imagine that you would be successful in business in China? Dont be fool , man, you wii have nothing based on information you've got...
        Han Lun Li
            0
            Reply
        Sep 20 2011: Wow, seriously shouldn't comment on things you don't understand. Jonathan Taylor touched on some of the stuff I was going to say to you so I won't repeat it all, take note of what he said, especially the part where you apparantly completely missed the point.
        I've lived in China for over 7 years, been all around the country and things aren't as bad as you have been led to believe.
        There is only one thing you said that I can agree with, that he took two incredibly complex systems and then reduced them to a simple dichotomy, but it was a 20min talk, what do you expect? Everyone on TED does this, it can't be helped. And I would argue that you did exactly the same thing in your comment.
        "Slave labour"? "Prison?" lol, you are hilarious! I'm not going to even go in to the slave labour comment because that is just a joke, not sure where you are getting your information from but trust me, IF there is any truth in it, it's on a very small scale, (not like the west did it) and it is NOT legal. As for the apparant "prison" you believe they live in and the need for such western ideals as "freedom" and "choice," I think you'll find they have both already. I personally believe censorship of some of the things online is necessary. All the hate you see on some western sites, porn, violence, racism etc. has got to be controlled. Yes, China may have gone too far but both sides can learn from each other, no one is right, a line needs to be drawn somewhere and I believe China will reach it faster than the west.
        Who needs Google? We have other search engines over here. Where is it written that we MUST use Google? The censorship of Google is not only to control information, it is also to give Chinese companies a chance to expand and control part of the market. China knows how to take care of its own. Or are you a fan of complete monopolization? If that's the case then let's all only drink Coca cola, Starbucks, eat in Mc Donalds, search using Google, only buy iPhones...need I go on?
            c a
                +1
                Reply
            Sep 20 2011: Yes Han, my use of "prison" and "slave labour" may have been inappropriate. I used the word "prison" in reference to the censorship. We will have to agree to disagree on your belief that censorship of some of the things online is necessary. I might meet you somewhere in the middle and say limiting access to children would have merit, but as an adult, I find the idea of another adult deciding what I can or can't read, or think, or say, to be offensive. As for "slave labour", perhaps "very poorly paid labour" would have been a better description.

            My simple dichotomy? No need to argue Han, read the first sentence of my original post, it's exactly what I proposed to do. I don't think freedom and choice are western ideals, I think they are ideals. Who needs google? Nobody. I used to Yahoo, but now I google, I tried to Bing, but I didn't like it. Who knows, maybe next I'll Baidu. The point is, I get to choose. I am a fan of choice, which means I am not a fan of monopolization. Curious argument for you to make to defend a one party system.

            China is technically a developing country? China is home to one of the oldest and most impressive cultures the world has ever known. I have nothing but the highest expectations. The success of China is not due to the regime, it is in spite of it. The success in China is directly the result of the regime relinquishing control. The more free the free market becomes, the more success there is. This anarchy you are afraid of is one of socialism's old claims to it's disdain for capitalism. Interesting that you are defending the current anarchy of free enterprise which is wholly responsible for the economic success. The more economic control the regime gives up, the richer they get. Your mention of the west's injustices in the building of it's economy, I fully agree. Read the second sentence of my original post. That is the point I wished to make in my disagreement of the talk. Raising GDP through human suffering is repulsive to me.
        Han Lun Li
            0
            Reply
        Sep 20 2011: Everyone seems to forget that China is still technically a developing country. If the government was to allow voting, complete freedom of speech, the right to strike and protest etc., could you imagine the anarchy that would ensue? 1.3billion people and counting! China's government is doing the best it can given the workload and no matter how you pick at their actions on the small scale, you can't argue it is working overall.
        For China to have expanded as it has over the past few years is simply amazing. All coutnries that go through fast expansion and development need assistance from the government, and part of the population will always suffer. Do you honestly think people weren't forced out of their houses when UK and US were expanding their railway lines, motorways etc? US railways were built with slave labour for Christ sake. It's a process. And once China reaches official "developed country" status, I'm sure it will slow down, and they can start giving back to the population through the health and education systems etc. But until China is at a point where it can realize this, it won't stop, and neither should it.
        Perhaps you're research is flawed due to the current stream of hate (through fear) from the West to China since it woke up and started realizing it will one day be the next super power. Not really your fault. Must be frustrating that you can't see the wood for the trees.
            JIN ZHANG
                0
                Reply
            Sep 20 2011: aha I agree! I bet Chris Palser havent ever been to China~
                c a
                    0
                Sep 20 2011: Yes Jin, my use of "prison" and "slave labour" may have been inappropriate. I used the word "prison" in reference to the censorship. To me, prison describes freedom being taken away. Blocking websites and searches is freedom being taken away. I see that as kind of a prison. As for "slave labour", perhaps "very poorly paid labour" would have been a better description. You are right Jin, I have not been to China. I live in Vancouver, which means China came to me. I have a lot of chinese friends and I have not heard one of them making any plans to move back.
            c a
                +1
                Reply
            Sep 20 2011: Huang describes the democracy being "constrained" from violating the rights of citizens. He describes the violation of rights of people in Shanghai as "high pressure tactics". He is arguing that if people need to suffer so everyone can buy more stuff, then that is ok. I disagree. It reminds me of the military idiots describing their murder of civilians as "collateral damage".

            "If the government was to allow voting, complete freedom of speech, the right to strike and protest etc., could you imagine the anarchy that would ensue?"

            Perhaps I have more faith in people than you do Han. That sounds like nonsense that would come right from the mouth of the regime. History has many examples of peacful transitions from one system to the next. The regime is already doing this on local levels, as Huang points out, but I am pessimistic that it will go any further than that.

            This is not an east/west thing to me. It's about freedom. I have the same critisism for the tyrants oppressing the middle east. I certainly agree with you Han when you said both sides can learn from each other, no one is right.
    Nicolae Balcescu
        0
        Reply
    Sep 18 2011: The comparation between India and China is not fair:
    1)he compares the slums of Mumbay with financial center of Shanghai. I was in Shanghai and if you walk away 500m from Nanjing road (the main Shanghai boulevard) you will find poor neighborhoods. Anyway it is not hard in Shanghai to find poor neighborhoods. If you compare Mumbai with Shanghai compare the same poor neighborhoods.
    2)it is India a democracy? From one TED conference I found out that you often had to bribe officials to get a passport or to get a job. This means that the officials have a bigger power than the people, and this is not a democracy (demos-people, kratos-power) but a bureaucracy.
    3)the comunist states had better educated people that the capitalist countries. The average high school student from eastern block had more knowledges about math,natural sciences and geography than his counterpart from Unites states. This didn't stopped Soviet Union from falling.
    The success of China is determined by a comunist regime who is forced by population to show that it can improve condition of working class, and it deserves to stay in power.Also it is forced to stay fit by the fight with USA,India and Rusia over regional domination.Without a strong economy you cannot have a strong army, and China had military conflicts with all these 4 countries. In China the economic growth issue is tied to the state security issue.This forced them to reform the economic system.
    The benefits of a democracy are not economical:
    1)the rise to power of a mad or a stupid politician is stopped by political competition
    2)the government is more stable because is chosen by the people, and the people don't like changes like coup d'etat.
    3)if the government is incompetent, after few years is changed without the need of a revolution
    4)the government has limited powers so you are protected against abuse of authorities
    The benefits above determine a stable climate for business but doesn't determine creation of business
        Jeff Vanderwerf
            0
            Reply
        Sep 21 2011: I agree with much of what you have written, Nicolae. However, I will take issue with point #3--the one about communist states' supposed better-educated populace. As I have spent the better part of a decade living in the former Soviet Union, I have heard this ridiculousness over and over. This myth has been perpetuated by those who believe that knowledge of math and the natural sciences is somehow more valuable--somehow makes someone better-educated--than the humanities. This erroneous belief also dictates that memorization of formulae is somehow superior than using one's critical thinking skills. I wholeheartedly disagree. In addition, there is every bit as much geographic ignorance about the world here in Russia as there is in the US; I have a hard time believing that was any difference less than a generation ago.
    Richard Nota 20+
        0
        Reply
    Sep 18 2011: The lottery analogy is a very good one that can be very broadly applied. It can be applied to expose the nonsense of the idea often expressed by successful people that "if I can do it then any one can" and even to the more easily accepted notion that history is written by the victor.

    He successfully argued that democracy has not stifled economic growth in his comparison of India and China but that is only a temporary indicator for 2 countries in the future short term. The medium and long terms are unpredictable for reasons unrelated to the type of government.

    The 2 countries are developing but within their large populations they have sizable populations of educated people and access to advanced technology. Together with the human capital it should not be such a surprise that the one with the lesser infrastructure base in the first place does better to some extent, regardless of the form of government.

    The speaker was only trying to see if the form of government was an indicator of economic growth. He only succeeded to the extent that democracy is not necessarily an impediment to economic growth. It is relevant to the recent histories of China and India but Europe and the USA have already well and truly demonstrated that point. It is also clear that authoritarian regimes can easily outperform democracies in certain circumstances.

    The worry is how powerful people will apply the message to the detriment of democracy. Many of the posters have shown how readily they will defensively misinterpret the message. He was arguing for democracy, not for China. India is the democratic country, not China.
    thumb
    Johannes Martin 50+
        0
        Reply
    Sep 17 2011: And wisdom is still elusive.
    thumb
    Chris Ke-Sihai 200+
        0
        Reply
    TEDx Organizer
    Sep 17 2011: I've seen a few comments here about the one-child policy, and want to add something.

    I live in Taiwan, also known as "Free China," where we have democratic elections, reasonably accountable politicians, and no one-child policy. Despite the lack of government restrictions, the birth rate is lower than in Mainland China. In fact, the government offers incentives to people to have babies. But they choose not to.

    It's also worth noting that the western conception of China as a monolithic all-controlling state is at odds with the reality, which is that central control is a good deal weaker than you might think. It is said in China that Beijing's power falls proportionally with distance, and people in the provinces do pretty much whatever they want. I've met plenty of people in China with more than one child.

    Many businesses in China are unregulated, ignoring the law, remaining under the radar until they get big enough to be worth paying attention to. This is about as democratic as you can get, and is not related to the official political structure. The law, or system, is only relevant when people pay attention to it.
    Mingjin Zhang
        +1
        Reply
    Sep 16 2011: I do agree with Dr, Huang that education is important for a economic growth, especially woman education. Human capital is extremly important for developing country growth.
    thumb
    Kalin Flournoy
        +1
        Reply
    Sep 16 2011: I appreciate that this fellow cares enough to research the matter and share his research openly in a diplomatic and professional manner.
    thumb
    Michael De Vivo
        0
        Reply
    Sep 16 2011: From the beginning I questioned Proff. Huang's analogies (phone infrastructure production requires significantly less man power than brick & mortar infrastructure) and supporting facts. Since he is renowned enough to be invited to TED I will assume that these flaws were possibly effected by the time limit.

    Overall, I was quite inspired by his talk because of it's soft power tone. This is yet another example of putting more value in each countries human capital rather than GDP.
    Barbara Wolff
        +1
        Reply
    Sep 16 2011: I have read through all these insightful, prejudicial, humorous, educated comments, and the one thing which sticks out glaringly to me is Mr. Ashman seems to rely on Wikipedia for much of his information. I am sorry, but I do not allow my students to use this source. If you inform yourself about educational issues of today in America, the vast majority of students are not measured for their IQ. I for one enjoyed listening to the professor as he gave an interesting interpretation of his take on China/Turkey economics. We are not in that great shape in this country to throw insults at others. Don't think me naive, but is your expertise in economics or psychology or linguistics or education?
    thumb
    Harsh Swaminarayan 20+
        0
        Reply
    Sep 15 2011: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mkRFCtl2MI
    This is Peter Joseph's TEDxPortugal talk. A few in this thread (and facebook) have mentioned why he's not invited to speak at TED, so this link. TED can even invite Jacque Fresco for a talk...
    Sam Merryfool
        +3
        Reply
    Sep 15 2011: According to the speaker's bio he works at MIT, and in this talk he tries to put across a fairly anti-Chinese message. But his presentation felt to me like Chinese propaganda. It was almost like his real motive for speaking was to downplay the economic strength of China and perhaps exaggerate the democratisation of the country. Both aimed at easing the growing western fear of the country. Certainly I didn't feel like his analysis was on a par with other economics TED talks.

    Why did he not discuss the most authoritarian aspect of China's recent history: it's one child policy? India's weak influence on family planning has led to a ballooning of its poorest classes which work and reproduce in a manner almost indistinguishable from slavery. Just to qualify that statement I'm referring to 100-hour working weeks, very low literacy, wide-spread child labour, appalling living conditions, high birth rate, etc. Yes these people have legal freedoms, but in most cases their socio-economic circumstances prevent them from ever exercising their freedoms. The differing demographics of the two countries must surely have been a huge driver of the economic divide.

    His comparison of Pakistan and India is pretty ridiculous. I'll gladly admit that my knowledge of Pakistan is limited, but clearly the power of the Pakistani military is not being used for the good of economic growth, whereas in China it is. Also, unlike China, India and Pakistan suffer from petty religious quarrels and ridiculous caste systems that cripple economic progress. (Yeah, I'm not a fan of religion!)

    The comparison with the USSR was also stupid. The collapse of the USSR was a political event, and created an economic discontinuity which he ignored.

    Authoritarian regimes have greater potential to help the economy than democratic ones, but as Machiavelli said there is no way to guarantee their benignity in perpetuity. I'm still waiting for some sort of Neodemocracy to emerge!
        Peng Liu
            +3
            Reply
        Sep 16 2011: Second-guessing motive and judging whether something is "propaganda" is a tricky thing to do. Firstly, because EVERYONE has motive and because that motive is difficult to ascertain, it is then difficult to determine whether the motive is selfish (thus making it propaganda).

        For example, you mentioned that "his presentation felt to me like Chinese propaganda. It was almost like his real motive for speaking was to downplay the economic strength of China and perhaps exaggerate the democratisation of the country. Both aimed at easing the growing western fear of the country." Well consider the following questions:

        a) Did he ever actually downplay the economic growth of China? From what I heard he CONSISTENTLY described it as "super-star level".

        b) Did his points make sense? To me it did at least. He never claimed China is a democracy; in fact, he claimed China needs political reforms to continue growing. His only claim was that it was moving in the right direction, albeit not as fast as he or many others would like. But moving in the right direction is still better than not moving at all or in the wrong direction.

        c) Finally, think about why there is even a growing Western fear. Could it be because of ads like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTSQozWP-rM) that are ACTUALLY propaganda since they are fictitious?
            Sam Merryfool
                +1
                Reply
            Sep 17 2011: I agree that all actions must arise from some sort of motive, and that the motive is not always immediately apparent. Indeed in many cases motive exists only in the subconscious. But I don't think that such an observation is of much practical importance here.

