India Vs Brazil, which one is stronger?

[jazzguy]

The real question for this thread should be: India Vs Brazil - which one is more corrupt.

I think increasingly if you look at the BRIC countries in general (leave Russia out since the population is small)- the key indicator for future strength and success will be which one of these 3 countries is most successful in reducing corruption. China may have moved ahead but it still has huge pocket of people who live and work for peanuts and corruption at every level like India. So it may still crack and tumble because if they cant close the gap between Rich and Poor.

Between India and Brazil, both countries have tremendous potential but the Corruption levels are unbearable. The gap between Rich and Poor is expanding rapidly and this will eventually create all kinds of social problems for both countries.

But Brazil has 2 huge advantages over India:

1) It is not surrounded by any hostile heighbours - in fact it has no hostile neighbours despite bordering so many other countries. Latin American countries are very unlikely to ever go to war with each other. Brazil can spend its defense dollars on hi-tech weapons and research projects while maintaing a modest sized military. India has to support a huge army and send much more on defense.

2) Brazil still has tons of space to expand for its population and to build new cities, etc. It is not over populated. The big cities may be crowded but there is plenty of area to expand and it is almost all fertile land.

Unlike Brazil and China, India rise is considered benign by west countries. We, India, don't know why Brazil and China became so assertive when we engage with them. GDP is nothing. (Is this sounds familiar?)

 

[AOE]

China is assertive, but Brazil isn't in the overall picture. Brazils rise to super power status is economics based, although their armed forces are growing considerably.

 

[jazzguy]

China is assertive, but Brazil isn't in the overall picture. Brazils rise to super power status is economics based, although their armed forces are growing considerably.

I see. We, India, still need to create the same rival in order to obtain space technology and other high tech weapons from a new patron. I though we already gained missile, nuclear and rocket technology from old patrons by creating the same rival in 1950's.

 

[amitkriit]

I see. We, India, still need to create the same rival in order to obtain space technology and other high tech weapons from a new patron. I though we already gained missile, nuclear and rocket technology from old patrons by creating the same rival in 1950's.

China and allies have invented a new weapon, its called "become a low-life troll and bore the netizens to death" weapon. A lethal weapon indeed for Cyberwarfare.

 

[sukhish]

brazil will not surpass china or india. it just dones't have that thing in them. sometime you can't the explain the thing, but you know it's true. regarding china, let's see who are it's friends: north korea, pakistan etc. when I was a kid I was told that a man is know by the company he keeps, I think that pretty much sums up china. it may look stronger because of high GDP growth but it also like brazil just doesn't have that thing.

 

[kickok1975]

brazil will not surpass china or india. it just dones't have that thing in them. sometime you can't the explain the thing, but you know it's true. regarding china, let's see who are it's friends: north korea, pakistan etc. when I was a kid I was told that a man is know by the company he keeps, I think that pretty much sums up china. it may look stronger because of high GDP growth but it also like brazil just doesn't have that thing.

Brazil is the black horse. What exactly the "Thing" you refer to that they are missing? When India is busy battling with Pakistan and western countries focus on containing China, the black horse is silently rising which leave old world powers such as France, British behind. Brazil enjoys a positive environment to develop that both China, India don't have. It will be a manner of time for majority of people to realize Brazil's true potential.

 

[amoy]

China has felt the might of Brazil
* China had to lend $10 billion to Brazil's Petrobras, in return for guaranteed oil supply over the next decade.
* Chinese manufacturers feel great agony when Brazilian miner Vale SA hikes iron ore price
* China is now Brazil's top trade partner, after displacing the United States in 2009 (Guess who's to be hurt most if the trading gets blocked?)
* Brazil has 2 a/c - Minas Gerais (A11) light strike/ASW aircraft carrier, and Sao Paulo (A12) light strike/ASW carrier, while China has none (up to the moment)

The US can easily play a grand strategy of "Offshore Balancing" with China or India. But for now Brazil is left alone on the south hemisphere with a perfect environment for a "peaceful" rise!

 

[AOE]

Brazils economic prosperity is partially credited to the fact that it has had half a century head start over India and China, not just its location away from the worlds major conflicts. It also has strong relations with the US, but a smaller armed forces compared to the other BRIC countries. Whether or not this will change in the future is hard to say at this point.

 

[nrj]

But Brazil has 2 huge advantages over India:

1) It is not surrounded by any hostile heighbours - in fact it has no hostile neighbours despite bordering so many other countries. Latin American countries are very unlikely to ever go to war with each other. Brazil can spend its defense dollars on hi-tech weapons and research projects while maintaing a modest sized military. India has to support a huge army and send much more on defense. [/SIZE]

Which in turn makes India, a more powerful & proven armed force than Brazil any day.

2) Brazil still has tons of space to expand for its population and to build new cities, etc. It is not over populated. The big cities may be crowded but there is plenty of area to expand and it is almost all fertile land.

