India can beat Asian peers, even China: Morgan Stanley

[LETHALFORCE]

well, those are superficial articles.

these articles are from the big western news magazines read all over the western world.

 

[Koji]

To be quite fair, there have been intermittent reports about India being a larger economy or India having a higher growth rate since 2000. Importantly, both claims have yet to be unsubstantiated. So while many Indians may aspire to achieve to "beat" China, compounded higher GDP growth rates in China have made it's economy around 23-25% bigger in 2009 relatively compared to India in 2000. I just think that this sort of short-term game of swooning over random papers by Morgan Stanley a bit foolish.


Also, who said that the manufacturing route was destined to fail? If anything in the history of Asia has shown us, is that China is on a perfectly normal road for its economic progression. You need to look at Japan, Taiwan, South Korea. Both began at a relatively simple but large scale export driven economy. Naturally, costs went up and manufacturing began to specialize. Look at Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea today. If anything, MANUFACTURING a good bet and the way to go.

 

[Rage]

the power of CHinese industry does not lie in its low labour cost, but in the following two superority:

1. Chinese has good infrastructures, that can match developed countries.

Indeed. The 'superior quality of your infrastructure' "comparable with the West" is evident in the more than 20,000 miners' deaths you experience every year [acknowledged officially to have increased by more than 20% year-on-year by the Chinese government in 2005 alone] or by the near-instantaneous demolition of supposedly tenacious structures that collapsed like a pack of cards miles from the epicenter during the Sichuan earthquake [later determined to be designed exceptionally poorly, some even without metal frames, others with cardboard girders!]. Ofcourse, the fact that with China's stupendously awesome economic growth comes concomitant with the demand upon local officials - and therefore upon contracted construction companies - to build everything from bridges to roads within stipulated (often ridiculous) time frames at cheap cost - at the inevitable expense of both design, construction and materials grades, as well as of any amendatory supervision - and that an increase in resistance grade usually bumps up construction costs by 5-10% may have something to do with it. Still, since your infrastructure is indeed "comparable with the West", perhaps you could explain why Hong Kong residents get "muddied and brown water" in their taps, or why villages outside your main cities still remain as rudimentary and primitive as ever (for all your much-touted 'gleaming' roads and amenities, they still do not extend to the vast majority of your villages, or why there are only about 250 Chinese cities (as gleaned from China's official higher education website) that have educational institutions that can offer a graduate degree in science or engineering, as opposed to close to a thousand in India. Or perhaps you could explain why frequent power cuts (of upto as much as 4 hours daily in the interior parts of small towns) occur, and power-rationing even for universities in major cities during the high-use winter and summer months exist? Or why upto as much as 20% of the residents in cities like Shanghai and Beijing - mostly migrant workers no less- live in homes without indoor taps, toilets or cooking facilities, or why residents often have to resort to performing their morning duties sitting on buckets in back allies that must then be taken to local collection centres for 'dumping'.

2. Chinese has full industry chain, that also can match USA and EU.

Perhaps so. That would require an analysis that would have to delve deep into the intricacies of the economies and moreover would have to be industry-specific. But, rest assured, your knowledge of the Indian industry and distribution chain is trivial and obsolete. Surface assessments based on the 'quality of infrastructure' are nugatory. To understand the Indian mode of productivity- and therefore the structure of the economy and industry chains- you must understand how we work: we thrive in chaos. There is a method to every madness in India. If you look carefully beneath the surface, you will find that despite the creeping inefficiencies in infrastructure, our success, delivery and performance rates are exceptional: the case of the dabbawallahs of Mumtroit are a case in point. India is the epitome of what we call: organized chaos.

For a more detailed assessment of the Indian industry chain, both pre and post-industry specific, including management practices, that provide an alternative viewpoint to your (generally held) misconception about the debilitating impacts of India's incomplete industrial chain:

Emerald: Article Request - Supply chain management practices in Indian industry

SSRN-Moving Up the Value Chain? Comparison of the Indian Textile Industry with the Chinese Textile Industry' Post-MFA by Saon Ray

http://www.cygnusindia.com/pdfs/Supply Chain Management in Automobile industry.pdf

Supply Chain Characteristics of the Petroleum Industry: The Indian Context | Article from South Asian Journal of Management | HighBeam Research

The distribution chain- Hindustan Times

India ascends in embedded value chain - CIOL Feature


Stay wary of judging a book by its cover. And in India's case, that is even more apt.

in fact, at least 60 developing countries have lower labour cost than China,but no other developing countries can afford to good infrastructure or full industry chain.

At the moment. So enjoy your glory.... while it lasts.

 

[Rage]

China: The Glitter and the Poison


In recent years, votaries of China's "market socialism" have marvelled at the speed of China's growth. The stunning skylines of China's redeveloped coastal cities and interior state capitals have left vistors in awe; and even those who have not had a chance to actually visit China are favorably intrigued by pictures of China's ultra-modern central business districts. With their broad avenues and towers of glass and steel soaring into the sky and impeccably paved sidewalks aesthetically enhanced with potted plants and greenery, China's cities display an elan that trumps New York or London. One might be tempted to think that China had finally arived on the international scene as a marvel of modern urban planning - a veritable model for other developing nations to emulate.

Without the obstacles and hindrances posed by private property rights, city governments have been able to redevelop entire urban zones with an alacrity and panache that appears quite stunning in comparison to the hotch-potch unplanned growth that one sees in most Indian cities. Clearly, state ownership of land has allowed China to accomplish a level of infrastructural development that is quite impressive.

Yet beneath the stylish and handsome urban facades is another reality that is not only just uncomfortable but perilously damaging. In April of this year, an AFP report mentioned that China officially acknowledged 6000 deaths of miners in 2004. Mining deaths in the first quarter of 2005 were up 20% over the previous year. Unofficial estimates however point to figures as high as 20,000. Although China produces about 30-35% of the world's coal, it is responsible for over 80% of mining deaths. 600,000 miners are reported to suffer from the debilitating black lung condition - a figure that is expected to grow by 70,000 annually. In 2003, China had officially reported over 17,000 deaths due to industrial accidents, though again, independent observers feel that is a significant under-estimate.