            In answer to your other points...

            Note how I was careful not to claim outright that this is propaganda, I only said that it "felt to me like" propaganda, which indeed it did! The rest of my comment was supposed to explain this feeling: I believed his conclusions were very poorly arrived at and thus presumably driven by some sort of bias.

            So how did I make the jump from bias to propaganda? Well, the purpose of propaganda is to put an idea into your head without encouraging you to analyse it. And I felt like this talk had done just that: by the end my perception of China had definitely shifted despite all the flaws in the talk. Call me weak-minded, but in order to counter this mental shift I felt it necessary to spell out my thoughts in a comment!

            The video you link to could definitely be described as propaganda, but at least it is set in the future, i.e. it makes it clear that the political/economic analysis is not scientific. In fact if the US electorate were better educated, this video could have been replaced by a simple graph showing how China's stake of US public debt has risen from 6% to 36% in the last decade (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt).

            As it happens, I don't really mind whether or not the Chinese release propaganda; all countries do it so why not China? And I wouldn't say that I was personally afraid of the dominance of China. I just thought it was a little surprising that this sort of thing is on TED without any obvious warnings.
        Timothy Burke
            0
            Reply
        Sep 16 2011: I agree with Peng on the propaganda matter. I agree with Sam about Prof. Huang's economic reasoning and his comparison's of different countries. Well put Sam.
    Bindiya Jain
        0
        Reply
    Sep 15 2011: I think it is a case of selective perception. There are roughly 120 boys for every 100 girls in China, so china can not exactly boast of being a role model for women liberalisation. Also, the demographic dividend China is enjoying currently as a result of its enforced one child policy may not last long.
    Maja Covic 20+
        +4
        Reply
    Sep 15 2011: Why is he comparing Shanghai's skyline and Mumbai's slum?
    Shanghai has slums: http://www.treehugger.com/20100707-shanghai-slum-dwelling.jpg
    Mumbai has skyscrapers: http://www.flickr.com/photos/10004899@N04/2705111577/

    If he wanted to make a comparison of living standards he could have used the Human development index, there's even a map if he needed pictures:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/UN_Human_Development_Report_2010_1.PNG

    Biased, sometimes bluntly so, and without any concrete conclusion.
        Sairam Behera
            0
            Reply
        Sep 16 2011: I am totally agree with you.
        thumb
        J J 20+
            +1
            Reply
        Sep 17 2011: Maja,
        It's true that the picture comparison on its own was unfair, but let's understand the speaker's goal - to get us to believe that Shanghai is allowed to develop totally differently than Mumbai, which he also supported with other evidence, like Singh's quote.
        Let's not split hairs over an incidental story-telling technique, especially considering that pictures speaking a thousand words can really help a non-native English speaker whose talk pushed the 18 minute limit.
        I thought it was a good presentation. (I also appreciated the photos in your links, though, Maja)
    Jyoti Thyagarajan
        0
        Reply
    Sep 15 2011: I have to smile at both the speaker and all the people who have responded to him. It is completely appalling that people think that western IQ tests effectively measure the intelligence of non-western people.
    it is also strange that people do not realise that the GDP is a short-sighted and uni-dimensional measure of the wealth of a people. No thought is give to all the traditional values which both Chinese and Indian villages have in huge measure. I think that we Indians and Chinese should side-step the Western temptation to measure our wealth in terms of $ and GDP. We KNOW that there are ephemeral lashings of icing in both our cakes that no one can quantify.
    What we have to do, in what looks well set to being a rosy future, is to solemnly swear that we will not sabre-rattle at each other when we are the two countries leading the charge on GDPs.
    cheung fey
        0
        Reply
    Sep 15 2011: As a chinese, i am not as opticmistic as Mr Huang towards china's political reform.It's because the methods the government used to deal with citizens are unacceptable.
    A few months ago,two trains crashed together in WENZHOU because of the fault of the train system.Although we can not put th whole blame on the government, the measure the local goverment used to deal with the incident was not understandable. They buried one of the train immediately without any investigation and notice. Their excuse is that they wanted to restart the railway as fast as possible. How about the truth? Once incidents happen, the local governments always want to cover all the things and pretent that nothing has happened.
    thumb
    Paul Johnson 30+
        +1
        Reply
    Sep 15 2011: "on a finite planet with finite resources anybody who believes anything can grow indefinitely is either insane or and economist" David Attenborough

    "Democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the rest" Winston Churchill..

    quotes off the top of my head so may well be inaccurately worded or attributed but the point is clear..

    continuous economic growth is not a achievable or laudable goal..
    India and China or playing catch up.. this level of growth is not sustainable... nor would anybody want it to be..

    lets start to think of better ways of trying measuring our success as a culture or species than GDP please
    thumb
    Loknath Rao
        0
        Reply
    Sep 15 2011: Dear Professor Huang

    10000% true and honest comparison. Ask any concerned economist in India and he will speak exactly the same language. I wish you could address the house of bigots called parliament of India and remind them of their worthless oxbridge credentials that they so promptly boast of.

    Afsar Ali
        0
        Reply
    Sep 15 2011: I enjoyed his presentation but more than that i enjoyed the comments. Its not the same as yahoo comments, where they would say things like, "china sucks" or "this guy is stupid". One can tell the obvious difference of audience. And Thank you all for that.
    suresh sharma
        +1
        Reply
    Sep 15 2011: I would ask TED how you can project a speaker whose figures are incorrect and is biased. May I know what was the objective of Mr.Yasheng in presenting such talk. To degrade India? or to sell China to potential investors?.
    I have been admiring TED for excellent talks by best speakers. It has been pleasure to listen to them. I had recommended TED to many of my friends.
    I would request TED to avoid such presentations which will only spoil its reputation.
        Andre Delgado
            +3
            Reply
        Sep 18 2011: Dear Suresh,
        As a foreign admirer of Indian culture, people and history, I didn't see the presentation as something bad for your country. India's democracy and improvements in different areas were highlighted during Mr. Huang's lecture. However, to watch bad things (mainly from an outsider) about your own country is always unconfortable (as a Brazilian, I know what it is).
        Best wishes,
        Andre.
            Jeff Vanderwerf
                +1
                Reply
            Sep 21 2011: Suresh, what numbers, specifically, do you think that Mr Yasheng used which are biased and/or incorrect.
            If you can't produce any proof, it looks to me like you are simply on the defensive, as Andre has pointed out.
            In addition, did you watch the whole video? I lived in India, and think that Mr Yasheng put the country in a relatively positive light.
                BIN CAI
                    0
                Sep 21 2011: Totally agree with Jeff. Huang is saying India has a more bright future.
    Keval Shah
        +3
        Reply
    Sep 15 2011: After listening to this conversation, I believe that Mr. Yasheng has done a great job in compiling his presentation in a way that India's economic growth gets hampered in the global industry. Well there are many factors I like to highlight
    1) there is comparison between the skyline of shanghai and slums of mumbai....he could had shown the skyline of mumbai and have compared the both. I agree shanghai does have a better infrastructure but that doesn't give him a right to compare 2 cities based on different factors. There has to be equal comparison between the cities to let the viewers understand what the real difference is. Shanghai does have slums - why not show that.
    2) I would admit that China is definitely years ahead of India when it comes to Infrastructure, and the credit goes to the single party rule in the country, they don't have their currency on the xchange. On the other hand, India being a democratic country it is difficult to make decisions similar to what chinese govt. can
    3) the gendar comparison between 2 countries does make sense...but he should have mentioned that in China people would pray to be a Women because they have a lead by 2% over Men. He didn't talk about this at all...but at the same time did step in to discuss the 2% difference in gendar in India.
    4) textile comparison between 2 countries didn't make any sense..whether it is run by man / women the big questions are related to the economic growth. The truth is that in the last decade India has gained more textile business for the global market and have posed as a threat to the chinese
    5) FYI, the economic growth rate in India is 8 - 9 % and not 6.2%. So we are right behind China
    6) the analogy around comparison between countries, like India always compares itself to China / Pakistan..this didn't make sense at all. Any competitor would like to know whose there in the game and doing that is no wrong.
    I would rate this conversation as a baseless conversation
    Sairam Behera
        +3
        Reply
    Sep 15 2011: I feel this talk is totally biased and the speaker is trying to defend China's authoritarian rule with some wrong data and facts . I don't have enough knowledge in economics, but I do follow Indian economics and politics. When I was a child, Indian govt. started a massive literary mission and school students were playing an active role. I clearly remember that we were told that the meaning of literacy means one can read, write and understand the alphabates and words as well as one can sign his/her name. I am just wondering where did he find the Indian definition of literacy. Also I was surprised to see why he showed the picture of slum of Mumabi with nice buildings of Sanghai. Mumbai has also nice buildings. Also I would say that his comparison of India's growth rate with pakistan is not correct. At one point of time he told that during 1970's India has also the authoritarian rule. But that was not correct because if you read about 'Emergency in India' in internet, you will find only those 2 years is considered black years of Indian democracy. I know I am no way compared to the stature and knowledge of that professor, but After living in India for 25 years I can say some facts are not correct.
    Raj Rajabali
        +3
        Reply
    Sep 15 2011: An interesting presentation overall although evidently brimming with biased pro-Chinese polarization and self- adulation softened with some condescending acclaim of what India has accomplished but conceptual superiority demonstrated through the seemingly cleverly designed slides comparing disparate views through exaggerated contrasting images, the skyline of Shanghai vs. the slum of Mumbai instead of the skyline of Mumbai. Why not a shot of ghettos of Shanghai ( and there are plenty here- I know, I live here) vs. the slum of Mumbai? And what exactly was the point of refuting the fact that India's garment Industry, is becoming a formidable force comparable or possible could surpass China's with a sneering comparison of a black and white photo of Indian men in sweatshops compared to a color photo of Chinese women in sweatshops? Why not a black and white photo of underpaid undernourished men and women in the sweatshops in Zhejiang and Anhui provinces working for RMB 15/day the last 10 years? The spoken English was pretty good though, certainly a well trained academic with good momentum on presenting a seemingly sophisticated international topic in such clearly visible polarity.
    thumb
    Gus Griffin
        0
        Reply
    Sep 15 2011: I tried to read all the comments here before commenting myself but eventually got fed up with all the silliness generated from this Ashman character's fanaticism about IQ. The only country I know of that improved its economic output through any form of eugenics was the USA - as in not discriminating at all: "send us ... the wretched refuse of your teeming shore, etc." That seems to have worked out pretty well all things considered.

    The real IQ test here is whether you got derailed into Ashman's goofy cul de sac or stayed focussed on contributing to a lively constructive discussion about increasing the human capital of nations. Personally, I think literacy is a vital indicator to the economic capacity (or emerging capacity) of a nation. Yes, there are plenty of jobs in the developing world that don't intrinsically require a high level of literacy, but even in Botswana being able to read the local job ads would be kind of handy, wouldn't it?

    So what are some easily implemented, economical ways to increase literacy?
        thumb
        Liz A 10+
            0
            Reply
        Sep 15 2011: Aw, but cul-de-sacs are fun!
    Nicola Prigg
        0
        Reply
    Sep 14 2011: This seems to contradict exactly what Nick Clegg said today at the LSE.

    Could this perhaps be why despite the union with England, Scotland is still much poorer than England? England has been very authoritarian over Scotland and the rest of the UK.
    Thelma Zwirn
        0
        Reply
    Sep 14 2011: This is very interesting. It should be no surprise that countries with more gender equality do so much better. We've heard that from many respected sources. And no surprise regarding literacy. Mr.Huang's assertion that literacy in India is defined as knowing how to write your name, was news to me, and almost comical. After all, if you can't read what you're signing, you can sign your life away. Still, it's good to know that India is moving forward in its reforms.
    I have learned that much of the textile industry in China is supported by a largely female workers. That contributes to a growing middle class. But, the hours are horrendous and there is a great deal of unhappiness because moving to the city and away from family in the rural areas is a great hardship.
    Does anyone know if the policy of one couple-one child is still resulting in girl babies being killed or adopted by foreign couples?
        thumb
        Taurus Zheng
            +8
            Reply
        Sep 14 2011: I am a student from China, and I think I can ask your last question. Actually, the one couple-one child policy is still in effect, though many representives of the National People's Congress have proposed the issue of cancelling that policy. But in my opinion, the one couple-one child policy does not directly lead to girl babies being killed; the main cause is the culture. The Chinese people traditionally attach more responsibility to boys than girls. In our traditional culture, boys are to inherit the treasure and property of a family, they are to extend the family honour and glory; while girls are to marry to others and they would have nothing to do with their parents once they get married. The discrimination to girls are inherited within our culture and could not be easily changed by the government. That is the main cause of boys more prefered than girls. As to the policy itself, I stand on the government's side: it is the only way that could control the population effectively, otherwise more people could mean more starvation and death. And personally, I am in favor of government control in the economy and society. It is the only effective way for us to catch up with the developed world. And looking through history, we could find that even Great Britain and the United States have undergone centralized governmental system during the initial period of economic growth. Only after we have reached a certain level of economic growth will the sense of democracy grow among the mass, just as what China is experiencing now. And I am optimistic that China is right on they way to democracy.
            you wang
                +1
                Reply
            Sep 14 2011: hello, i an a student from China too, and i deeply agree about your opinion, there has one more thing i would like to add which is the policy about child. i came from Guangzhou which are located in southern china, and now Guangzhou changed the only one Child Policy. For example, if the new couple are both the only one child in their family, then they are allow to have two children or if the couple are both have Master Dgree then they are allow to have two. the policy has many details but i can not remember more. and i heard this new policy going to use around China after few years, and now Guangzhou is the expriment city for this new policy.
                thumb
                Santosh Gairola
                    +7
                Sep 16 2011: You both are students (I suppose 20 something) and you both agree with whatever your govt think and do. I think that explains a lot. :)
                Xiao Zhi
                    +3
                Dec 24 2011: @Santosh Gairola

                I think your own comment explains even more.

                At 48, I have sound basis to support China's one child policy and my daughter is proof; she would be facing a far more difficult life with fewer opportunities as a person had China failed to institute this policy which was one significant element in raising more then 400 million out of poverty.

                This policy was a difficult and unpopular decision but a wise one, and one that is not irreversible as Zheng and Wang state.
                Tong Han
                    0
                Feb 22 2012: Wang is right. Wang points out an excellent point about the cultural change regarding the effects of Birth Control Policy in China. No matter how or what Santosh Galrola contends the subjectivity or bias Chinese students or people have with them when posing a viewpoint. It is a fact that this Birth Control policy does have changed Chinese culture in terms of gender preference. I can not say for rural China, and I can not say for all the urban Chinese cities neither, but based on the twenty more urban cities I have traveled along the eastern coast of China and some of its inner provincial cities, I am confident to say that Chinese couples' gender preference towards their children seems to be switching to girls.
                Tracy Domenica
                    +1
                Feb 28 2012: @Santosh Gairola

                At least these guys are trying to say something; they have a viewpoint. You are just being a churl.
                thumb
                Santosh Gairola
                    +1
                Mar 22 2012: Folks, don't get me wrong, I am a friend of China and Chinese culture, but not communist ideology and dictatorship, hell no.