Same goes with India. It also has vast potential for urbanization.

 

[AOE]

Which in turn makes India, a more powerful & proven armed force than Brazil any day.

Same goes with India. It also has vast potential for urbanization.

India focusses on its armed forces precisely because it is in the major conflict part of the world; particularly the fact that it is nextdoor to Pakistan and China. India has to compete with Chinese, Russian and other influences in Asia; where as Brazil is largely isolated in both conflict terms and foreign influence (except for the US, but Brazil-US relations are strong). Brazil also has 1/10th of the population of India and China, but still has a large economy; which means it can field a large armed force in future with more ease. I'm not dissing any particular power, just going off the numbers.

 

[sukhish]

I'm not at all concerned about the black horse. why is china not a democracy, don't the communist party trust the intelligence of the people of china, that's my point. its internal stability is questionable. don't worry about pakistan, it is taking care of its own. although the communist party may have infused some discipline in them, but it is not able to project it's soft power at all. china and russia are permanent members of security council, I have not seen them bringing one proposal to the floor of the UNSC or UNGA. do you want to know the reason, they know that the world doesn't see them as legitimate. the only thing they do is veto of the proposals brought by either UK, US or france. just wait till india gets to the permanent position in the UNSC. it's power projection will be lot more than russia and china

 

[nrj]

India focusses on its armed forces precisely because it is in the major conflict part of the world; particularly the fact that it is nextdoor to Pakistan and China. India has to compete with Chinese, Russian and other influences in Asia; where as Brazil is largely isolated in both conflict terms and foreign influence (except for the US, but Brazil-US relations are strong). Brazil also has 1/10th of the population of India and China, but still has a large economy; which means it can field a large armed force in future with more ease. I'm not dissing any particular power, just going off the numbers.

I understand.

Brazil can indeed field potent armed force in future. However, the question is "Can Brazil continue to afford & maintain such a huge force??"

Brazil has no threats. They have no counter missions. Yes they can contribute in peacekeeping missions but till what extent?

US has entire world to poke its nose & then field its forces from Alaska to Diego Garcia.

China is power hungry & will continue to grow its military as US is its main rival.

Russia has its ambitions to maintain its influence & counter US/China from taking over Eurasia.

India is in trouble over its borders from all sides coupled global aspirations so Defense spending is highly essential.

Now can Brazil justify high military spending & raise potent force comparable to India when there is no threat or natural rivals??

Can Brazilian Government justify its tax payer's money in doing so?

 

[AOE]

I'm not at all concerned about the black horse. why is china not a democracy, don't the communist party trust the intelligence of the people of china, that's my point. its internal stability is questionable. don't worry about pakistan, it is taking care of its own. although the communist party may have infused some discipline in them, but it is not able to project it's soft power at all. china and russia are permanent members of security council, I have not seen them bringing one proposal to the floor of the UNSC or UNGA. do you want to know the reason, they know that the world doesn't see them as legitimate. the only thing they do is veto of the proposals brought by either UK, US or france. just wait till india gets to the permanent position in the UNSC. it's power projection will be lot more than russia and china

The PRC was originally setup by Mao as a Soviet-style dictatorship that was purely communist in the dictionary sense, ever since Deng Xiaoping took the reigns; the country has adopted a quasi-capitalist system as an economic extension to the communist political core. It's not necessarily that the communists don't trust the people, they are in fact using them as slave labor; that is why their pseudo-capitalist economy exists today. You are correct about the rest of your post, their sole existence is to expand their own influence and to veto the actions of other states* that threaten their interests.

 

[AOE]

I understand.

Brazil can indeed field potent armed force in future. However, the question is "Can Brazil continue to afford & maintain such a huge force??"

Brazil has no threats. They have no counter missions. Yes they can contribute in peacekeeping missions but till what extent?

US has entire world to poke its nose & then field its forces from Alaska to Diego Garcia.

China is power hungry & will continue to grow its military as US is its main rival.

Russia has its ambitions to maintain its influence & counter US/China from taking over Eurasia.

India is in trouble over its borders from all sides & has global aspirations so Defense spending is highly essential.

Now can Brazil justify high military spending & raise potent force comparable to India when there is no threat or natural rivals??

Can Brazilian Government justify its tax payer's money in doing so?

A very thought-provoking response!

Whether Brazils growth will remain in the long run is speculative at present, there is no guarantee they will even become an economic super power, but the evidence for now is strongly in their favor. I would say they could maintain such a force, similar to how Russia still can today. An even more interesting question to ask would be; what reason would they need for a large force unless they wanted to extend their influence internationally? This will depend on whether Brazil will become isolationist or interventionist. I would hope they would meet somewhere in the middle. Peace keeping would be generally seen as justifiable means for use of the tax payers money, as Brazil generally has a good international diplomacy at present; similar to India.