But this is not the only price paid by China's hapless workers. Not only are average working shifts for China's migrant construction workers much longer than the world average, workers are often simply not paid. According to estimates by the official Beijing Review in 2004, almost three quarters of the nation's migrant workers were owed wages amounting to over $12 Billion.

China's gleaming skyscrapers also impose many other sacrifices on the part of China's urban residents. Unlike in the rest of the world, there are few noise limits on China's construction companies. Whereas the Indian Supreme Court has put limits on construction activities so that residents are to be spared the assault of construction noise after sunset, it is routine for China's constuction companies to continue work well into the wee hours of the night. On week-nights, it is rare for construction to cease before midnight, and on weekends, it is not unusual for it to continue past 2 AM. Unending traffic jams and high levels of dust pollution are also par for the course.

In 2003-4, a World Bank study found that 16 of the 20 most polluted cities in the world were in China. Environmental activists in Hongkong are especially furious at the way the Chinese government has rigged its pollution-reporting algorithms so as to routinely downplay the incidence of daily pollutants. For instance, the Chinese environmental agency reports pollution levels for 84 major cities at this link: SEPA - Ambient Air Quality Reports for 84 Cities. On most days,it would appear that Chinese cities are not especially polluted, and pollution is well within stipulated norms. But a look at the formulae used to calculate pollution levels reveals an amazing sleight of hand. Through sheer statistical jugglery, the Chinese government succeeds in routinely under-reporting pollution by a factor of two or three. In extreme cases, SO2 and NO2 pollution could be actually 4 or 5 times higher than that reported by the government.

Stories in the Hongkong press have often cited residents complaining of getting discolored water in their taps - of it being muddy and brown, and entirely unfit to drink. The government, on the other hand, has claimed continued progress in the fight against air and water pollution. But going by the manner in which the Chinese government reports its air pollution data, such claims by the Chinese government merit a cautionary measure of skepticism.

Given the high rate of industrial accidents and toxic spills every year, it is not at all surprising that Chinese citizens complain as often about water that has a bad odour or an unusual color. Given the Chinese government's history of cover-ups, it is no accident that it took the government ten whole days to share the truth about the highly toxic benzene spill that polluted the Songhua river near the northern city of Harbin. Russian authorities were justifiably troubled by the late notice they were given of the looming disaster.

While governments throughout the world are guilty of prevarication and double-speak, the absence of an independent press, and the utter lack of democracy makes the situation in China considerably worse. Had the Chinese government been more forthcoming with its people, it is likely that residents would have had more time to store up on drinking water - preventing the sort of last-minute price-gouging that water-vendors were able to engage in. Poor residents were especially hard hit, because they owned few storage containers, and without adequate warning could do little to ameliorate their situation. And unsuprisingly, it wasn't just Harbin that was facing the consequences of a poisoned river - the city of Chongqing was also presented with a toxic leak in its river at about the same time.

There are thus, two very distinct sides to China's current political and economic trajectory. On the one hand, China has invested a lot more in fixed assets - and this has had a visible impact on the urban environment. It has also taken much greater initiative in developing its computer and electronics hardware industry. Going by Chinese government claims, it has also been growing faster than India. On the other hand, there is insufficient pressure to improve industrial or environmental safety or public health. China, for instance, holds the dubious distinction of having the world's highest concentration of tobacco users.

But even in terms of growth, it might be worth taking a closer look at Chinese government claims. For instance, two studies earlier this year revealed an odd discrepancy - trade figures reported by China's major trading partners (such as Japan, the US and the EU) were at odds with Chinese government claims, suggesting that trade growth had been exaggerated by 20%. While Chinese dissidents have reported numerous cases of wildly exaggerated growth claims in the interior, even more cautious and supportive economists have found Chinese claims of rural growth somewhat untenable.

For instance, until about two years ago, there was virtually no wage inflation in China's EPZs (Export Processing Zones). In spite of 20 years of unabated high growth, shop-floor wages remained flat. Had China's rural economy been growing at over 4% as has been claimed, it is simply unfathomable that China's rural poor would have accepted low-paid sweat-shop type jobs in the coastal EPZs year after year for over two decades wihout demanding higher wages. Nor would they have as easily accepted life threatening mining jobs that paid just a bit more. In India, even 7% growth leads to considerable wage pressures. It is inconceivable that a sustained 8%+ growth rate in China could have occurred without heightened wage pressures much sooner.

The only logical surmise is that there was little real growth in the countryside, and consequently, village migrants accepted any job at almost any price. This would then suggest that the economists who have argued that in past years China's real growth rate may have been 1-2% less than official claims (due to much lower rural growth) are perhaps on the mark.

Other anecdotal evidence also bears out the contention that rural growth in China is not what has been claimed. Journalists who have embarked on trips into China's rural heartland have been shocked to find how quickly conditions in the countryside deteriorate. A recent reporter was amazed to find how even in supposedly prosperous Guangdong province, just 50 miles away from the boomtowns, few rural homes had paved floors.

Another odd aspect about China's growth is that in contrast to India (which is purportedly growing at a slower pace) there are only about 250 cities that have educational institutions that can offer a graduate degree in science or engineering (as gleaned from China's official higher education website). India with its 25% smaller population has a 1000 cities (or small towns) with at least one college that can offer an undergraduate science or engineering program (as is evident from the data drawn from India's GISTNIC search engine and the UGC). Whereas China graduated about 350,000 engineers and computer specialists with at least 4yr degrees, India graduated almost 400,000 in 2004. (Western reports claiming 600,000 engineering graduates in China are incorrect because this figure includes those graduating with 2-3 year technical diplomas).

Although the Chinese government has expended considerable more effort in upgrading the research facilities at its leading universities, the spatial spread of higher education is significantly narrower. This further reinforces the notion that Chinese growth is much more skewed, and overwhelmingly concentrated in urban areas and the more prosperous coastal regions.