                Cultures are build over societies; and societies on families. Those families who are confined to baba-mama and er ze (father-mother and child), are poor families. Those kids who never understand what ge ge / ti ti or jie jie / mei mei or bo bo / jiu mu (and the list goes on) are poor by many ways. And it is not about few individuals, but whole generation.
                I warn you, you whole wonderful culture might just collapse.

                Am I saying go and have many-many kids?
                No! But forcing everyone is just not right.

                Tracy dear, calm down.
                "At least these guys are trying to say something"
                I might be churl (which I am not), but I am challenging them. You are patronizing dear.
            suresh sharma
                0
                Reply
            Sep 15 2011: Few days back I read in newa papers that there is acute shortage of marriageable girls in China. Some of the girls were brought from Viet Nam but they did remain in China but ran away back to there home country.
                thumb
                jackie xu
                    0
                Sep 16 2011: Well, It is not because of the shortage, but the increasing cost that you spend on a marriage with a girl in China, and some one can't even afford it. that is what I got from newspaper.
            thumb
            Bruce Liu
                +1
                Reply
            TED Translator
            Sep 16 2011: Chinese people like borning and cultvating a boy rather than girl due to their traditional cultural influence. But you can find the trend that Chinese are changing to treat the boy and girl as equal. As a matter of fact, female's population in Shanghai is more than the boy's population. So, as far as I am concerned, the ratio of female and male will reach to 1:1 to influence Chinese culture.
        Jasmine Z
            0
            Reply
        Sep 15 2011: "literacy defined as knowing how to write your name" actually is very true in many developing countries. The purpose to learn how to wirte their names is not to sign any paper documents. It is the natural step to learn a language, coming from the very curiosity. I remember when i started to learn Japanese a few years ago, the first thing thing i wanted to learn was how to wirte my phonetic name in Japanese characters.
        This is also very pratical because maybe it is the only opportunity for them to study "literacy"
    thumb
    jim campbell
        +11
        Reply
    Sep 14 2011: After watching this talk I was struck by these two thoughts:

    1) If we ask this same question -- Does democracy stifle economic growth? -- and use the U.S. as an example, we will find an interesting conundrum based on the sad historical truth that the U.S. was not entirely fully Democratic for its first 89 years. When considering the free labor force (read: slavery) it used to help achieve its economic status, you have to factor in that the U.S. was applying both Authoritarian and Democratic principles -- helping accelerate its success on the global stage. And of course this is not even taking into account the 200+ additional years the colonies enjoyed free labor prior to the Revolutionary War. So, we find that we could not use the U.S. as a very good example when asking this question.

    2) The question I would rather ask: Is Capitalism stifling Democracy? It appears that may be happening in the U.S. I'm referring to how deeply entrenched big business is with local and Federal Governments and the election process, making the one person/one vote nearly useless. Even recently, some congressman have suggested a company should be considered on the same level as a person. Couple that with the crash of the global markets (essentially rooted in capitalism good awry, or greed and manipulation of the capitalistic system by a select few), and it is my opinion that capitalism has begun to systematically stifle democracy. So maybe the larger question is: How can we uncouple capitalism gone amok from democracy in the U.S. to allow both constructs to flourish for the betterment of the people and the entre Republic? Or should we?
        thumb
        Kevin Tobar Pesántez
            +9
            Reply
        Sep 14 2011: I was about to write a comment that was very similar to your second point. That was all that was running through my mind while I was watching this talk. Sure it had interesting points however I feel that it overlooked many aspects in the realities of China and India and of course the point of whether or not Capitalism is stifling democracy.

        On a humanistic an individualistic point though I believe that India far surpasses China. I have lived in both countries for quite some time and it is obvious that at the cost of economic growth (which seems to be the main value marker), aspects such as human rights, civil rights, individual thought, personal responsibility, and individuation have been stymied. In China it is not rare that you here (as the speaker mentioned) of thousands of people being displaced by the government, or certain types of people being persecuted (Ai Wei Wei, Liu XiaoBo, and may other activists).

        In India the government is also corrupt but at least the people know of this corruption and seek to change it (In China people bind themselves to the principles of Guanxi and don't seek change). There is a higher sense of humanity among the masses, the religion binds the people together in something more transcendent and holy than economic growth. The education is not as rigid as in China. Most people speak more than 3 languages (English being one of them) whereas in China people at the most speak 1, another dialect, and little English. Indian's sense of cultural adaptation is more acute and in general they are able to think individually at a higher degree and still maintain community.

        This is all based on my experiences and studies in these two countries. Mostly a study I did on styles of learning in China wherein I found astounding results. Basically though, to put it bluntly, China has had more economic growth because of its rigid capacity to turn the majority of its citizens into automatons that serve for the hegemony that is Capitalism.
            thumb
            Anthony Girk
                +1
                Reply
            Sep 15 2011: Kevin,

            As a Chinese,I'm more than nervious to see your comment.You've thinked much further and known better about our country and society than many Chinese done.
            Yes,most of your words are right and such circumstances have been existing for a long time.We hate them yet we find it very difficult to cure them.It's like a inherent disease in our society.But if you noticed the current news in China,you will find these years see an outburst of such problems being revealed to the public,mostly by the Internet media.In other words,people here have begun to care about and rebel aganst such circumstances.
            However,I don't agree that all these have a relationship with our government or ideology.In my opinion,it's a culture problem.We have more than 2000 years of Feudalism.Some banal ideas have been existed since its early period,the notorious Guanxi you have mentioned being one of them.Anyone goes to any type of government may do the same thing.But it's not true that 'people bind themselves to the principles of Guanxi and don't seek change'.Actually,we've been trying hard to change our sociey and make it better.Surely it won't be easy and will take a long time.
            Speaking of India,I think it's a great country with a glorious history and prosperous future.They are strong in military and software engineering,and most importantly,religion.Buddhism is very recondite and have great power.Few people truely believe it or at least can really follow its instructions.If all the people can do a little part of what the buddhism has taught us to do,the world is bound to be a much better place.
            Alex N.
                0
                Reply
            Sep 18 2011: Do you mean that China is more capitalistic than USA or Europe? I don't have knowledge to agree or disagree, but it's very interesting.
            Jonathan Taylor
                +2
                Reply
            Sep 19 2011: I think your point about early economic growth in the USA is poorly taken. The part of the country that used slave labor (the South) remained poorly developed and backward, while the part of the country that generally avoided it (the North) had most of the true economic growth. This would in fact confirm Yasheng Huang's point, namely that liberalism across the board is beneficial to economic development, not a hindrance.
        Thelma Zwirn
            0
            Reply
        Sep 14 2011: re: #2.
        You make a great deal of sense, especially because I agree with you. Using Huang's constructs, there is little investment in infrastructure, our literacy rates are going down the tubes- I'm convinced it has everything to do with the destruction of the family, and I don't mean equal rights for gays - infant mortality is at shameful levels. WTF
        Personal rant: Freed from stigma, women, are having babies out of wedlock with multiple daddies, who are no where to be seen. How can a child flourish in school if they are living in chaos and poverty. And when did we forget the lessons learned about having small families to protect the environment and make taking care of fewer children so they can get more attention. - my rant!! It makes me crazy to see these idiots - yes idiots - with so many kids and tv cameras following them around. Freak show. I digress.
        And don't get me started on the rise of religious zealotry.
            Jonathan Taylor
                0
                Reply
            Sep 19 2011: (I am assuming you're referring to the US here...)

            "there is little investment in infrastructure, our literacy rates are going down the tubes"

            And what evidence do you have for these broad assertions? We in the US spend billions on infrastructure, and few countries can match what we have - none of them large or diverse. While I won't argue that our education system has problems, to say literacy rates "are going down the tubes" is plain silly. Yes, I wish more American students read great literature and were able to do basic arithmetic without a calculator, but please: literacy in this country is essentially universal, in the context of this discussion.

            Let's try to stick to facts, as Yasheng Huang does in his talk, and much to his credit.
        John Frum 20+
            0
            Reply
        Sep 19 2011: @jim campbell: in your second point, what the US does is called "capitalism" only for historical reasons. What you have there is "corporatism" (Wikipedia: One of the main types of corporatism is economic tripartism involving negotiations between business, labour, and state interest groups to establish economic policy.) Labour unions and their lobbies run the US as much as big businesses do. Watch the documentary film, "Waiting for Superman", to get an idea of what teachers unions are doing to your education system. Why do you think big businesses are shutting down their manufacturing plants en masse and moving to other low-cost countries?

        "Capitalism" is a perfectly good word that means something else entirely. Just like "liberalism". I hate what Americans are doing to these words. American "liberals" are, in essence, socialists.
            thumb
            jim campbell
                0
                Reply
            Sep 20 2011: @ nobody important: First, I wish that you felt you were more important. . . or at the very least offered your real name. . . But I digress into innocent humor and wishful thinking. . . I mean no disrespect -- I'm just making casual, lighthearted points on a simple observation.

            IMO, labor unions ARE big business. I do not separate the two. For-profit/not-for-profit, whatever you call it, BUSINESS has too much influence on government, ergo the government has become bloated, mismanaged, unfocused and greedy.

            Call it want you wish, but IMO capitalism is an economic construct with one primary goal in mind: profits. Capitalism is not patriotic (nor should it be, it is not a person), it does not abide by nor side with any one Republic; it acts on behalf of it's human managers to efficiently and effectively as possible attain profits. At its very core it is an amazing construct. My observations of the unchecked American experiment of combining the two vastly different constructs have lead me to believe that 1) through calculated double speak, spin and marketing the managers of capitalism (both from biz and government) have confused a large portion of the populace (maybe even a majority) into thinking that democracy and capitalism are the same thing, which leads to 2) jingoistic-like tendencies of much of this same populace to protect capitalism -- even though that construct and its managers are starting to feed on the lifeblood it requires to survive: the customer/U.S. citizen. Btw, it is also my opinion the many government officials today do not know the difference between a U.S. "citizen" and a "customer." That's how deeply capitalism has rooted in democracy.

            Lastly, I am not a socialist. I am an innovator: someone who uncovers problems/insights, then solves them. To that end I will offer this question to highlight what I see as the problem: How can capitalism and democracy coexist without the degradation of the latter?
                John Frum 20+
                    0
                Sep 20 2011: @jim campbell: I did not mean to call you a socialist. It was just one of my pet-peeves about re-definitions of words to mean something else entirely. The reason I care about these words is that people often club all kinds of good things and bad things (and all-together different things) under the same umbrella and fight it (or defend it) bitterly. Perhaps you can supply a big list of silly things that get passed through in your own country because it's called "the patriotic thing to do, and we all know patriotism is good'. This wrong labelling is exactly what I was protesting in my first reply to you.

                Coming to why labour unions should not be treated as a capitalistic entity. Let me first define what I understand by capitalism. Contrary to Wikipedia's definition "Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, usually in competitive markets", I make no assumption that they must be "operated for profit". I prefer the old-school, dictionary definition "... investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations". Given this, in a free society, labour unions are useful to negotiate deals with the company... that's still capitalism -- the labourers own at least a little bit of the means of production (themselves!) and they make a deal with other such "owners" to create a union, which in turn makes a deal with another entity, the company. Capitalistic so far. However, when the union starts making deals with the government (to pass protection laws, etc.), and interfere with individual rights, we are no longer talking about capitalism.

                I don't know for a fact about "calculated double speak...", but I agree that capitalism and democracy are not the same thing. The TED speaker mentioned Indira Gandhi, under whom, India was a socialist country.

                I'll respond to your question in the next post.
                John Frum 20+
                    0
                Sep 20 2011: @jim campbell: About '...my opinion the many government officials today do not know the difference between a U.S. "citizen" and a "customer."'... I don't quite understand why you think it is offensive. I don't mean to say that they should be treated the same... these words mean different things, sure... but I get the impression that you're hinting at something grievous, and I don't get what it is.

                "How can capitalism and democracy coexist without the degradation of the latter?" I'll answer the question indirectly because democracy is not of primary importance to me, individual rights are. (Extreme example to make my point: what if people vote for all people of religion X to be killed? Realistically, it is again easy to come up with cases where democratically elected leaders oppressed significant fractions of the populace. Zimbabwe is the most visible one now.)

                If the role of the government is only to protect individual rights (against physical harm, fraud, and grossly endangering actions of others), and the agencies of the government (politicians, bureaucrats and the courts) ensure that laws are never made that flout this, I think that would take care of protecting individual rights. Law ABC passed by politicians flouts the rights of XYZ, the courts strike it off immediately. I do not see what harm can come from this. I'd like to know what, if you do.

                My id, which I found quite amusing when I created it, gives me a kind of burqa. It also helps me run from the Stasi and the KGB. I'm afraid they can still find me, I'm just trying to make it a _little_ bit more difficult. I think it also helps people focus on the message, and not on the messenger. The down side is that it appears slightly rude: I know your name, but I haven't told you mine.
            thumb
            jim campbell
                0
                Reply
            Sep 21 2011: @nobody important: Regarding your ID. In addition to rude, I find it cumbersome and unrewarding to be conversing with "nobody." To that end, I will briefly reply to your points. If you wish to converse further, please feel free to reveal yourself.

            1) "Perhaps you can supply a big list of silly things that get passed through in your own country because it's called "the patriotic thing to do, and we all know patriotism is good'." I live in the USA. We've passed mind-blowingly inane conceal/carry gun laws in the name of patriotism. Some of our Congressmen once attempted to ban the sale of French wine and change the name of French Fries to Freedom Fries. We've entered two unnecessary wars costing trillions of taxpayer dollars (yet feeding the managers of capitalism) and killing thousands of innocents and soldiers alike. . . I hope this satisfies your question.

            2) "However, when the union starts making deals with the government (to pass protection laws, etc.), and interfere with individual rights, we are no longer talking about capitalism." Unions were created because the managers of capitalism scoffed at individual rights. Now, because of greed and the pursuit of money and power/control, unions have become what they were formed to fight. This is a prime example of how capitalism can erode a well-meaning construct.

            3) "About '...my opinion the many government officials today do not know the difference between a U.S. "citizen" and a "customer."'... I don't quite understand why you think it is offensive." Less than a week after 9/11, my president's #1 request of the citizenry was to spend. Not mourn, not reflect; work and spend. Secondarily, in todays debate, the rally cry from the Right regarding a good president is "It's all about jobs." Translated: Jobs bring individual rights and freedom, and the president is responsible for jobs. I find that to be untrue. Government manages laws, major infrastucture and defense for its citizens -- not hawk jobs and find customers.
                John Frum 20+
                    0
                Sep 21 2011: @jim campbell: I regret that I cannot disclose myself here. (And so, I do not expect a response from you.) I also regret that you did not find our interaction useful despite that. I like my views being challenged -- either I learn from it, or I teach from it. If you will see my other comments (from my profile), you'll see that I have not said anything inflammatory. And still, I am reluctant to let these comments be associated with the-real-me in any way. It helps me speak my mind more freely.

                In addition to that, my browser tools tell me that as it is, the following websites are tracking my presence on TED:
                facebook.com
                imrworldwide.com
                scorecardresearch.com

                about 1) I did not mean to make you put effort into answering that. It was rhetorical. Practically all countries are over-legislated and it's easy to pick answers from any country.

                about 2&3) I get the impression that you would agree with my answer in my previous post about the role of a government in a free society.

                Perhaps my next comment will disappoint governments of most countries:
                I do not like democracy the way it is practised anywhere, i.e. Representative Democracy. I am far more open to the idea of Participatory Democracy.
            thumb
            jim campbell
                0
                Reply
            Sep 21 2011: @nobody important: I would tend to believe that you and I are on the same page on nearly all of these points: same language, different accents. To be clear about my last response/post: I was simply being respectful and answering your questions. I could not read into the rhetorical nature of your one point. In fact, I've just reread that point again and, even knowing you're being facetious, I cannot sense it in your prose. Sorry, my bad.

            I must say that you've piqued my curiosity. Why would you assume that I "did not find our interaction useful despite [not being enamored with your name]"? What in all that I've written would make you land on that premise? I have found it to be quite stimulating.

            Good luck in your efforts to remain mysteriously covert.
                John Frum 20+
                    0
                Sep 22 2011: For the second paragraph, you wrote that you find it cumbersome and unrewarding to be conversing with "nobody", hence my conclusion. Not important now :-).
                I see Scott (below) has taken up the cause of protecting the meanings of words :-).
        Scott Beers
            0
            Reply
        Sep 21 2011: I think many of the comments and the talk miss a few main points

        1. Corporatism and Capitalism are 2 completely different things (Harvard educated economists seem to agree on this point)---if a corporation/businesses derive benefits from the government in terms of incentives, legislation that limits competition, bailouts, etc. it is not true capitalism, but a crony form or corporatism. You may blame corporatism for our economic woes, but it is off base to lay blame on true capitalism.
        2. The whole point of a true democratic system is not ever increasing production and wealth (I'm sure slavery and forced labor does a much better job of this), but that a people can CHOOSE the level of production and economic growth that suits their needs or allows them to live the type of lifestyle they want.
            thumb
            jim campbell
                0
                Reply
            Sep 21 2011: @Scott Beers: Thank you for your points. It sounds as if you are onto the beginnings of a solution to my original question. So how do we transpose this unchecked corporatism (read mismanaged capitalism) that has weakened the U.S. back into true and pure capitalism? Can it be done? Should it be done? If it is done, what's to stop corporatism from once again gaining traction?

            Great discussion.
            John Frum 20+
                0
                Reply
            Sep 22 2011: @Scott Beers: I agree with 1. I disagree with 2. I can't choose to live an opulent life like that of Bill Gates in any fair system. A person (or company) can't choose to make shoddy products, and still lead the lifestyle they want. I'd prefer to say "choose whatever course of action they think is best, and live by the consequences of their actions".
    thumb
    Ashwin Mahantha 10+
        +1
        Reply
    Sep 14 2011: One important factor that would determine future growth of both countries is the dependency ratio(ratio of no. of dependents to no. of working adults in a country). Due to its one child policy, China had less dependents to feed in the past three decades. But as their population ages, the trend will reverse. On the other hand, India will have a very low dependency ratio in the coming decades. Mind you, the dependency ratios take decades to change.
    China has strong fundamentals but its economy thrives on labor intensive, low cost products. Cheap labor may not remain its asset in the coming decade. India has its own issues but Mr. Huang covered them very well.
    Matthew Johnston
        0
        Reply
    Sep 14 2011: Well taxation without representation is not a foreign concept to the US, it worked well for all the monarchies in the past. I am not convinced that India is worse off than China in terms of growth of "Human Capital" since it is one of India's greatest exports.
    Mike Murphy
        0
        Reply
    Sep 14 2011: I like how he sounds like Christopher Walken at times.
    james morgan
        0
        Reply
    Sep 14 2011: This talk is set up in a way that makes it highly susceptible to being considered racist. Just imagine a Texan comparing the US to an African country, I suspect the comments would be even more venomous.

    That aside, I think Mr. Yasheng has his economic blinders on, for although China is making money for now, it's also polluting the environment at a rate that will end up costing the country big time in the not so distant future. China, as well as the US and other major industrialized countries, are ruining the environment humans need to live. Our impressive growth causes impressive destruction. We have over-fished the oceans, dumped toxic waste onto the land and into the waterways, and make products that poison ourselves and our children and result in cancers (at least in the state of California, haha). Furthermore we are now faced with an ever increasing concern that our climate may start changing very rapidly causing a great deal of devastation and death. Anyone who speaks of growth, should understand that it takes place in the real world, where it has effects beyond the dollars and cents at the end of a balance sheet.
        Comment deleted
            thumb
            Benjamin Goldstein 20+
                0
                Reply
            Sep 14 2011: I would have to say it is highly possible to replace carbon emitting sources of energy within the next 50 to 100 years by using a combination of solar, geothermal, wind, tidal, hydrogen fuel cell and nuclear energy. Companies and investors all over the world are beginning to realize the potential profit of developing "green" technologies and are capitalizing on it. As for reducing the population of the planet by 1/2, what do you propose we do? I think the only ethical way of stopping the growth of a population is by reducing the birthrate through raising the standard of living for the population. Statistically speaking the lower the standard of living for a population the higher the birthrate (presumably to make up, but overcompensates, for the higher death rate). The best we can do, without taking away peoples rights or killing people, is stop the population growth. This is expected to happen by 2050 at 9 billion people due to lack of resources. Any reduction would have to come naturally after that.
    David Chester
        +1
        Reply
    Sep 14 2011: Quite apart from intelligence there are a great many additional factors that affect the national progress of a country. These relate to the climate, natural firtility of the soil, mineral deposits, degree of monopolization of the land, political system, social system, etc. So anybody who is claiming that the progress is related to inteligence is somewhat narrow minded in his approach, in other words a boggot, racialist or worse!
    suresh sharma
        0
        Reply
    Sep 14 2011: Made in China Products:-
    Even though being beating the world in price, Chinese products are of substandard quality already proven through out the world. There are many instances of such quality problems from U.S. Also dealings are not fair.
    Literacy:- You are totally wrong about definition of literacy in India. It is not mean that if you can write and read your name you are considered literate person in India. More over there are more Indian who are educated in English language in India than in China. So there is no comparison between two Asian countries. Both are different and have their own culture, political systems, economy etc. It will not be be wise to say that totalitarian system is better for growth than democratic system. If this happens then whole world would become a slave driven planet.
    Gopinath Hiremagalur
        0
        Reply
    Sep 14 2011: India is going through its growing pains. Matter of time before the Indians renew their own respect for their own ancient strengths and wisdom that was otherwise trashed through indoctrination by migrant invasions and plunders.

    China, no doubt, is in a 'push to shove' mode. Indian model of Socialistic pattern in democratic governance vs China's adaptation of the western Capitalistic pattern in a communistic form of governance will in all probabilities see the reemergence of an ancient convergence of enlisting each others core competencies while engaging in futre trade with the world, which if one were to recall through history, one will conclude that the future balance of trade will lie in favor of the Indo-China or Sino-Indian equation.

    Interesting talk. End of the day let us accept evolution has its own mechanics in motion. The greatest asset the Indians have given to themselves through the Constitution is FREEDOM and the right to information. The Indian constitution begins "We the People... " China and India are both true Business analysts... and have analysed the strength of enlisting English as an analytical tool almost at the same time and moment in the journey!
    suresh sharma
        +1
        Reply
    Sep 14 2011: Mr.Huang are you brand ambassador of China. Selling China to world. Sorry your comments are not factual and you are comparing figures of 2006 and before. Talk about to-days figures.

    1.Political aspect:- As per you democracy is hindrance to faster growth. Is it so that communism is the answer for faster growth?. In that case why it has failed in Europe?. If people are made to work as slaves to achive faster growth then you may be right. If prisons are turned in factories then your labour cost is negligible and you are competitive and your growth is faster. Where is human aspect in your society?. You have crushed democratic movement whenever it has arisen in your country.
    Malikha Abdullahwali
        0
        Reply
    Sep 14 2011: I am going to present my comments with the revelation that I am often considered an anomale: being a Muslim woman, African -American and married to an Arab. Now after reading several responses to Mr. Huang's ideology pertaining to economic success, I realized that much information here was hastily pulled directly from textbooks in tackling this controversial issue . However, it was unfortunate that many failed to take a simple common sense approach sans the trappings of intellectual engagement. It is evident that Mr. Huang's clever approach in bringing this concept to the global forum has granted him the outcome that he strategically aimed for i.e. Everyone would clamor to display their level of intelligence, driven by the ever present ego, and in so doing lose sight of the checkmate move that this man has clearly made. China is a work in progress... vying continuously to become a formidable World Power. Hence it is important for it sell its ideas that would undoubtedly cause significant stir amongst the architects of democracy(the West) and other forms of social systems. This does not need scientific explanation to understand. Mr. Huang is simply testing the waters with the hope of getting the type of feedback from scholars and other intellectual adherents that would help launch China's game plan. From what I have read here, most of us have fallen into the trap; spewing rhetoric-from racism to multiculturalism with the outcome of fractured intellectualism. How unfortunate that we have blindly fallen victim to this ploy of aimlessly discussing the possibility that perhaps democracy is an iron-ball chained to economic growth/success? Although the discussion of ideas is a healthy practice- ideas of this nature is an outrageous attempt to gain the attention of the global community. Let us not forget that the world cannot survive simply on economic success but rather on granting people the respect to live freely as human beings without judgmental comparisons.
    Artyom Lensky
        +1
        Reply
    Sep 14 2011: Very informative talk. I would also like to see a comparison between modern Russia (since 1991) and Brazil for instance. Because I believe the education and infrastructure was better in Russia than in Brazil, however Russia is not doing very well.
    JJ Jia
        +1
        Reply
    Sep 14 2011: Given the speaker's arguments and examples, I think the point of this talk is "democracy has nothing to do with economy growth."
        Harshita Chouhan
            0
            Reply
        Sep 14 2011: Not Really. Infact he has first made a case that authoritarian govts' success in economic growth is the exception (Pakistan, Burma, Phillippines, Vietnam, Mao's China and most of Africa) rather than the norm (Singapore, Taiwan, Hongkong, China being exceptions).

        Also, India during Indira Gandhi's authoritarian regime grew least and significant growth occurred only when political decentralization supplemented economic reforms.

        And by concluding that democratic political reforms are required for sustaining and broad basing China's growth, he has actually made a case For democracy.
    Vanol Francois
        0
        Reply
    Sep 14 2011: Just because China can direct its resources and capital to industries, that doesn't mean that it will grow to be a international success. If the Chinese government chose to grow industries that were irrelevant to the rest of the world, it would have made bad business decisions and its efforts would likely fail. I do agree that a stronger central government investment is the key to economic growth. In the United States, the government directed resources to construct the freeway system, develop rockets for the space race, internet and much more. Each of these investments later spawned industries. Even recently with 9/11, the US government policies spawned whole industries and specialties around terrorism. If the US government would make concentrated efforts on transportation, infrastructure improvements (not just rebuilding the old roads and crumbling bridges, but making better ones), power generation (photovoltaics, thermionics, fusion, fission, wind, etc...) then new industries and technologies will follow to meet its demand which in turn can be marketed and sold to the rest of the world.
    Ankash Pravin
        +1
        Reply
    Sep 14 2011: I see a lot of morons commenting on India's IQ where as they have no idea that it was the west that borrowed a lot from Hindus in the field of maths. Isn't the west using Hindu- Arabic numerals. ??? Not just numerals but a whole lots of math have been borrowed...through out the centuries. Infact, Its no brainer that the west discarded Roman numerals and went for Hindu numerals and further developed the Modern foundations of maths. Do your research properly before commenting on people's IQ. LOL
        Comment deleted
            Ankash Pravin
                +1
                Reply
            Sep 14 2011: Yes, Burning of Nalanda Library can be equated to 9/11 of America of modern times. The Muslim invasion of India started at this point and lasted for 800 yrs. Most of the Hindu works on Math got transferred to the west after Muslim invasion of India.Perhaps the west would have lived in stone age if the Muslim's had not transferred the Hindu works on Math including the Hindu innovation of numbers.
    Ghanshyam Raval
        0
        Reply
    Sep 14 2011: Well I do not agree with Mr Huang. To me it seems he is trying to justify Chinese authoritarian system weaving nicely with other issues. I smell something fishy...! Freedom comes first upon anything and its in every living being's genes. If you put someone in Golden cage, does it make him/her more happy?
    Ryein Goddard
        +1
        Reply
    Sep 14 2011: One thing everyone forgets to mention is that the Chinese still have slave labor. They subjugate their people in factories and pay them practically nothing while working extended periods of time. From what I have seen I would hate to be a lower class Chinese person. How long can they crack the whip on their peoples back before they can't take it any more? I can't say especially since the majority of their food is known to increase oestrogen levels which makes them more docile so it is possible they have high IQs, but libido is suffering and soon they will have many more problems I expect. The current economic crisis the world is facing won't go away and Chinese penny pinching is doubtful to help.
    Kwan Yau
        0
        Reply
    Sep 14 2011: When it comes to communist China, we got to look beyond the surface. What exactly contributed to the official figure of economic growth? Are the figures reliable? Last year, only TWO out of all 28 or so Chinese provinces have reported GDPs slightly below the national average; most provinces, including all the heavy-weights, have reported substantially HIGHER figures. Are you joking?

    And why do China insist on using GDP and not GNP as a measure? What about the real estate bubble and ghost towns, fueled by massive loans, running into trillions, taken out by local governments, with growing risks of default? How about the colossal ill-run State-Owned Enterprises (SOE's), with their drying up pension funds, propped up by loans from national banks? What will happen to these big national banks when they can no longer sell their stocks to replenish their lost blood?
    thumb
    Xingde Jiang
        0
        Reply
    Sep 14 2011: Chinese learned more in the school and more diligent. China will grow.
    It has a consistent history and culture.
    Indian has the advantage of speaking English. India will grow faster.
    It has an intermittent history and culture.
    thumb
    Prashanth Gopalan 500+
        0
        Reply
    TEDx Organizer
    Sep 14 2011: What no-one seems to have addressed, either in the video or in this comments section, is that India, was, and is, the only country in the world which experienced democracy before the onset of capitalism.