Even in terms of transport infrastructure there are anomalies. For instance, although China has built many more expressways linking its major cities, overall road length (per capita) is actually less than India's. Per capita passenger railway length is also somewhat lower in China although capacity for freight transportation is almost double India's. While China's railways carry four times as much freight, they carry only a fifth as many passengers. And although China has been claiming very high growth rates in power generation (as high as 18% in some years), anecdotal evidence of 4-8 hour daily power cuts in the residential parts of smaller towns abound. Even some university towns aren't spared power rationing during the high-use winter and summer months. Although export-oriented industries have far fewer complaints about inadequate power, Chinese residents and students posting on internet websites point to a somewhat different reality for many Chinese residents.

Even in terms of poverty reduction, the Chinese government has had to resort to changing the rules of the game. For instance, the UN has set the dollar a day standard for estimating poverty in the developing world. But the Chinese government has set its poverty line at 60c a day. With the general withdrawal of state subsidies, there is no longer any justification for such a low setting. Given how cold China's winters can be, even a dollar a day standard might not be adequate to correctly assess poverty since calorie requirements and clothing requirements in China's temperate zone would have to be much higher. It is therefore quite unlikely that China's official poverty rate of 5% is an accurate indicator of the level of deprivation in China.

Similarly, although the Chinese government claims that less than 5% of its urban residents live in slums, it is estimated that at least 20% of the residents in cities such as Shanghai and Beijing live in homes without indoor taps, toilets or cooking facilities. Residents perform their morning chores sitting on buckets in back allies that must then be taken at local collection centres for dumping the waste. Although China's "industrial housing units" are supposed to come with a shared toilet facility, the reality is that many do not. In snow-bound cities, housing units without any indoor plumbing are nothing but glorified slums, and ought to be classified as such. Although China claims that such problems will be sorted out before the Beijing Olympics in 2008, other cities will probably have to live with such inadequacies for some time to come.

This is not to suggest that the situation is any better in India or Indonesia or other African countries. The point is more that beneath the gleam of China's iridescent skyscrapers, there is also considerable inequity, albeit often masked by government subterfuge amd external collusion.

It is true that state ownership of land (with considerable restrictions on private property) and a command economy has allowed China to redevelop its cities with amazing speed and brilliant effect. By controlling its population growth, China has also been able to liberate a level of demand-growth that would not have been possible otherwise.

But the lack of participatory democracy has also led to a very rapacious brand of crony capitalism that has left the poorest of workers virtually voiceless, and has ravaged China's environment in a manner that is quite unparalled. China's political leaders have given heed neither to fairness and justice, nor to energy conservation, nor to environmental sustainability or public health. There also appears to be an unusual degree of mismatch between production and consumption. As China's cities have attempted to modernize as fast as possible, there is a glut in luxury office space and condominiums for the rich, but a shortage of affordable housing. Even in booming Shanghai actual occupancy rates can be as low as 20-30% in some of the fanciest of the new buildings.

In addition, it should be noted that 70% of the impetus of China's growth is emanating from external demand, and 75% of China's exports are controlled by companies where a majority stake is in the hands of foreigners. Owing to its unique geographic location (such as its proximity to developed nations such as Korea and Japan, and its more convenient location vis-a-vis the West coast of the US), it has emerged as a more favorable destination for outsourced manufacturing when compared to India or even Indonesia. It has also greatly benefited from the capital accumulated by the Chinese business diapora that is now finding its way back into China.

Moreover, unlike India, until a few years ago, China was self-sufficient in terms of energy resources. China is also blessed with many more all-season lakes and rivers, and unlike much of India (which enjoys only one major rainy season), much of China enjoys two wet seasons a year, making it much easier for Chinese farmers to raise two cereal crops and a vegetable crop every year. These are some natural advantages that cannot be replicated in India or most African countries.

It is certainly questionable if China would have enjoyed the same growth rates without these natural advantages. Had it needed to purchase 70% of its oil in the world market (like India), or if it had to expend as much on subsidizing agricultural irrigation (and other inputs) as India - it is an open question if China's urban areas would have enjoyed such dazzling growth.

In any case, those enamoured by the communist ideals of enlightened development and social equity should no longer harbor any illusions that China's growth trajectory has anything whatsoever to do with a "socialist" path of development.

In fact, a careful perusal of the history of China's Communist Party under Mao reveals a much more unsavory record than has been commonly acknowledged by Mao's many adoring fans in India. For instance author Michel Franz (although fascinated by Mao) elucidates (through numerous credible references) how even before the revolution, Mao repressed or betrayed proletarian factions within the Chinese Communist Party so that he and his peasant allies could control the Party.

Although there is a litany of Mao's public speeches extolling the virtues of the new "Socialist Era", his actual writings on economics, and his personal commentaries on Soviet economic practices reveals him to be more of a vulgar Chinese ultra-nationalist who was yet to be convinced of the virtues of a planned socialist economy.

What Mao wanted was for the representatives of the peasantry in the Chinese Army and Party to exercise hegemony over all other social-segments - particularly the scientific intelligentsia who he particularly grew to resent (consequent to their criticism of his handling of the Chinese economy in the late 1950s).

The Kissinger transcripts that have now been released reveal Mao to be not only insensitive on the issue of gender, but also someone who was politically reckless and insincere. There is an ill-concealed contempt for India and a seething hatred for the former Soviet Union that is repeatedly expressed in his conversations with Kissinger.

Even though it was the Soviet Army and not Mao's army that had defeated the Japanese in Manchuria, not only was Mao an utter ingrate towards the Soviet Union, he had this extraordinary notion that he ought to be considered the leader of the world's "anti-imperialist" movement. But like everything else, Mao's "anti-imperialism" was nothing but a grand posture, intended more as a bargaining ploy to gain respect from the US, and to gain diplomatic points against India in Asia and Africa.

[...]

 

[Rage]

[...]


Ultimately, of course, the facts speak for themselves:

Notwithstanding his anti-imperialistic pretensions, Mao befriended Pakistan (which was then in complete collusion with Anglo-American imperialism) and launched an unnecessary war against non-aligned India supposedly to teach Nehru "a lesson" for his "arrogance". Nehru's crime? He had been asking the Chinese to change their maps in which vast amounts of territory under Indian control had been claimed as Chinese. These were territories over which China could have had little legitimate claim - something Mao admitted as much to Kissinger - but when Nehru lost patience with disingenuous Chinese negotiators, Mao decided to "teach the Indians a lesson", conveniently forgetting how the Nehru government had, in fact, been one of its greatest champions in the UN.