    When it was liberated from the ruins of the British Empire in 1947, India inherited the democratic political model from Britain but also the yolk of Fabian socialist thought, encouraged in no little part by Prime Minister Nehru's love affair with Soviet-style socialism and his upper-class, British legal education, itself the receptacle for British Fabian ideology. Thus, Nehru's choice of the socialist economic model stifled the nascent Indian entrepreneurial class with a massive, overburdened bureaucracy hostile to innovation and efficiency, replete with red tape, state-controlled industries and markets, and thus bred oodles of corruption.

    It was only in 1991 that India achieved economic independence (through sweeping economic reforms brought about by then Finance Minister Manmohan Singh) and chose to adopt the capitalist economic model. But then, the damage had been done; the newborn spirit of Indian entrepreneurship that could have lifted the country out of grinding poverty and economic stagnation years ahead of schedule had been prematurely aborted in the late 1950s, meaning that it would take nearly decade before India's entrepreneurs found their footing again. However, the remnants of the Indian bureaucracy introduced under Nehru still remain, so much so that corruption is a big drag on economic performance, and the Indian economy is often referred to as operating "in spite of the government."

    On the other hand, China undertook economic reforms under Deng Xiaoping in 1978, a full 13 years ahead of India. Thus, with a 13 year head-start, is it any wonder that the Chinese dragon outpaces the Indian elephant in economic performance?
    Mindaugas Indriunas
        0
        Reply
    Sep 13 2011: We know that an old computer can outperform a new one, if the old one uses good heuristics. China has a long written history, and it works as a wealthy source of heuristics that appear to work.

    In India, on the other hand, the accessibility to history, and potentially useful heuristics, is constrained by the costs of communicating it into each of the Indian languages.

    My 2 Cents.
    thumb
    Ka Ho Tam
        0
        Reply
    Sep 13 2011: I wonder what is the major cause of the difference in literacy rate between chinese and indians? Could that be merely due to cultural differences?

    Helen Yu
        0
        Reply
    Sep 13 2011: I am curious about what Chinese & Indian say about the definition of Literacy?!
    PABLO KORACH
        0
        Reply
    Sep 13 2011: LET US KEEP THINGS SIMPLE WHEN A COUNTRY LEVELS THE ECONOMY TO A LOWER ONE IT FAILS
    WHEN A COUNTRY LEVELS THE ECONOMY TO A HIGHER LEVEL IT GROWS
    SIMPLE WORDS SIMPLE FACTS
    PABLO KORACH
    Deniz Ulker
        +1
        Reply
    TED Translator
    Sep 13 2011: Believe it or not, but there are more important things than economic growth; like happiness, well-being, health etc. If we are to move beyond the 2 specific examples of India and China and think more generally, in a hypothethical massively rich country where everyone but a few elites are oppressed to produce that wealth, not many would like to remain in that country if you ask them. Democracy, though it does at times lead to a tyranny of the majority, is a far better option then oppresing people and is a way to show the people their view counts and they're not overlooked. No amount of economic growth can justify the opposite in my view.
        Jonathan N
            0
            Reply
        Sep 13 2011: Absolutely!
    thumb
    MIni Sarla
        0
        Reply
    Sep 13 2011: The human costs of economic progress in communist China are unacceptable and indeed unjustifiable.
    India applied the soviet style socialistic model till the 1990s. The economic progress made within 2 decades after applying western capitalism are indeed remarkable.
    Vladislav Shumilov
        0
        Reply
    Sep 13 2011: In my opinion, inspite of the fact, that economy of China increases faster then economy of India, it doesn't mean, that authoritarian mode is better then democracy. Authoritarian mode defends it's people too strong, they doesn't have freedom, doesn't have real private property. Real private property is very importent, it motivates people to work hard, to improve their skills in their jobs, to minimize their costs. And of course they do that all, becouse they know that their private property is only their own, nobody can't take it from them, and it's not a unimportant fact, that thanks to that ability they can leave their private properties to their children. In authoritarian mode property is't separated from the power, people go to the goverment, becouse they want to get property, good rear expensive goods, which common sitizen can't get. That's why the corruption is so huge in China, and shootings can't solve that problem.
    When the goverment is managed by one strong party, that keeps people in fear, this party can't take their mistakes, it can't show to its't people, that it made a huge mistake. And becouse of that the goverment closes it's eyes and can't go on the way of reforms, becose it will show, that they have made great mistake. And if you want to change the authoritarian goverment, you can do it only through revolution. Democratic mode is more flexible than authoritarian mode.
    I think, that rule on the freedom will be asked in China in future inevitably.
    thumb
    Jeff Huang
        0
        Reply
    Sep 13 2011: This presentation is flawed and left out many important factors. For example, political models shouldn't have anything to do with economic growth. A fitting economic policy contributes to economic growth. Political model is merely the execution of economic policies, of which I personally believe China is more efficient.
    Stephen Finlay
        +1
        Reply
    Sep 13 2011: An Interesting arguement indeed as I believe myself that democracy is often flawed when it comes to policy making. That said, one has to ask at what price does Indias or Chinas Economic success come. India has a century old class system that prevents the poorer classes rise but the chinese look down often at those who speak Cantonese and not Mardarin. China has seen a massive influx of foreign funds due to its massive population which is willing to do menial work for very low wages. Its a cost factor quite simply. India has benefits from education and a fluency in English that is highly regarded world wide. IT services bring a higher GDP to India than Manufacturing but the size of Chinas manufacturing base dwarfs Indias. Economists similar to our speaker are quick to talk about the laws of comparative advantage but these advantages can be quickly lost and the ability to speak english can be learned although in this respect the chinese lie far behind India. Looking simply at Manufacturing and IT its easy to see where Chinese and Indian wealth have come from. The bigger question is where will their individual forms of Government take them from here. Will India reform its class structure and thus increase its potential and will China reform its human rights behaviour as i feel that long term the Chinese government may suffer from unrest from within its own population if reforms don´t come. I do believe China´s stronghanded tactics have helped them get this far but I feel they need to change to continue their success.
    thumb
    Sabin Muntean 30+
        0
        Reply
    HostAssociate
    Sep 13 2011: No offense to Mr. Huang but I recall that as I was watching the live stream I had two problems:
    1) I often couldn't really follow his argumentation and
    2) when I could follow, I could not agree with his arguments.

    The whole talk sounds like it was moulded around a pre-determined outcome - India will fare better than China. I still don't really know why that should be the case though.
        Adam Hoffman 50+
            +1
            Reply
        Sep 13 2011: This talk is not just about India and China. It is an analysis of political systems, with India and China as prominent examples. Mr. Huang's conclusion, however, is not that India will fare better than China. His conclusion is that authoritarian rule does not necessarily favor economic growth, and democracy does not necessarily stifle it.


        He told us the outcome of his analysis at the beginning, partly because his conclusions are counter-intuitive. There is good reason to believe that democracy could stifle growth: democracy means everyone gets a vote, which means you can't just trample over the poor people because you want to build a sky-scraper. This is perhaps why Shanghai looks so much more "modern" than Mumbai.

        It's also important to notice that, along with China's economic development, its political system has moved more towards democratic principles, even though it is not yet offering the people a vote in the system. In India, the same thing is happening; as the political system gets better at supporting equal representation of the people, the country is moving towards faster economic growth. This talk predicts no specific pre-determined outcome; both countries are doing very well, and are likely to continue growing.
    thumb
    Jeremy Hunter 20+
        0
        Reply
    Sep 13 2011: Democracy didn't hold back the Industrial Revolution, the British Empire, the second Industrial Revolution... no it's credit-fuelled consumerism that stifles economic growth: people are voting for governments who will give them more, rather than give them a better lifestyle, even if that means going without.
    Satish Chandra Satyarthi
        +7
        Reply
    Sep 13 2011: The talk is interesting and informative... but he leaves out many important factors like vast cultural and lingual diversity, colonial background, problems of terrorism, corruption etc. the economic growth has to do more with these factors than it has to do with democracy.. how many authoritarian regimes apart from China have become super power? and most importantly I would not like to live in a economic super power country where I need govt's permission to see a website or to have a child...
        Liam McAllister
            +5
            Reply
        Sep 13 2011: How can you deny the importance of population control? The world has far too many people as it is where economies cannot provide for their rapidly increasing populations. Do you think China's economy and standard of living would have increased as much as it has if it's population was not slowed down? Family planning services and education of women are vital in decreasing poverty in developing countries.
            Björn Domeij
                +2
                Reply
            Sep 13 2011: How can you deny people to reproduce? Since there's a corelation between a healthy economy and birth rate, the government should just focus on economic growth, and the birth rates will lower accordingly. I don't think governments have the authority to deny people their right to have children.
                Carl Men
                    0
                TED Translator
                Sep 13 2011: Yet, undoubtably, Chinese's family planning laws have done the country and the world a lot of good, of my parents generation, it was not uncommon to see a family with 6,7 kids. Too massive a population, is also bad for economic growth, possibly makes reaching the level of natural birth rate decline too far into the future, or if you look at Africa, nowhere in sight.

                To be fair though, originally, two kids were the promoted number of kids, which is completely scientific, it was only in the late 70s when some politicians pushed for a more strenuous population control of one child per family. And now China is reversing that policy mistake.
                Ashay Doshi
                    0
                Sep 13 2011: Okay, agreed that it helped their economy grow, and China could have waited and allowed smaller families to appear automatically with economic growth, but they had to force the one-child policy. Soon there will only exist one-child families in areas where this policy is in effect. Think of how this would affect the country socially, not knowing the significance of the relationship of a sister or a brother, older or younger. I am sure that people can survive without siblings, but the overall social impact on a society could be even greater, positive or negative? Who knows?
            Satish Chandra Satyarthi
                0
                Reply
            Sep 13 2011: I am not denying the importance of population control. But there are better ways to do it. You can't put penalty and curb one's fundamental rights if one wants to have two kids. We are not animals. We have the right over our bodies.
            In India, if you go to the regions where the level of education is high, people themselves use family planning methods and have only one or two kids. They don't need strict laws for it. I agree with Mr. Domeji that the government should just focus on economic growth and education, and the birth rates will go down automatically.
        Carl Men
            0
            Reply
        TED Translator
        Sep 13 2011: Satish, the research obviously left out a lot of factors, however, the guy is an economist, an economic focus perspective is expected. Plus, a research that included all factors will be produce no insight.... The two countries are so highly complex, a comprehensive comparative study that will satisfy all audiences could probably never be done.

        "how many authoritarian regimes apart from China have become super power?" Not recently anyway, but most superpowers now days were once militaristic and expansionist, if not authoritarian, and their power were mostly based on decline of their respective colonies. It does take a basic level of physical as well as societal infrastructure to become a superpower.
            Satish Chandra Satyarthi
                0
                Reply
            Sep 13 2011: "most superpowers now days were once militaristic and expansionist,"... It doesn't mean that economic growth can achieved only by becoming militaristic or authoritarian.. there are many examples of failed nations who have been copying the china model of governance. North Korea is the closest one.. India has been a strong democracy since its independence and it has outperformed many countries having dictatorial rule on all levels.
            a research can never be good if it just includes the factors that suits your point and knowingly leaves out others important factors that can shake the very basis of your argument ..
    thumb
    Santosh Gairola
        0
        Reply
    Sep 13 2011: I found this talk fascinating, but a missing something somewhere all the while. Good prof did not touch upon the so-called economic-model "socialist vs capitalist". I also think he is confusing "democracy vs authoritarian" to "stable vs un-stable" government.
    His point on literacy and women involvement (or human capital overall) is indeed well taken.
    I am no expert to comment indeed, but social factors can't be denied. In India, what social scientist say, higher priority of individual excellence over social one, might be the main reason.
    T Barry
        +2
        Reply
    Sep 13 2011: His main point was sadly understated: Human capital is what carries the day. English is his 2nd language, so you must be more careful with the details he says, his emphasis will be lacking as he thinks of what, instead of how, to say something.

    The literacy rates of china with 70% vs india's 40%. Everything else comes from this. Smart people build smart things, is what he says. And smart people make good decisions on there own is what he hints at. There would be no slums in India if they knew more about disease propagation. Even when you can barely get enough food to not be hungry, you still get soap! IF. If you've gotten the health education you needed. How many westerners know washing hands will lower sickness rates? How many Indians? Knowing what will make you healthy tomorrow is just as important as what you eat today. And foresight comes from education.

    To add to Mr. Huang's point, Education and Democracy are, when together, also a protection against corruption. If you tell me x is true, I can check it myself (if I can read). Social media in China often buzzes with tales of corruption, such as the "3 levitating chinese officials". In a true democracy, you can vote against such people. In China they're simply reprimanded and shuffled to another, less wealthy, province.

    And all this talk on IQ and "race"! A huge waste of time. Has been for 100 years. So now it's "good" genes instead of head size? Such innovation! Hah.