Even China's claim on Tibet was somewhat stretched since for much of Tibet's history, it had been an independant state; only in more recent history, had it been conquered by the Manchu invaders and reduced to a tribute-paying colony of the Chinese imperial government - hardly the basis for an indisputable sovereign claim.

Under Mao's tutelage, the Chinese government supported the fanatic Pol Pot regime in Cambodia which led to an extraordinary genocide of the intelligentsia. Also during Mao's watch, the Chinese government betrayed the leftists in Chile who had sought shelter from Chilean dictator Pinochet's death squads. At the same time, the Chinese government sided with stooges of the CIA and the apartheid regime in South Africa against the liberation movements in Southern Africa.

Although the Chinese Communist Party eventually moved away from Mao's messianic peasant orientation, its foreign policy under Deng remained wedded to the US. Its cynical supply of arms to the Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan was perhaps most instrumental in bringing down the Soviet Union. But more significant for India is how its support for Islamic mercenaries led to an all-round weakening of secular forces in both the Indian subcontinent and the Middle-East.

Yet, in spite of all this (and perhaps much more), the mystique of Mao survives in the hearts and minds of many Indians. While India's naxalites continue to swear by Mao, India's CPM leaders and CPM-oriented intellectuals (as well as many neo-liberals) are swayed by China's booming metros, and little moved by the unrelenting casualties in China's mines and factories. The toxic spills, the poisons in the air and water - all this is too easily forgotten.

This is not to say that India and China should not cooperate whenever possible, ties should be improved to the extent possible. However, one ought not entertain starry-eyed illusions about the contours of Chinese growth. China's wrenching dualities must be acknowledged by those seeking to improve the plight of India's poor and working masses.

A recent photograph from Beijing captured a truly poignant Chinese contradiction - a towering skyscraper, an immaculate sidewalk - and an utterly pathetic child - hardly five years old with sullen and hurt looks in his eyes, seated edgily on the bare pavement - playing a single-stringed instrument - hoping for alms, as businessmen in their suits walked hurriedly by...

At the altar of the translucent skyscraper - it seemed only inevitable that that forlorn child would feel utterly out of place at the feet of the newly rich as they marched by - briskly and purposefully towards their next business venture.

China has arrived, but is it the glitter or the poison that should engage us?

Should our eyes lock into the magnificent splendor of China's urban landscape, or should they droop in sympathy with the realization of some child's hapless deprivation? Should we marvel at China's spectacular growth or be cautious in mimicking its reckless plunder of scarce resources? Should we admire the zeal of China's capitalists or be wary how they may poison the pristine beauty of nature's bounty?

China has arrived, but is it the glitter or the poison that should engage us?


Notes:

The Magic of Chinese Statistics:

A look at Chinese press reports on China's vehicle sales seem to reinforce the notion that there is little consistency in the way economic data is reported in China.

A June 16, 2004 China Daily report (available online on China.org.cn - Business) asserts: "CAAM predicted at the beginning of this year that the full-year vehicle output will reach 5.5 to 5.62 million units, up from 4.44 million units last year."

In other words, CAAM (China Association of Automobile Manufacturers)
had placed China's 2003 vehicle output at 4.44 million units. The same report broke down May 2004 vehicle sales as follows: Passenger Cars: 177,000, Trucks: 115,000 and Buses: 103,500.

But a Dec 7, 2005 Xinhua News Agency report claimed that in the first nine months of the year, car production amounted to 735,700 up 42.3 percent over a year earlier.

This would place the nine month car production for 2004 at around 500,000, or 12 month car production at about 667,000 - only one third of the annual production suggested by the June 16, 2004 sales for May. In fact, CAAM had placed combine April and May 2004 sales at 397,600, and implied that March sales were about 226,000. For car sales to have grown 42.3 percent in 2005, only 43,400 cars could have been sold in 2004 in all the other months - hardly plausible if average sales figures (using the March-May numbers) were running at over 200,000 a month.

Less than a week later, on 13 Dec 2005, the Xinhua News Agency released a report headlined "Auto Market Getting over Downturn" which quoted CAAM as claiming that Novembor 2005 car sales were at 285,700 a 23% increase over October 2005, and that 11 month total vehicle sales were at 3.5 million units - a 20% increase over the same period in 2004 - suggesting that total sales for 2004 would have been around 3.2 million units, i.e. - only 72% of 2003 sales.

In other words, sales for 2004 dropped 28% over 2003, and unless vehicle sales more than doubled in December (over November) of 2005, total vehicle sales for 2005 would be only 88% of 2003 sales.

For the sales growth figures to be correct for 2005, either the figures reported in 2003 were grossly exaggerated, or else, there was a steep 28% sales decline in 2004; but even with a recovery in 2005, vehicle sales for 2005 appear to be 12% lower than 2003.

Such a drop is quite remarkable since the Chinese government has been reporting economic growth of over 9% for virtually every quarter in 2004 and 2005.

However, the oddities concerning China's vehicle sales don't quite end here. Even as the CAAM was reporting a 20% rise in sales over 2004, the statistics bureau of the Chinese Government was reporting a 28% increase in vehicle sales. Unless the average price of every car sold increased by 40% - a 20% increase in sales volume could not possibly yield a 28% growth in sales revenue. Considering that the government has been tightening up on loans, and encouraging sales of smaller vehicles, it is quite unlikely that there could have been such a wholesale shift towards substantially more expensive vehicles in a single year.

Clearly, both the Chinese Press and Chinese Statistics Agencies are throwing around growth figures that are difficult to reconcile with the facts on the ground.


China, economy, development, pollution, toxics, air, water quality, environment, industrial safety, democracy, workers rights, government propaganda, peasantry, Mao, Chinese Communist Party

 

[F-14]

Also, who said that the manufacturing route was destined to fail? If anything in the history of Asia has shown us, is that China is on a perfectly normal road for its economic progression. You need to look at Japan, Taiwan, South Korea. Both began at a relatively simple but large scale export driven economy. Naturally, costs went up and manufacturing began to specialize. Look at Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea today. If anything, MANUFACTURING a good bet and the way to go.

I agree but then Koji You guys viz viz the Kingdom of Japan and the Other Asian tigers (PRC not Inclded ) have embraced A hard Asset way of doing things and not to say that You guys make orginal product and High quality ones with out copying we Indians tend to be what you can call a Geek economy Knowlage based we the NRI's are Indias chife Export and while i do admit that may of things of the Third world still linger in India :cray: but we are still doing good enough there is another factor here i have observed is that many developed economies he excqution as their basic strong point which we dont but still confident that the world will see a diffrent India Down the line

 

[Rage]

sorry, to increase your knowledge and keep you away from ignorance is not my duty...

Listen you anime-loving manga boy, if you can't stomach the fact that you have to provide sources for your claims, and follow the established protocol of debate on this forum, you can BUZZ da F*CK OFF.

I won't say this again: the next time you refuse to provide sources for your information- as we ALL do - I'll show you what a 'badguy' really is.

 

[Rage]

As to the quality of your paltry products, I will let you judge for yourselves:

YouTube - New Chinese Car Crash Test Disaster - 2007 Brilliance BS6

YouTube - china cherry motors car crash test

YouTube - Chinese 4WD crash test

If these are your 'industry standards', I'd rather ride in my 1962 jalopy.


As for the quality of your military equipment...

I trust you can see the problem.

 

[thakur_ritesh]

right chaps, back to the topic. badguy, support your claims with sources.

thanks.

 

[Koji]

Rage, nobody is arguing that China is already a developed modern country. You're China-bashing article about poverty is noted, but you'll inevitably lose in a debate regarding India/China poverty and quality of life. It's not really productive.

Also, safety quality of cars is also unwise given that the same argument can be made of Indian cars.

 

[Rage]

Rage, nobody is arguing that China is already a developed modern country. You're China-bashing article about poverty is noted, but you'll inevitably lose in a debate regarding India/China poverty and quality of life. It's not really productive.

Also, safety quality of cars is also unwise given that the same argument can be made of Indian cars.

Koji, before you launch on your chastening diatribe, read the part of "badguy2000"s post that I was responding to. Mr. badguy2000 alleges that the quality of both "infrastructure" and the "industrial chain" in China is on par with that of the West.


There is absolutely no doubt that "poverty levels" in India surpass those of China. I need no Japanese to tell me that. That is "inevitably" the result of China's 20 year head-start on us vis-a-vis economic 'modernization'. As far as comparisons about the "quality of life" are concerned, the very term is a loose, amorphous, debatable concept. And as such, I will never fail to disagree with you that I would much rather prefer to live in a country where I can censure and chastise my 'officials' than in one where I had to live in incessant fear and constant trepidation at the words that issue from my mouth. What you fail to realize however, is that neither "poverty" nor "quality of life" are static economic concepts.


China's "safety of cars" - as with a wide plethora of their other products, is definitely a cause for concern - not least because the world consumes them in such mass quantities. If as badguy professes, "one chinese company will definitely overtake Japanese company to become biggest auto-making company in the world", and if the present shoddy cost-cutting devices continue simply to maintain comparative economic advantage, given that China is no hub of innovation and will not be for many more years, then they are an even bigger source of concern.


Have you even read the article in its entirety?


P.S. :How come every incriminating article critical of China's "stupendous" economic progress is either "superficial" or "China-bashing" ? Even when it presents logical arguments and valid facts to corroborate each claim.

P.P.S. : And how come a 'concerned' 'Jap' such as yourself displays such undue empathy at this alleged "China-bashing"?


Now, hear me loud and hear me clear: Your 'concern' for China is noted. If you don't like this "China-bashing" article posted by an Indian on an Indian forum, you are free to vamooze.

 

[Koji]

Just because I'm Japanese means that I have an undue contempt for all Chinese? Do you actually believe that every single Japanese citizen hates the Chinese? I bet you did not know that our PM visits to war shrines are met with large domestic demonstrations against it.

Along the same lines, you make an unreasonable assumption again that the Chinese have no innovative capacity. They're not at the top, but they're definetely not at the bottom. Let me balance your viewpoint:

Top 15 International Patent Filings by Country (2005)

1. United States (46,115 international patent filings)
2. Japan (24,829)
3. Germany (16,002)
4. France (5,736)
5. United Kingdom (5,103)
6. South Korea (4,686)
7. Netherlands (4,530)
8. Switzerland (3,264)
9. Sweden (2,858)
10. China (2,501)
11. Italy (2,351)
12. Canada (2,322)
13. Australia (1,999)
14. Finland (1,890)
15. Israel (1,456)


Read more: Most Inventive Countries: Top 15 Global Countries with Most International Invention Patents | Suite101.com

"International filings from northeast Asian countries showed robust growth in 2005. Global filings from Japan increased 22.5%, while applications from South Korea and China improved 31.7% and 46.6% respectively. The average annual increase for all countries in 2005 was 10.7%. Canada's filings rose 10.3% while America's increase was 6.4%."

The last paragraph is especially pertinent b/c it shows more importantly an increase in innovation.



Finally...Chinese safety standards are a major concern, but I believe that it'll prove. It was not that long ago that Japanese and Korean products (especially cars) were ridiculed by the West for our quality standards. I do not need to tell you now where our industries stand.

 

[Known_Unknown]

Koji, please indicate whether those patent filings are by Chinese companies or foreign companies based in China. I think you'll find it is the latter. And in that case, it can hardly be called China's achievement.

 

[Koji]

ScienceDirect - World Patent Information : Chinese patent applications reach six figures in 1996

This Journal article indicates a 80% to 20% in Domestic vs Foreign companies in China for patents. This is a bit dated, 1996. The website I used earlier does not indicate specifically. Perhaps you have the informaiton?