    IQ is purely cultural. 80 IQ for Bushmen in Africa? Really? Could you raise a family in the a hostile desert with only sticks and a stone to start fires? Find water? Hunt game? Build your own house? We'd be the ones considered handicaped in their society. Oh dear, they can't derive a polynome you say? Tsk tsk. Well, it can't be helped, they're just born that way. Sillyness invented by Slavers to justify oppressing others.
    Stephen Burgess
        0
        Reply
    Sep 13 2011: I was initially unsure where Mr. Huang was heading, but glad to hear his conclusions. It cannot be denied that increased access to information and higher public literacy leads to a healthy economy. Still, India's deep scarring from her time under British colonial rule must not be ignored as a factor which polarized political and religious factions in that country which undoubtedly has inhibited economic health. I do not believe that it is the political system per se which controls economic health, but instead the factors of literacy and social equality. I think it is important to differentiate IQ and literacy. Thank you.
    thumb
    Youhuan Zhang 500+
        0
        Reply
    TEDx Organizer
    Sep 13 2011: Sometime simplifying complex things helps but sometimes it doesn't. Economic growth of a country is very complicated, at least I think.
    thumb
    Matt Lane
        0
        Reply
    Sep 13 2011: This is one of the worst speeches I have ever heard — not only on TED but anywhere.
    Yasheng is not a democratic theorist. He has no historical context to base his assumptions off of. India has one of the most corrupt governments (aristocracies) on the planet next to Haiti, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia. It is far from a functioning democratic republic.
    DEmocracy works! Any one who says different is either dumb or lying to you. Read Dahl, Korten, Riegel, or check out the Mandragon Corporation or WIR Bank.
    His argument for China's etymology of growth is also misrepresentative for way too many reasons to list here and are, I feel, axiomatic.
    Plus the argument for growth in our world today is just another attack against decentralization, sustainability, and the resilience and diversity of a steady state economy and those functions and indicators that contribute to the community and family level of life.
        Suresh A
            +1
            Reply
        Sep 13 2011: I agree...
        Interesting facts!!... But, in the end it sounded more like The Hare vs Tortoise story...
        The fundamental problem that INDIA facing right now is the Corrupted Political System, though we cannot deny the fact that some of the domestic problems like Caste, bias against women, children education and infrastructure are also contributing their own bit in halting the economic growth... INDIA's major growth in last 10-15 yrs is more on Services than manufacturing(lack of capital investment on the infrastructure is one of the reason for that), which is exactly opposite with China.. So, in the long run things seems to be in favor of INDIA as the pressure to meet the growth will let Govt take appropriate actions(even if they do not want to)....
    R K
        0
        Reply
    Sep 13 2011: I request Howard Ashman to give the page number from the book where it said "average IQ (intelligence quotient) of the Chinese people is 105 compared with 81 for the Indian people". Just when he said "Black Africa" I could sense that his post has racial undertones. I would not like to say more about your comment but rather just say that India is making money from services and back office jobs than manufacturing goods and I would leave this to anyone's guess as which requires more IQ. Having said that India lags behind not because of democracy but because of corruption that is deep rooted in all walks of life. Google out "Anna Hazare" to know what is the latest on the fight against corruption, the people have woken up.
        thumb
        Steve Spain
            0
            Reply
        Sep 13 2011: I would argue that IQ has historically served the needs of European colonialism and their ways of perceiving, generally speaking. Howard Gardner argued well how there are a multiple set of intelligences, of which IQ are but two. Even in European cultures nowhere near the whole excel within the IQ model, and hence the education system tends to benefit but a few. As to cultures who are "other" they will barely rank on the IQ map. Is this a sign of intellectual superiority, hardly. IQ of a people/culutral group has nothing to do with intellect from a global perspective.
    Ajay Doctor
        0
        Reply
    Sep 13 2011: Fantastic "TED" …………this platform has really set high standards

    Appreciate what the Chinese have MASTERED…………….the true pitch of all narration delivered by the WEST to date………

    What has to be included by Yasheng is the amount of growth/capital and a parallel economy created by India (Swiss banks and likes now have a problem to keep it a secret) it will explain all versatility and the dimensions of love/hate/IQ/morals/sustainability and CLIMATE CHANGE.

    Pakistan is just an offshoot of American & British debacle/failures………

    Not only ISLAM but all religions have a more respectable place in INDIA than any other Muslim country or so inferred multicultural countries.

    CHINA in all its approx 1500 basic alphabets/syllables is still in search of forming the word QUALITY/LOVE, then decipher it and elucidate it with their own citizens first…………..though must admit they are trying, its again the damn WEST ego which is pushing it in pursuit of ARMS & POWER.
    Shane Gentry
        0
        Reply
    Sep 13 2011: That was a textbook example of how to simply say "China needs political reform" in under 20 minutes. While not pissing off the Party back home.

    What he misses most is the amount of capital provided by the United States. Particularly after the United States gave China favored nation status.

    With that said, he is correct about Indian culture being particularly screwed up. The Caste system, which ties into the extreme religious oddity, which has also tied into Indian bias vs women.
        Max Peterson
            0
            Reply
        Sep 13 2011: In the US most favored nation is officially termed "permanent normal trade relations", which is a more adequate term. Regardless of what you call it, India has it as well. Most countries do.
        R K
            +1
            Reply
        Sep 13 2011: With due respect, I am amazed with the conviction that you say "he is correct about Indian culture". Caste is as evil as Racism against African American that was practised for a couple of centuries, having said that India still has a vast majority belonging to the lower castes unlike the natives of US, does that mean US has not developed inspite and later getting rid of those?. US is still not ready for a woman president. India has given women prime ministers like Indira Gandhi, the present president "Prathibha Patil" is a woman, not too long ago we had a hindu prime minister, muslim president, christian defence minister and a sikh finance minister at the same time. The current defence minister Anthony is a christian, based on these facts I cannot argue that India is a very developed country cause we still have caste bias and bias towards women, that has got more to do with the egoist attiture of men, male chauvinists, I wonder how all these are related to economic disparity between nations since as I mentioned above US had disparities too..
    thumb
    Nikki Elizabeth
        0
        Reply
    Sep 12 2011: There were a lot of assumptions expressed about audience members' points of views. That makes it more difficult for me to relate to this talk.
    thumb
    Nikolay Frolov 30+
        0
        Reply
    TED Translator
    Sep 12 2011: Not convincing at all. The case against infrastructure was poor. If infrastructure doesn't explain the difference entirely it doesn't follow that it plays no role. Maybe it becomes extraordinary effective exactly in non-democratic environment.
    And hey, you've just said that it's not correct to make your argument based on picking winners-only. How could you argue against infrastructure using the USSR case as an example? Picking losers-only looks more scientific?
    To sum up, there is a few (if any) logically correct economic arguments in this presentation. The only probable truth, as he said in the end, is that he BELIEVEs that democracy is better and India will overcome China in the distant future. Really, it's a pity watching such excruciating desire to present own wishful thinking against robust 30 years long statistical evidence.
    yifan xie
        +4
        Reply
    TED Translator
    Sep 12 2011: I once came across a metaphor that goes roughly like this: "By the side of the express railway connecting New Delhi and Mumbai, walks a skinny old man. Poorly dressed with round glasses, he talks to each passenger in a low voice: take your time India, be patient, don't leave your poor behind -- his name is Mahatma Gandhi". I don't have a good understanding of India as a culture or a country, but as a Chinese borned and bred in the Mainland, I wish dearly that we could have such a voice in our consciousness.
    thumb
    Justin Lane
        0
        Reply
    Sep 12 2011: How does he explain the internal inconsistencies concerning "democratic" regions within China?
    Taiwan and Hong Kong have per capita GDPs that are many times higher than that of the People's Republic of China. Meanwhile the PRC has an income distribution that is worse than many in the developed world (for instance, the US has horrible income inequality, but China's is still higher), and China also has a population many times the size of most other countries. It seems that if you measure the growth of a country as a single unit then China looks like it is doing well, however its internal stability is questionable particularly when compared to democratic countries and their ability to maintain grown AND stability (recent market analysis of countries during the current recession and the Arab spring will show how important stability is to growth).
    Randhir Singh
        +2
        Reply
    Sep 12 2011: One factor that the speaker missed is social caste-based aparthied in India, whereby thousands of castes (in all religions; but mostly within hinduism) will not be inter-marrying religiously. He possibly does not know that 25% of indians are labelled untouchbles. This does create problems in all walks of indian life-be it economic.
    In contrast, ethnicity of 98% of Chinese is Han, which must be fostering co-operation among them.
    A very good talk indeed!
        thumb
        Pronoma Srivastava
            +1
            Reply
        Sep 12 2011: I have to agree with this. The socio-political construct of the Hindu caste system definitely hinders the economic potential of many individuals within the country,
        thumb
        Emo Bear 30+
            0
            Reply
        Sep 13 2011:
       
        "All ideologies are idiotic, whether religious or political, for it is conceptual thinking, the conceptual word, which has so unfortunately divided man."
        — Jiddu Krishnamurti
       
        thumb
        Jeremy Hunter 20+
            0
            Reply
        Sep 13 2011: Many Indians, particularly these untouchables, are turning to Christianity as they realise they don't have to be a part of this caste system.
    Varun Karad
        0
        Reply
    Sep 12 2011: This Talk is quite informative. What i believe and also agree with the speaker is that Chinese fundamentals (Economics) are quite strong as compared to India. Democracy is meaningful only when the people of one country understand the importance of it. At the moment, Not many indians really understand that democracy is virtue and they can actually make use of to improve their immediate surroundings(personal opinion).
    I also agree with the speaker about his view of not comparing the two countries.. China and india are two distinctly different countries. Both the countries have had a very different history, traces of which can be seen till today in their culture.
    One think which i personally believe defines the growth path of a country is impact of religion.
    thumb
    Frans Kellner 50+
        +2
        Reply
    TED Translator
    Sep 12 2011: Nobody mentions the one child policy in China which makes a big difference. Think of all the women that contribute to the economy in China. Another thing is the rol model of Hong Kong as Vivian remarks.
        Comment deleted
            yifan xie
                +1
                Reply
            TED Translator
            Sep 12 2011: "China is more stable, but may experience ethnic tensions in the future."

            in fact, China is ALREADY facing ethnic tensions, and in fact many different forms of social tensions. at the same time, the Chinese government is poorly positioned to handle this with no one having political capital to implement systematic change. The advance of social media such as Weibo only strips another layer of cloth off from the Gov's point of view.

            True that China's low labour cost contributed to the economy bloom, but with souring normal worker wage in the last 5 years, such advantage is no longer a given. On the other hand, high inflation is increasingly squeezing ife standard in urban area. This will in turn fuel more upheaval.

            My point of view is: China can do with a crash and probably will have one. Only in such situation political pressure can be generated to overcome existing constrainsts, and pave the road for more substainable developments.
    anindita chowdhury
        0
        Reply
    Sep 12 2011: Okay for a minute lets forget about which economy is growing faster. Lets talk about Emotional Intelligence and not Intelligence Quotient. The only country that has a monument for love is India. This entire race based comparitive analysis is understandable but futile in a lot more aspects. Its easier to stereotype than understand an individual. There are reasons stereotypes exists but if you are pro individual and judge people on a per person basis, you can see a lot of loopholes in this argument.
        thumb
        Pronoma Srivastava
            +3
            Reply
        Sep 12 2011: Just curious, is your only argument about whether India or China has a higher "emotional intelligence" is because one country has a monument such as the Taj Mahal which was built out of love? I understand the rest of your point, but your first implied claim is a bit shaky.
            thumb
            Bhuvanesh Phadnis
                0
                Reply
            Sep 13 2011: I agree with Pronoma. The Taj Mahal is not a social reflection of India.
    Oh Hyedam
        0
        Reply
    Sep 12 2011: democracy.. in korea, we can't find it

    thumb
    Debra Smith 200+
        +1
        Reply
    Sep 12 2011: This is what TED does so well and why it is such an amazing resource for the world. What a great talk which challenges misconceptions and brings perspective. Thank you Yeshang Huang for an enlightening talk!
    cliffton fernandes
        +1
        Reply
    Sep 12 2011: The main reason why China has grown faster is because before 1995 India was riddled with socialist economic reforms which stumped its growth, only after Dr. Manmohan Singh (the present Prime Minister of India) the then Finance Minister of India paved the way for liberalization of economic reforms did the Indian economy open up to foreign investments. Where as Chinese capitalist reforms were implemented from the 1970's and pre 1980's. This is the reason why China grew faster before 2000 and India has caught up in the past few years. Yet Chinese according to me are at an advantage because of their authoritarian government because passing of reforms is much easier in China than in India, moreover an Indian entrepreneur has to face a lot of problems in starting a new enterprise because of the sheer number of governmental policies and processes his company has to undergo. Its much easier to relocate a village in China to make place for a new industry than in India, this gives a huge advantage to China in terms of foreign investment. Over all China has a much better "Brand Value" as compared to India. A better, systematic, operational, just and efficient government is what India requires at this point of time and the rest will just fall in its place. I wish coalition governments and family politics would become a thing of the past.
    Shruthi Vishwanath
        +1
        Reply
    Sep 12 2011: It is interesting to get a Chinese perspective on the growth story. Western and Indian economists tend to be slightly wary of the Chinese growth story (after all China will be the next superpower in but a few years), so Huang's analysis was refreshing. But democracy needs to permeate in some form or the other. Citizens must have a say and this will be essential to maintaining the Chinese fairy-tale.
    thumb
    Tobias Duncan 200+
        0
        Reply
    Sep 12 2011: This sort of talk makes me so curious to see what the world will look like in 100 years.
    Anirban Bhattacharyya
        +1
        Reply
    Sep 12 2011: The research seems half baked.
    vivian donahue
        0
        Reply
    Sep 12 2011: He has also significantly left out Hong Kong's contributions to China's growth! Hong Kong has been run mostly as a democracy although it is their financial contributions to China that have helped greatly in China's economic base, I believe. The turnover in 1997 changed China in a huge way....
        Tim Passey
            0
            Reply
        Sep 12 2011: But since when has Hong Kong been democratic. Liberal, yes. Democratic, no.
    CS Tan
        0
        Reply
    Sep 12 2011: a good comparison between India and China. However I am not convinced that China's authoritarian rule didn't play a huge role to the economic growth. If I am picking a new economic model for a developing country, it will be more likely for me to pick a path that might lead to me to become a "superstar" rather than the "above average player". The world has lost faith to the free market since 2007/08 so unless things get fixed Europe and US (unlikely), the China's state market model will gain a huge amount of support for the foreseeable future.
    Comment deleted
        Chris Pierce-Wright
            +20
            Reply
        Sep 12 2011: It should seem obvious how shallow an argument yours is -- that is, unless you are willing to put forward a quite racist(?) ideology, which is not an argument at all. Leaving aside the obvious limitations of an IQ-based argument, it is far more important to ask why Chinese citizens appear to show more classic intelligence (which is the only thing IQ measures, and there are many more important things in this world) than Indian citizens. I very much doubt that Chinese are, at birth, innately more intelligent than Indians, as you seem to suggest. Rather, it would seem that China's success in modernizing and providing many basic services to its people has led to a better educated population. The point of this talk is to ask why China has been so successful, although this success is not without its downsides, where India's route has been more circuitous. It is emphatically NOT to suggest one group is "more smarter" than another.
            thumb
            Don Visser
                +2
                Reply
            Sep 12 2011: I'm sorry but at no point does he seems to suggest that the IQ's are based on race. However, seeing how Yasheng Huang showed the statistics of the literacy differences I see no reason why there would not be any point in it. By point I mean any difference by IQ due to environment & education.
                thumb
                Jeremy Hunter 20+
                    +4
                Sep 13 2011: "Chinese economy grows faster than Indian economy because average IQ (intelligence quotient) of the Chinese people is 105 compared with 81 for the Indian people."

                and

                "Black Africa is in a state of violent anarchy because its population has low IQ (67-72)."

                Yeah uh I'd definitely say that was based on race. This is also not a rare argument. Whenever there is an article about comparing India to China, the Chinese comment in droves about the Indians being inferior people.
            Arnd Franke
                +3
                Reply
            Sep 12 2011: In my eyes, you are absolutly right and I aswell strongly doubt that children from China and India differ in terms of mental potential.

            About the Chinese education system, I think it is save to say, that it is very strict and doesn't leave any room at all for the students to develope freely. That seems to be both the downside you mentioned, and the reason for the high IQ-results of the Chinese population.
            This was probably not the reason for their big success in economics in the first place, but I think that it is an important factor nowadays, helping to keep the growth rate at a high level.
            Comment deleted
                Kris Hubley
                    +5
                Sep 13 2011: I've heard it said that IQ tests essentially measure your adaptation to the modern world (which is why IQ tests are rising). So it's highly unsuprising that tribal people would score low in these tests. It's also unsuprising that someone who scored low on this kind of test would find it hard to find work in a typical western industrual job, as they are all created by the same paradigm that created the IQ tests.
                George Kong 30+
                    0
                Oct 1 2011: The heritability of IQ is vastly overestimated. One only has to think about how if a person is deprived of language, their ability on IQ tests would be vastly decreased. Yet learning of a language is not something that is encoded natively into our genes.

                Culture, subculture, and the access to opportunities that they represent are too intrinsically tied together with racial differences for us to make a good scientific determination on the differences between racial intelligences.

                Moreover, irrespective of the between group differences, within group differences are always signifcantly larger.

                Eugenics (in its popular conception) is an extremely subpar method of optimizing overal social merit - it doesn't serve us to create genetic castes. And even if you accepted the basic premise of eugenics; using race as a proxy for merit is extraordinarily inefficient, and is pretty much racism; with a paper thin veil of pseudo-scientific justification.

                A simpler method of raising intelligence in overall social groups that is much more socially acceptable and without resistance (justifiable or otherwise) is to continue to allow as many people in the world to have access to high quality information and education as possible.

                Institutions like the Khan Academy are doing the task in a much more effective, humanist and egalitarian manner than plebs that resort to clinging to their racial heritage as their primary currency of merit could ever hope to do.
            Comment deleted
                thumb
                Liz A 10+
                    +6
                Sep 12 2011: A few questions:

                First off, where are you getting your IQ stats and information from? I've never hear of the generalities you are listing. It was my understanding that IQ tests are highly cultural, graded on a curve (scores throughout time are not standardized), and vary wildly not only nationally but internationally as well. That is to say, the Chinese test and Indian test not only have different questions, but are graded on different curves as well. However, a lot of what I've heard is hearsay or unaccredited, so if you have some solid sources…

                I think your dog analogy is a bit misplaced. Aggression in Pitt Bulls IS disputed by many breeders to be a learned and not inherent (genetic) trait. Furthermore, Golden Retrievers are actually known to be biters when owners fail to train them well.
                thumb
                Jeremy Hunter 20+
                    0
                Sep 13 2011: Have you tried employing these bushmen? I'm just wondering how many people have tried employing them and that maybe, they just sucked as employers and it wasn't the bushmen that were at fault.
                kiat siong ng
                    +5
                Sep 14 2011: @Jeremy Hunter, how about reversing the roles, all of us will be terribly unproductive as employees hired by a bushman boss in his environment. Not only that, our survival in their environment will be solely dependent on the bushmen, which will appear to have higher IQ than us. Their IQ Test will be something like which of the following food is bad for you and will kill you. And we would flunk the test and perish soon enough.
                thumb
                jim campbell
                    0
                Sep 15 2011: @Howard Ashman: I believe that your pit bull/dog breeder example has opened the door to allow environmental effects into this discussion, as opposed to specifically focusing on race and/or genetics as being the criterion to IQ level. By this I mean that dog breeders do not believe and/or espouse your point ". . .a general behavior to a specific breed of dogs i.e. a Pit Bull is a more aggressive breed than a Golden Retriever." Rather most dog breeders and dog aficionados suggest that "there are no bad dogs, only poor dog owners and/or trainers." Meaning that, no matter the breed, it takes a poor environment to create a "bad dog." Take this to a human race level -- Africans, Indians, Chinese, et al -- and it becomes clearer that environment, not just genetics, truly affects IQ potential. As an example: People living under tyrannical rule -- such as tribe leaders in the Sub-Saharan Africa -- may have their learning abilities stifled by their leaders desire to control the masses. In addition to human environmental effects there are other natural issues that stifle human learning abilities: poor nutrition (or lack of certain indigenous food types that offer "brain food" and muscle building proteins), geographical situations (weather, soil, etc.), animal life (beasts of burden, dangerous/poisonous flora and fauna, available livestock, etc), and last but surely not least ideological dogma and antiquated/erroneous cultural mores. My point is that there are many, many factors that come into play in human learning abilities/scores (or for the sake of this discussion: IQ quotient). I highly recommend "Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies" by Jared Diamond as an interesting read on how civilizations arose and succeeded.
                Barnabé Poivron
                    0
                Sep 26 2011: Hello there,

                You say : "Having the IQ of 54 is a tragedy because you are rejected by the society. I care about those people and I believe that eugenics is the best way to help them."

                This is paradoxical. You do not want to help people with low IQ, you want to avoid their birth through eugenics. By the notion of eugenics (good genes), you are suggesting that some genetic archetypes are better than others.

                This is where your arguments are flawed. "Better" is a highly subjective concept. You could argue that superior intelligence is better. You could also argue that fewer diseases are better, that higher beauty is better, that uniformity is better, that creativity is better, or simply that easier hapiness is better.

                I will agree with you that IQ is a fairly objective measure of the analytical and logical skills of a human being. I will however strongly disagree with you that this is a trait that should be nurtured or favored through genetic selection.

                Whether populations are different is fairly irrelevant : the notion of equality does not imply equality of ability or of thought, merely equality under the rule of law.

                I'd also like to point out the fact that genetic differences between the breeds of dogs you mention are considerably higher than the differences between humans.
                Johnny Chikie
                    +1
                Nov 10 2011: Civilizations have arisen in other parts of the world. In ancient and modern times, wonderful ideas have been carried forward from one race to another...But mark you, my friends, it has been always with the blast of war trumpets and the march of embattled cohorts. Each idea had to be soaked in a deluge of blood..... Each word of power had to be followed by the groans of millions, by the wails of orphans, by the tears of widows. This, many other nations have taught; but India for thousands of years peacefully existed. Here activity prevailed when even Greece did not exist... Even earlier, when history has no record, and tradition dares not peer into the gloom of that intense past, even from until now, ideas after ideas have marched out from her, but every word has been spoken with a blessing behind it and peace before it. We, of all nations of the world, have never been a conquering race, and that blessing is on our head, and therefore we live....!
                - Swami Vivekananda (Indian philosopher)

                The motion of the stars calculated by the Hindus before some 4500 years vary not even a single minute from the tables of Cassine and Meyer (used in the 19-th century). The Indian tables give the same annual variation of the moon as the discovered by Tycho Brahe - a variation unknown to the school of Alexandria and also to the Arabs who followed the calculations of the school... "The Hindu systems of astronomy are by far the oldest and that from which the Egyptians, Greek, Romans and - even the Jews derived from the Hindus their knowledge.
                -Jean Sylvain Bailly (French astronomer)
                Johnny Chikie
                    +1
                Nov 10 2011: Where can we look for sages like those whose systems of philosophy were prototypes of those of Greece: to whose works Plato, Thales and Pythagorus were disciples? Where do I find astronomers whose knowledge of planetary systems yet excites wonder in Europe as well as the architects and sculptors whose works claim our admiration, and the musicians who could make the mind oscillate from joy to sorrow, from tears to smile with the change of modes and varied intonation?
                -Colonel James Todd (American pioneer)

                It will no longer remain to be doubted that the priests of Egypt and the sages of Greece have drawn directly from the original well of India, that it is to the banks of the Ganges and the Indus that our hearts feel drawn as by some hidden urge.
                -Friedrich Mejer (English statesman)


                I like to think that someone will trace how the deepest thinking of India made its way to Greece and from there to the philosophy of our times.
                -John Archibald Wheeler (American scientist)

                In India I found a race of mortals living upon the Earth. but not adhering to it. Inhabiting cities, but not being fixed to them, possessing everything but possessed by nothing.
                - Apollonius Tyanaeus ( Greek Thinker and Traveler)

                I am convinced that everything has come down to us from the banks of the Ganges, - astronomy, astrology, metempsychosis,.. It is very important to note that some 2,500 years ago at the least Pythagoras went from Samos to the Ganges to learn geometry...But he would certainly not have undertaken such a strange journey had the reputation of the Brahmins' science not been long established in Europe...
                -Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire (French writer and philosopher)
                Johnny Chikie
                    +2
                Nov 10 2011: There is a striking resemblance between the equivalence of mass and energy symbolized by Shiva's cosmic dance and the Western theory, first expounded by Einstein, which calculates the amount of energy contained in a subatomic particle by multiplying its mass by the square of the speed of light : E=MC2 .
                -Richard Waterstone (Author & Journalist)

                It is India that gave us the ingenious method of expressing all numbers by ten symbols, each receiving a value of position as well as an absolute value, a profound and important idea which appears so simple to us now that we ignore its true merit. But its very simplicity, the great ease which it has lent to all computations, puts our arithmetic in the first rank of useful inventions, and we shall appreciate the grandeur of this achievement the more when we remember that it escaped the genius of Archimedes and Appollnius, two of the greatest men produced by antiquity.
                - Pierre Simon de Laplace ( French mathematician & philosopher)

                Whatever sphere of the human mind you may select for your special study, whether it be language, or religion, or mythology, or philosophy, whether it be law or customs, primitive art or primitive science, everywhere you have to go to India, whether you like it or not, because some of the most valuable and instructive materials of the history of man are treasured up in India and India only.
                -Friedrich Maximilian Mueller ( German philologist )

                I believe that the civilization India has evolved is not to be beaten in the world. Nothing can equal the seeds sown by our ancestry. Rome went; Greece shared the same fate; the might of the Pharaohs was broken; Japan has become westernized; of China nothing can be said; but India is still, somehow or other, sound at the foundation.
                -Gandhi
                Johnny Chikie
                    +1
                Nov 10 2011: Besides the discoverers of geometry and algebra, the constructors of human speech, the parents of philosophy, the primal expounders of religion, the adepts in psychological and physical science, how even the greatest of our biological and theologians seem dwarfed! Name of us any modern discovery, and we venture to say that Indian history need not long be searched before the prototype will be found on record. Here we are with the transit of science half accomplished, and all our Vedic ideas in process of readjustment to the theories of force correlation, natural selection, atomic polarity and evolution. And here, to mock our conceit, our apprehension, and our despair, we may read what Manu said, perhaps 10,000 years before the birth of Christ: The first germ of life was developed by water and heat. Water ascends towards the sky in vapors; from the sun it descends in rain, from the rains are born the plants, and from the plants, animals.
                -Louis Francois Jacolliot (French diplomat & author)

                At its starting point in India, the birthplace of races and religions, the womb of the world.
                - Jules Michelet ( French writer)

                I shall now speak of the knowledge of the Hindus...of their subtle discoveries even more ingenious than those of the Greeks and Babylonians - of their rational system of mathematics or of their method of calculation which no word can praise strongly enough - I mean the system using the nine symbols. If these things were known by the people who think that they alone have mastered the sciences because they speak Greek, they would perhaps be convinced that every folk, not only Greeks, but men of a different tongues, know something as well as they.
                -Severus Sebokbt (Bishop ,Syrian astronomer)
                Johnny Chikie
                    +1
                Nov 10 2011: All history points to India as the mother of science and art,This country was anciently so renowned for knowledge and wisdom that the philosophers of Greece did not disdain to travel thither for their improvement.
                -William Macintosh
            Daniel Eberhard
                +3
                Reply
            Sep 13 2011: While I feel some of Ashram's comments are dangerously oversimplified, there is certainly a relationship between GDP and the IQ of nations. It is important to understand that IQ tests, while certainly not perfect, do reflect on the abilities of nations to compete in an ever more complicated global economy. Part of the reason is that IQ tests are innately subjective and exposure to certain materials and thought patterns will impact your score. Whether the national differences are a case of Nature (Genetics) or Nurture (Culture) is obviously debatable, and I would be very surprised to learn if it was not a little of both. However, It is important that this subject be open to discussion instead of called taboo and racist. It is completely counter productive to smash your head into the sand and say 'all races are equal in every way'. Anatomic variation between race is obvious, are we to assume this exists in every physical development but the brain? Of course not, race's are different, some smarter, some stronger, some smaller, some weaker. It is our job as critical thinkers to ask these sociological questions in an effort to better understand our global community and individuality.
                Barnabé Poivron
                    +2
                Sep 26 2011: Consider north and south korea.

                One is very wealthy, the other very poor.

                Yet the populations are, for all intents and purposes, genetically identical.
                GDP per capita is much more easily explained through history than through genetics.

                This is one example, but there are too many of them to count. Considering the amount of examples, it is statistically difficult to argue that there may be a corelation between genetics and gdp. Hence, if there is a correlation between gentics and IQ, there cannot be a correlation between IQ and GDP.

                Unless of course GDP leads to higher IQ :) :) :)
                As we say in my language : CQFD
            Andre Delgado
                0
                Reply
            Sep 18 2011: I agree with you, Chris. In my opinion, the arguments above are wrong and could also seem racists. I truly believe that economic aspects aren't related to inteligence or IQ at all. They're much more related to culture, history, geography, environment, democracy, politics and so on.
            As history shows, economy changes. USA is the biggest economy nowadays. China will probably be 30 years in the future. India had its turn during the 17th century, when it reached the world largest GDP.
            Best wishes,
            Andre
        thumb
        Mike Euverman
            +11
            Reply
        Sep 12 2011: I'm sorry but there is a major flaw in your theory. The IQ's found in that book, are not based off of IQ tests, but rather found through an equation based off of the countries GDP. The authors took the ratio between IQs and GDP in developed countries, and applied it to countries that do not have IQ tests in place.