The World's Most Innovative Countries: No. 1 ? Singapore - BusinessWeek

This is a businessweek assessment of the most innovative countries. China is ranked at 27, Hong Kong at 6. You can peruse it.

 

[Known_Unknown]

This Journal article indicates a 80% to 20% in Domestic vs Foreign companies in China for patents. This is a bit dated, 1996. The website I used earlier does not indicate specifically. Perhaps you have the informaiton?

Those are patents filed at the Chinese Patent Office, not international patents.

The number of applications filed in 1996 reached 102,735, 23.7% higher than the total number of 83,044 made in 1995. Of the 1996 applications, 80% came from domestic applicants and 20% were of foreign origin. The Chinese Patent Office granted 43,780 patents in the same year.

I was asking if there was a way to determine how many of the 2,501 patents filed by China according to your earlier article were from Chinese companies and from foreign companies in China.

In my opinion, the majority would be from foreign companies in China. Just think can you recall even a single large Chinese private corporation? I can't. I can recall many large Japanese companies: Toshiba, Matsushita, Toyota, Honda etc. Even Korean companies like Samsung, LG and Indian companies like TATA, Infosys, Wipro, L&T are well known.

Most large Chinese companies are bloated state controlled entities that are practically immune to fluctuation in demand, because the Chinese govt can bail them out anytime they're in trouble. Such companies don't produce or employ world class engineers or scientists, they employ people with a bureaucratic mindset that can carry out the directives of the CCP. Can't imagine them filing large numbers of international patents.

 

[Known_Unknown]

The World's Most Innovative Countries: No. 1 ? Singapore - BusinessWeek

This is a businessweek assessment of the most innovative countries. China is ranked at 27, Hong Kong at 6. You can peruse it.

How can you possibly take seriously an article that ranks Iceland, Hong Kong and Singapore ahead of the US in terms of innovation? I don't know what methodology they used, but there's no way Hong Kong is more innovative than the US.

 

[Rage]

Just because I'm Japanese means that I have an undue contempt for all Chinese? Do you actually believe that every single Japanese citizen hates the Chinese? I bet you did not know that our PM visits to war shrines are met with large domestic demonstrations against it.

I couldn't give a pigeon's arse about what your citizens think of Taro Aso or any of his predecessor's visits to Japanese "war shrines". I am concerned only with your undue empathy towards the Chinese- surprisingly enough, almost as if you were Chinese yourself! And not merely on this thread, but reflective of a general surreptitious disposition in every other that has been graced with your presence, and that we are all too used - and loathe - to seeing. Moreover, you have a history of lying and/or concealing information even when an attempt is made to coax it out of you: from everything about your current location (resolvable via IP) to the full extent of your ethnic background, and almost everyone that has interacted with you on this board is of the same opinion. Do you not think as a guest on our forum, you are obligated to inform us in full about your ideological background - and if you are not, what kind of response do you expect when you 'empathize' so compellingly- even to the point of criticizing anything that is diagnostic of your sympathized views as "China-bashing". Really, do you think we are that foolish? Or do I not need to tell you that there are several ways of resolving those 'discrepancies'.

Along the same lines, you make an unreasonable assumption again that the Chinese have no innovative capacity. They're not at the top, but they're definetely not at the bottom. Let me balance your viewpoint:

I challenge you to quote to me where I either said or implied that "the Chinese have no innovative capacity". If you have even a rudimentary understanding of the English language, and anything other than a languid attention-span, you would not be foolish enough to make that accusation. Nevertheless, I somehow knew in provectus that your response would follow the following trajectory- almost as if you were keen to defend the Chinese on every (perceived) affront, and the nature of your response only belies your suspicions - and confirms mine. Once again, I and everyone else here have a deep loathing for slyness.

Top 15 International Patent Filings by Country (2005)

1. United States (46,115 international patent filings)
2. Japan (24,829)
3. Germany (16,002)
4. France (5,736)
5. United Kingdom (5,103)
6. South Korea (4,686)
7. Netherlands (4,530)
8. Switzerland (3,264)
9. Sweden (2,858)
10. China (2,501)
11. Italy (2,351)
12. Canada (2,322)
13. Australia (1,999)
14. Finland (1,890)
15. Israel (1,456)

I am well aware. Among the subjects I study, is economics - and keeping abreast of major intellectual property developments is but one aside. Read however the aforementioned irrelevancy (since you cannot in the remotest point out where I said "China has no innovative capacity"). And while we're at it, let me help you with an updated, even more rigorous, statistical composition of patent filings by country:

World Patent Report: A Statistical Review (2008)

Read more: Most Inventive Countries: Top 15 Global Countries with Most International Invention Patents | Suite101.com

"International filings from northeast Asian countries showed robust growth in 2005. Global filings from Japan increased 22.5%, while applications from South Korea and China improved 31.7% and 46.6% respectively. The average annual increase for all countries in 2005 was 10.7%. Canada's filings rose 10.3% while America's increase was 6.4%."

The last paragraph is especially pertinent b/c it shows more importantly an increase in innovation.

An "increase in innovation", measured via international patent filings, has generally been the norm for almost every country - with the exception of 2006 and 2008 in the case of India. But that is not the only indicator of "innovation". You are making a semantic argument, moreover one that is irrelevant to what you allege to be my words (because those are not my words).

It is also pertinent to remember the underlying causes for that fact. According to Francis Gurry, the deputy-director general at WIPO overseeing its Patent Cooperation Treaty work (from whence both your outdated, and my recent statistics are derived): "We [the World Intellectual Property Organisation] expect India to grow rapidly in life-sciences research, but at this juncture its considerable research and development activity has not translated into patent filings." That is merely to keep things in perspective.


Further, it is also pertinent to recognize the "mechanism of percentages", and that in numerical terms, the marginal, annual growth in US patent filings continue to outstrip China's by as much as twice the latter, even while its absolute annual patent filings are about ten times that of China's and account for a third of the world total.


You realize the arguments we are making here. That is a semantic response to your inane, semantic argument. If that is the appalling level of your logic and focus, you are better off slinking away, for we generally have higher standards here in a serious argument.


And for more on domestic patent filing trends in India, see:

Patent Filing Trend in India

Finally...Chinese safety standards are a major concern, but I believe that it'll prove. It was not that long ago that Japanese and Korean products (especially cars) were ridiculed by the West for our quality standards. I do not need to tell you now where our industries stand.

You believe that "it'll prove" ? It'll prove what ? Improve perhaps, even likely - certainly it would seem the logical [and empirical] way forward. But then again, with the CCP's lust for growth [and its display] (quite evident in its not infrequent fact-fudging, statistical-embellishing, declarations followed by diffident implementation and numerous, significant cover ups), it is quite feasible that these will continue to remain at their abysmally low levels (for a country that is competing with the West) for a long time to come.

 

[badguy2000]

Those are patents filed at the Chinese Patent Office, not international patents.



I was asking if there was a way to determine how many of the 2,501 patents filed by China according to your earlier article were from Chinese companies and from foreign companies in China.

In my opinion, the majority would be from foreign companies in China. Just think can you recall even a single large Chinese private corporation? I can't. I can recall many large Japanese companies: Toshiba, Matsushita, Toyota, Honda etc. Even Korean companies like Samsung, LG and Indian companies like TATA, Infosys, Wipro, L&T are well known.

Most large Chinese companies are bloated state controlled entities that are practically immune to fluctuation in demand, because the Chinese govt can bail them out anytime they're in trouble. Such companies don't produce or employ world class engineers or scientists, they employ people with a bureaucratic mindset that can carry out the directives of the CCP. Can't imagine them filing large numbers of international patents.

1. pls don't take " patent" too serious.Chinese didn't get into the game until 1990s,

the 2nd world countries like Soviet and CHinese didn't get in touch with the concept of "patent"
but as we know, Soviet developed the first satllite and the fist spaceship.

Russia's AK47 has not apply patent either..
the same thing also happened to many chinese products.

For example, Chinese worked out global first “Artificial insulin“ in 1960s, fairly speaking, such a creation derserved Nobel prize. but CHinese didn't apply patent for it ,either.




2. as for "patent" ,chinese is catch up very rapidly.


for example,

chinese Huawei is the company who applied most patents in 2008,according to WIPO.

here is a link of CHinese report ......I has not found english report.s but it can be vetified by WIPO's website.
?????????????10???+4????? ????

3. of course ,the quality of chinese patent still needs improvement.
here is a chinese report;
it says that the NO. of chinese patents has surpassed 3 million and is most in the world already.but many of those patents are " useless garbage".

´óÑóÐÂÎÅ - ÎÒ¹úרÀûÉêÇëÊýÁ¿ÊÀ½çµÚÒ» 80%¶¼ÊÇ"À¬»ø"?

 

[Rage]

X-Posting this from the 'Indian Economy' thread, original courtesy of brotha daredevil.


x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x


Roach Says India May Outperform Others in Asia-Pacific Region

By M.C. Govardhana Rangan and Kartik Goyal
June 3, 2009 07:39 EDT


June 3 (Bloomberg) -- Stephen Roach, chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia, is more optimistic about economic growth prospects in India than China, saying the country may outperform others in the Asia-Pacific region.

“India is a more balanced economy than the rest of export- led Asia,” Roach told reporters in Mumbai today. “India could actually outperform at the margin the rest of the region.”

The country’s benchmark stock index has climbed 22 percent since the May 16 re-election of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s government without the need of support from the Communist parties, who had blocked economic reforms during the previous term. That may embolden Singh to push for higher overseas investment limits in the pension and insurance industries, apart from selling stakes in state-run companies.

“The recent election changes the prospects for reforms,” Roach said. “What has been missing in this interplay between the micro and the macro has been the political impetus to reforms.”

The Indian economy stabilized in the first quarter, maintaining the 5.8 percent pace of expansion recorded in the preceding three months. Growth in China’s gross domestic product slowed to 6.1 percent from 6.8 percent in the same period, owing to the dependence on overseas sales.

“China faces major challenges for the first time in 30 years,” Roach said. “It pushed its export-led model too far, leaving it too dependent on the external climate.”


Growth Forecast

Morgan Stanley on May 28 raised India’s growth forecast to 5.8 percent in the fiscal year to March 31, 2010, from an earlier estimate of 4.4 percent. The economic growth in the $1.2 trillion economy may turn out to be the real surprise in Asia, Roach said.

Six interest-rate cuts in seven months and fiscal stimulus measures are providing the nation with a boost worth almost 7 percent of gross domestic product, according to the central bank.

The central bank forecasts the economy will grow 6 percent in the fiscal year that started April 1, compared with average growth of 8.5 percent in the previous five years. India’s fiscal year runs from April 1 to March 31.

The economy won’t get back to an 8 percent pace of growth for two years, Roach said.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh secured re-election last month, with his Congress party getting 206 lawmakers of its own. That’s the most since 1991, when Singh as finance minister abandoned Soviet-style state planning and introduced free-market policies that helped India’s economy quadruple in size.

Selling stakes in state-run companies is important for the nation to reduce its fiscal deficit, Roach said. India’s fiscal deficit widened to a seven-year high of 6.2 percent in the fiscal to March 31 as government borrowed more to fund fiscal stimulus packages.


Last Updated: June 3, 2009 07:39 EDT


Roach Says India May Outperform Others in Asia-Pacific Region - Bloomberg.com

 

[Rage]

This is a slightly dated article (Feb 2007), but I post it here nevertheless. It proffers an interesting analysis of India's 10-year stock market performance measured via ETF's through the MSCI indices vis-a-vis the other BRIC countries, and a comparison of the Barclay’s iPath ETN and Morgan Stanley managed CEF investment funds:

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x


Shadowed By the China Craze, India Outperforms


Over the past 10 years, India has outperformed China, Russia and Brazil, the other members of the BRIC complex (Brazil, Russia, India and China). It has also outperformed the overall emerging markets. Virtually all of the important gains for all of the BRIC and other emerging markets took place since 2002. India has nearly quadrupled in value over the last 10 years.
Interestingly, China has underperformed the overall emerging markets on a 10-year basis. Except for 1998, China underperformed the other BRIC countries as well.