        When the "IQ" is based off of the GDP, you can not then turn around and say that the GDP is based off of the "IQ".
            Comment deleted
                Stephen Burgess
                    +6
                Sep 13 2011: Dear sir, in the U.S. in the 1980s or so, IQ tests were a popular tool as a way to screen potential hires. However, increased research (citation needed) on IQ tests have shown that they favor those from middle-class white families. IQ is not based on genetic heritage, but instead is developed more strongly in those with sufficient resources and a healthy environment for development. If those born into countries with lower IQs were given similar environmental support and opportunity, your results would be much different. Your logic is circular.
            Comment deleted
                woo yun
                    0
                Oct 1 2011: The racist arguement is just too ridiculous. I think the main point is the cultural thing and what people think about the world. china once was a success as well as a failure in the history. but even in its poorest time, people still kept thinking the future of this country and they could not bear being a failure in he world. but i doubt the efforts that china has made for so many years. for so many years, china has witnessed a big boom in economy because they so long for status and richness.chinese people hope to live good,materially good! but as to the mental part and its system, there is still a long way to go.
        catherine mitchell
            +7
            Reply
        Sep 12 2011: Aside from necessary suspicions on the value of IQ (testing), what deserves examination is not how whether one nation's IQ exceeds another, but the quality of education system and even more basically, how toddlers are nurtured -- both in terms of nutrition and in bonding and engagement with parents. Those toddlers who live in constant stress (as in societies that are steeped in civil conflict or in extreme poverty) are unlikely to thrive academically or learn to be creative, productive people. So, China's authoritarian regime keeps its people oppressed but allows for a level of security and with reforms, nutrition has improved nationally. As the speaker said, there's probably a limit to China's growth without political reform -- people have a basic need for freedom.
        It would have been more illuminating if the economist had compared levels of extreme poverty between China and India. That may have revealed much more than the command economy vs. demand economy or authoritarian vs democratic argument/observation
            woo yun
                0
                Reply
            Oct 1 2011: Totally agree with your comment.
        Comment deleted
            Comment deleted
                thumb
                Alia B.Khayal
                    +2
                Sep 13 2011: wow. Can't stop laughing either. I don't even know where to start.
                Antoine Jarrige
                    +2
                Sep 13 2011: second worst racist commentary ever
        Gaurav Sharma
            +7
            Reply
        Sep 12 2011: Here are some interesting things to note about the Richard Lynn book, which has explained away everything (just the way you wanted). The references and more criticism can be found in:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations

        The number of participants in some studies were limited. A test of 108 9-15-year olds in Barbados, of 50 13–16-year olds in Colombia, of 104 5–17-year olds in Ecuador, of 129 6–12-year olds in Egypt, of 48 10–14-year olds in Equatorial Guinea, and so on, all were taken as measures of 'national IQ'.

        Many nations are very heterogeneous ethnically. This is true for many developing countries. It is very doubtful that a sometimes limited number of participants from one or a few areas are representative for the population as whole.

        The number of studies is very limited; the IQ figure is based on one study in 34 nations, two studies in 30 nations. There were actual tests for IQ in 81 nations. In 104 of the world's nations there were no IQ studies at all and IQ was estimated based on IQ in surrounding nations.

        The authors don't establish cross country comparability and reliability of IQ scores, that they do not consider or control for other hypothesis, and that they confuse correlation with causation. The author states "The arguments put forward in the book to justify such (international IQ) comparisons seem at best vague and unconvincing. Passages in the book appear to be biased and unscientific." "the authors fail to present convincing evidence and appear to jump to conclusions.

        Adjustments were made by authors to account for the Flynn effect.

        One critic writes: "Their scheme is to take the British Ravens IQ in 1979 as 100, and simply add or subtract 2 or 3 to the scores from other countries for each decade that the relevant date of test departs from that year. The assumptions of size, linearity and universal applicability of this correction across all countries are, of course, hugely questionable if not breathtaking.
            Vasu Sastry
                0
                Reply
            Sep 27 2011: Thanks for taking the time to point this out Gaurav. I find it odd that Ashman has not engaged with you on your points. Perhaps he chooses his battles "intelligently" :-)
        Joseph Leger
            +3
            Reply
        Sep 13 2011: The idea that a nation's mean IQ rating is perhaps the largest factor influencing a country's wealth is so absolutely backwards and ignorant that I don't even know where to begin. This is a complete misreading of cause and effect. Did China's economy become so strong because of the elevated IQ of its people? Or was it perhaps that China's average IQ rate increased with the growing economy? There are literally thousands of factors that have directly and indirectly influenced the booming Chinese economy. Simply stating that their economy must be growing rapidly due to their higher average IQ is quite alike to finding a correlation between the strong economy and the widespread use of Mandarin in China. You may say that this is a gross exaggeration, but honestly the difference between these two theses, in relation to the actual truth, is negligible. Factors such as natural resources, educational standards, geography, culture, politics, agriculture, historical factors, to name just a few, have an enormous impact on a country's development and economic potential. The idea that the elevated IQ of a nation is the major contributing factor in a country's economic development is not only an impressive display of incompetent scientific research, but it is also downright ignorant.
            thumb
            Liz A 10+
                +1
                Reply
            Sep 13 2011: I agree.
            My 2 uninformed cents: If China's IQ was naturally high, then why is thier economy *growing* and not already established? Even after freeing itself from the yolk of colonialism, if IQ is a basis for economic growth then they shouldn't they have bounced back to power and expanded quicker than we have seen?
                Jonathan N
                    +1
                Sep 13 2011: Now now Liz, let's not get carried away, he didn't say the Chinese were as smart as white folk. Lol!
                Lars Oliver
                    0
                Sep 23 2011: I have to say you have just been 'talking' about what you think--applying your rather biased 'common sense'. It seem you cannot be bothered to even google 'IQ'--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations

                by taking IQ as the sole reason for relative prosperity, you have failed to account for so many other factors that may affect a country on the path of developemtn.

                For the sake of time let me just give you two simplistic examples which provides just two ways that you can be wrong-

                1.there were two counties, A and B, at the time with the most primitive technology--. A's population has a natural tendency to pursue peacefulness and serenity. It uses resources to improve education, food etc. A regards invasion as immoral and believe that if it acts peacefully, others would treat it peacefully. B have an endless desire for power. B's people love the joy of fighting and killing. Braveness and victory are rewarded in B's society. B spends largely in weapon technology and building gyms. Resultantly, B easily took over A, destroying most of A's homes,etc. what's more, using the money taken from A, B is able to build schools, museums etc and be the richest

                2, A and B again--A's climate is very volatile with an avr temperature of 40 degrees C in summer and -15 in winter. The figures for B is 17 and 7. Country A suffers from less hours for work, low crop yields and have to spend a lot in over comming the climate but B ---. which do you think gets richer?

                China, Spain, Portugal and others were all once the richest in the world. At the time when Columbus discovered the new land, the Chinese merchant boats were over 3 times the size of and European one. Americans were once seen as poor, primitive farmers by the Europeans. Yet these rich countries all fell essentially because they became arrogant (much like you) and failed to keep up with the changing world. If we dont 'look' at the world and keep up, our prosperity could diappear just as we gossip
            thumb
            Liz A 10+
                +1
                Reply
            Sep 14 2011: @Howard Ashaman
            A few rebuttals:
            Agricultural and pottery techniques can be imported and copied. They alone do not reflect intelligence or innovation. Nor can we even verify that these innovations originated in Caucasian or Mongoloid communities.
            I have not read Ian Morris, but what is known today as China has all the environments and geographical equivalents of Europe. It was not, however, unified, and the range of cultures and ethnicities bound within China's modern borders extends WAY farther than simple Han.
            A math teacher thinks Chinese students are smarter than Caucasian students? First of all, he is comparing a very wide phenotype to a nationality. All whites are not alike, and "Chinese" students may come from a wide range of Chinese ethnicities. Second, are you sure he isn't confusing studiousness and assiduity with intelligence? Stereotypically (and in my not limited experience) Northeastern Asian families stress the importance of schoolwork and academic achievement. This is a social norm, not an inherent trait.



            That being said...



            I think the reason so many people are taking offence to your posts is because they are, by definition, racist. Not 'racist' as the expletive, but they DO define groups or populations by physical differences, and assign subjective characteristics to said groups. Yes, it is very possible to create a universal IQ test, poll heterogeneous populations (ethnicities? Nationalities? Based on what?) and then make assumptions about those populations. Yes, it could be done scientifically, and used to explain common occurrences and trends. But in doing so, one would be inherently labeling these groups as superior and inferior, and therein lies the danger. Making broad *positive* generalities about populations is uncomfortable, making generalities about intelligence and capability is perilous.
            continued........
            thumb
            Liz A 10+
                0
                Reply
            Sep 14 2011: ....continued....
            How would these distinctions be used? How applicable would they really be? What GOOD does it do to say 'X group is statistically smarter than Y group?' Your conclusions may very well be correct, may be based on concrete facts and demonstratable tendencies. But after thousands of years of oppression, justification, and segregation based on exactly that kind of thinking, I think the dissenters in this Talk discussion are right in shying away from what you are proposing.




            And I'm done.
            tl;dr?
            " Can we? Yes. Should we? No. We already tried, and it was wrong."
        Jonathan N
            +3
            Reply
        Sep 13 2011: Ah. The reification fallacy, or fallacy of false concreteness. Basically what you are doing is defining a concept, in this case intelligence, which can not be clearly defined. The IQ test is a practically meaningless test used to pat little white kids on the back for them absorbing so much white culture. Hooray! You learned what society has conditioned you to learn from a small age.
        Antoine Jarrige
            +1
            Reply
        Sep 13 2011: Worst racist commentary ever. I believe it's obvious to anyone that education enables anyone to a higher QI note, because any test must be based on a kind of knowledge. Furthermore, IQ is a very poor measure of intelligence (which is basically one of the less tangible concept in the universe), be it useful to encourage shy kids and convince them they are little geniuses.
        Akshat Mathur
            +5
            Reply
        Sep 22 2011: I am an Indian. I have a score of 145 on the standardized IQ test,and a 99 percentile score on the GMAT. I did well in these tests primarily because I'm good at English, math and a particular kind of critical reasoning. I know plenty of people in India who would probably score much worse on an IQ test, but who have a native intelligence I cannot hope to surpass. They excel at tasks in which I have no competence. They contribute to the economy in ways I cannot. Your IQ argument is just wrong. But then, per your thesis, I am probably just as unfit for the world as the bushmen, since my IQ does not fall in your prescribed goldilocks zone.
        Damaine Sweeney
            0
            Reply
        Sep 24 2011: So what is the average IQ of Europe? Your ridiculous ideology lacks basic fundamentals. An IQ test is based on a certain type of culture, so you can't expect a bushman to score well or know much about an IQ test based off of European standards. Europeans and Africans have different exposures in life. I have an IQ of 115 and MS degree in Electrical Engineering. Can you guess what race I am? NOT EUROPEAN either.
        Travis Fleetham
            0
            Reply
        Sep 24 2011: there have also been many studies that show a positive correlation between shoe size and intelligence. so obviously Indians and Africans must have smaller feet than Chinese people. and you can't be successful with small feet.
        Kerry Monroe
            +1
            Reply
        Sep 26 2011: We are all humans. It is environment, government and education that is the key. If the Chinese are so smart where is their inventions, their art, music? I appreciated they may have invented paper, noodles and possibly pizza. They are pretty good at making things in factories. And very good at copying (even thier own art). I have lived in China for 8 years and have seen very little thinking out of the box. Just the selfish goals of getting rich at any cost.
        Henry Wilford
            0
            Reply
        Oct 4 2011: The use of IQ for personnel selection studies on skills, etc. capacitades., Has been widely questioned. There is no shred of evidence between IQ and genetics. The IQ test is cultural: if you have been trained to do something, you better decide. A personal experience: in my school psychologist test made ​​us resolve over the last 3 years of high school. The results of IQ for university admission were extraordinary: we seemed aliens compared with boys from other schools. Once in college, our yields were equal. If you. IQ test applies in Ethiopia, with a high rate of illiteracy and hunger (after European colonial experiences) can forget that the Ethiopians taught the Egyptians to make obelisks ... In Latin America, If you apply the British IQ does not work. Even among cultural areas within a country are incompatible. Guys with the same results in mathematics are different IQ if comes from different cultural backgrounds . On the other hand, "race" is not a scientific concept, nor the taxonomists today accept it, much less the geneticists, unless they are members of the Church of the last days and supporters of the Tea Party ... that, incredibly, there are. There should need an IQ?
        Amyl Dunell-Vagliviello
            0
            Reply
        Oct 5 2011: Satoshi Kanazawa is known for pushing his racist ideals and conducting poor research, google his name I cba to find any of the many articles detailing this.
        Julian Osprey 20+
            0
            Reply
        Oct 8 2011: "Chinese economy grows faster than Indian economy because average IQ (intelligence quotient) of the Chinese people is 105 compared with 81 for the Indian people."

        Ok, I'll assume you're just being simplistic and not racist. You can't possibly expect anyone to accept the argument that such a complex thing as the economic status of an entire nation is dependent on a *single factor*, be it IQ or anything else. Where's your logic?

        Now if you showed that *every* nation's average IQ was directly related to GDP, then that would be at least make for interesting discussion. Not that GDP or IQ are the most important things in life anyway.
        wblakesx java
            0
            Reply
        Nov 8 2011: there's old and new arguments for societies collapsing because they don't have enough stupid people to do the stupid work efficiently. Wars and revolutions have been fought because there were too many smart people. Rulers are often smarter in the same way sociopaths are smart. The poor want to escape their power so they imitate them and the whole societies fall apart. A ot of effort is spent getting enough people un-smarted enough to do the bidding of the vain/ccruel of middling intelligence.

        That said there are many illusions about 'freedom' most unreflective... stupid people love to parrot. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUAZRz1vWVo et se or Burn! at amazon and follow closely how 'freedom' means selling your best bargain by other means. Note too that slaves can't be trusted with any but the cheapest tools then reread Huxley.

        Philosophical issues often become very complex. This is not science though even pop-science misses the point in the papionic uest for power/certainty. Statistically we could say Communism saves lives by comparing China to India. The west centralism is disguised and at similar levels of development they were Dirigist too. The USA needs a new population to dispossess every few decades to give the appearance of functional efficiency... but it is largely illusory. China's coming task is to renew it's socialist foundations.

        For those western triumphalists here I suggest Dave Chappele's F' it then take a holiday in Greece.

        The proper answer lies in Detente Convergence: heavy regulation of large scale industry and loose controls on small/start-up business.
        Steve Spinella
            0
            Reply
        Nov 8 2011: I think that most educational scholars would tell you that education provides a good surrogate for measures of education. In other words, these are by no means independent variables. Others have made this point in other words, for instance by suggesting that Bushmen have an intelligence that enables them to survive in their environment that would not be reflected on an intelligence test composed by highly educated westerners.
        The talk makes a much clearer point--that the CHANGES in these variables are correlated more strongly with measures of CHANGE in economic productivity. Both India and China are changing rapidly, but not yet "finished" by any measure :-)
        thumb
        João Rijo
            0
            Reply
        Nov 11 2011: I have one adamant reply to that: Correlation doesn't mean causality + even if it did, it might be the other way around; meaning the IQ is lower cause there is a lower GDP growth
    Comment deleted
        thumb
        Tobias Duncan 200+
            0
            Reply
        Sep 12 2011: I find that statistic hard to swallow.Where did you get it?
        Ed Schulte 50+
            +2
            Reply
        Sep 12 2011: And the "Catch" is

        IQ has nothing to do with Creativity. For example

        The person with the tested highest IQ in the USA works as a doorman at his local bar.


喜欢这篇文章吗?欢迎发空信给 lihlii+subscribe@googlegroups.com 订阅《童言无忌》邮件组 发空信给 jrzl+subscribe@googlegroups.com 订阅《今日知录邮件组》。


发表评论