China has been getting more press lately than India and there are more investment funds available for China oriented investors than there are for those interested in India.

Two of the choices for investing in India are:

• (INP), the Barclay’s iPath ETN (exchange traded note)
• (IIF), the Morgan Stanley managed CEF (closed-end fund)
INP is a stock market listed debt instrument, the principle of which is adjusted to equal the performance of the MSCI India Total Return index, less the management fee of 89 basis points.

IIF, actively managed by Morgan Stanley, is a leading CEF with wide portfolio manager discretion. Its expense ratio is 137 basis points.

We tend to like INP more than IIF because we desire the ability analyze historical attributes of the portfolio. That is easy to do with an index fund, but difficult if not impossible to do with an actively managed fund with an extremely broad investment objective. Consider the IIF investment objective below – you are buying management and performance, but not information about what you own under the hood.

IIF Investment Objective: Morgan Stanley India Investment Fund, Inc. is a non-diversified, closed-end management investment company. The Fund's investment objective is long-term capital appreciations, which it seeks to achieve by investing primarily in equity securities of Indian issuers. The Fund will invest at least 65% of its total assets in equity securities of Indian issuers; which for this purpose means common and preferred stock bonds, notes and debentures convertible into common or preferred stock, stock purchase warrants and rights, equity interests in trusts and partnerships and American , Global and other types of Depositary Receipts. The Fund may invest up to 25% of its total assets in unlisted equity securities of Indian issuers.

Now consider the “investment objective” for INP (the fund doesn’t actually have a portfolio but it’s value is pegged to the benchmark index). You are buying the index and can research that thoroughly.

IPN Investment Objective: The iPath MSCI India Index ETNs are linked to the MSCI India Total Return Index (the "Index"). The Index is a free float-adjusted market capitalization index designed to measure the market performance, including price performance and income from dividend payments, of Indian equity securities. The Index is currently comprised of the top 68 companies by market capitalization listed on the National Stock Exchange of India (the "NSE").

Counter-Party Risk: As we have noted in a prior article, ETN’s introduce a counter-party credit risk element, but at this time, we do not believe that risk is material. The total of liabilities of iPath ETN’s relative to Barclay’s overall size is not something of concern to us today. As ETN’s increase total liabilities for Barclay’s over time, the question of counter-party risk should be periodically re-evaluated.

Top Ten Holdings of Each Fund (as of 12/31/2006):

The two funds share 3 of their top holdings in common (Infosys, HDFC Bank and ITC).

Annualized Performance (as of December 2006):

It’s hard to say which will produce better returns going forward. The 1-year performance is an effective draw and the 3-year performance favors INP, but the 5-year history favors IIF. Giving more weight to the more recent periods, we think INP probably has the lead. Only time will tell.

* * * * *

We prefer INP to IIF due to a nearly 50 basis point expense advantage, greater portfolio visibility and ability to analyze the underlying portfolio characteristics to make our own decisions -- not having to rely on the alpha from security selection, but rather the alpha from tactical asset allocation through active indexing instead.


Shadowed By the China Craze, India Outperforms -- Seeking Alpha

x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x

And a more recent article on the growth prospects for India's Exchange-Traded Funds:

India ETFs: Full Steam Ahead or Due For a Correction?

June 06, 2009


One of the bright spots in the first half of the year has been the Indian ETFs, which surged last month when the Indian National Congress (INC) party won enough votes to form a government in Delhi without allies for the first time since the 1960s. Election of a party generally viewed as pro-business, as well as the prospect of rule without coalition dynamics, sent India's markets skyward, with most major indices posting one-day gains near 25% following the announcement of results. While many pundits speculated that Indian ETFs were overbought following the fierce rally, these funds have continued to rise in the weeks following the election, causing investors to wonder just how high they can go.


Banking on Reform

The Bombay Stock Exchange's 30-stock Sensitive Index (Sensex) closed Thursday above the key 15,000 mark, a level last seen in early September. So what's been spurring gains since the election results? A lot of hope and promises. Pratibha Patil, leader of the INC, recently announced that minority stakes in state-run firms would be sold in an attempt to fund spending on infrastructure and other projects. ICICI Bank recently announced that it would cut lending rates by 50 basis points, a move that many hope will boost loan growth and lower future default risk.

Record Foreign Fund Inflows

Foreign funds have been responsible for a large part of the rally, injecting approximately $6 billion into the Indian market since March, after pulling out about $13 billion during 2008. While equity markets around the globe have managed strong recoveries in recent months as well, these rallies pale in comparison to the current Indian bull market. The extent of future foreign inflows is uncertain: if developed equity markets continue to show signs of recovery, foreign investment may slow. On the other hand, if the highly-anticipated "return to growth in the second half of 2009" doesn't materialize, U.S. investors may look overseas for alternatives.


Next Up: Budget Announcements

The new government will announce its budget in early July, a move that will no doubt be closely scrutinized by Indian investors. The consensus expectation is that Indian markets will generally track other global markets until then. The risk at the budget announcement appears to be on the downside. The INC has already announced numerous pro-business reforms (and investors have already anticipated countless others), indicating that any policy surprises will likely be negative.


Due For a Correction?

Fears of an overextended bull market appear to be gathering steam, with many institutional investors and advisors expressing doubt over the ability of the new government to live up to the hype. Fearing that the market has rallied on optimism that fundamentals will not support, an increasing number of investors are bracing for a correction. According to K.K. Mital, head of portfolio management services at Globe Capital, "Some signs of new policy measures to lift growth are there, but meeting the expectations of the market would be difficult for the government."

On the other hand, skeptics were out in full force following the one-day gains in the wake of the election results. Claiming that the rally was based on overly-optimistic hopes of reform, many analysts anticipated a correction at that point. Several Indian ETFs have gained between 7% and 10% since then, however, as these bears watched from the sidelines.

For investors looking to gain exposure to India, there are a number of ETFs available, including INP, EPI, and PIN.


Disclosure: No positions


India ETFs: Full Steam Ahead or Due For a Correction? -- Seeking Alpha