Your points about US, China, and Russia are largely correct, although the US will remain having a strong presence in Europe and parts of Asia; largely due to the fact that many leaders of the countries there are well aware of the kinds of aggression Russia has been capable of in the past and present. Even if they split from US influence, it's highly unlikely they will tilt towards Russia.

India needs to focus on dealing with its local problems in Asia before it extends itself to international commitments (Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, ASEAN, competition with China and Russia, etc...), and the influx of western business and weapons deals will also help.

 

[nrj]

A very thought-provoking response!

Whether Brazils growth will remain in the long run is speculative at present, there is no guarantee they will even become an economic super power, but the evidence for now is strongly in their favor. An even more interesting question to ask would be; what reason would they need for a large force unless they wanted to extend their influence internationally? This will depend on whether Brazil will become isolationist or interventionist. I would hope they would meet somewhere in the middle. Peace keeping would be generally seen as justifiable means for use of the tax payers money, as Brazil generally has a good international diplomacy at present; similar to India.

Your points about US, China, and Russia are largely correct, although the US will remain having a strong presence in Europe and parts of Asia; largely due to the fact that many leaders of the countries there are well aware of the kinds of aggression Russia has been capable of in the past and present. Even if they split from US influence, it's highly unlikely they will tilt towards Russia.

India needs to focus on dealing with its local problems in Asia before it extends itself to international commitments (Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, ASEAN, competition with China and Russia, etc...), and the influx of western business and weapons deals will also help.

I don't doubt Brazilian potential. They have good aerospace industry & are rich in resources considering internal demand.

Brazil will have international influence in economic/trade parameters. As far as Geopolitics is considered, I am skeptical.

India is awarded with plenty of troubles of its own before practically pronouncing it as Super power or anything. India has constant internal as well as external challenges. However, this race daily tests Indian capabilities & demands even more progress.

 

[AOE]

Indeed nrj, and for all we know; India could potentially gain strong relations with Brazil in future. I would encourage such a move.

India maybe plagued by issues now, but so is China and Russia; so I wouldn't see India being left behind anytime soon.

 

[kickok1975]

Brazil's Potential in the Rousseff Era

By Dan Steinbock | Monday, March 21, 2011

In 2003, President Lula inherited a poor, resigned nation on the verge of an economic implosion. Eight years later, Brazil's new president, Dilma Rousseff, leads an emerging, optimistic nation. Dan Steinbock explores how Brazil can realize its full growth potential in the post-crisis landscape.


ocial mobility was impressive during Lula's two mandates," said Dilma Rousseff, Brazil's first female president, in Brazil's National Congress when she took office on January 1, 2011. "But poverty still exists, disfiguring our country and stopping us from claiming to be a fully developed nation."
Only a month or so before, the favelas of Rio de Janeiro turned into a war zone as police, marines and armored vehicles confronted drug traffickers in Vila Cruzeiro. The clock is ticking down — Rio will host the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Olympics.
Rousseff intends to continue the economic policies of her predecessor and mentor, Luis Inácio Lula da Silva. But it will be neither easy nor smooth. Can she sustain the country's recent economic gains?

Rousseff's circle
Pure free market doctrines do not work in a large developing economy, especially one that is still emerging from extreme poverty. The market economy's invisible hand needs to be balanced with the visible hand of the central government. Like Lula, Rousseff wants to influence economic policy herself, which is why she appointed her confidante, Miriam Belchior, as planning minister.

With a strong grip on the legislature, Rousseff kept Guido Mantega, Lula's finance minister. During the credit crunch, he boosted public spending.




More recently, however, the increases have contributed to the overheating of the economy and inflation. In fact, the real had more than doubled in value against the dollar during Lula's reign.
It was Mantega who was among the first to coin the term "currency war" in September 2010. As Brazil's interest rate climbed to 11% and the U.S. Federal Reserve launched its second round of quantitative easing (QE2), he criticized the Fed's loose monetary policy for driving money to emerging markets and boosting asset bubbles.
"It's no use throwing dollars out of a helicopter," as he put it. In order to suppress the real's rise, he tripled a tax on foreign purchases of Brazilian bonds.
Rousseff must cope not only with indigenous inflation but "imported" inflation as well.
The new head of the Central Bank, Alexandre Tombini, is increasing the benchmark rate to curb inflation. Rousseff would like the benchmark interest rate to fall to 2% in real terms, and that requires a tight fiscal policy — a message that was highlighted by the appointment of Antônio Palocci, a former finance minister, as her chief of staff.
Rousseff's ultimate success will certainly have a lot to do with the course taken in Brazil during the Lula era. However, it will also have something to do with decisions made far away — in Beijing.

Brazil and China

In 2002, Lula inherited a large nation on the verge of economic implosion. With anemic growth, international reserves were evaporating, hyperinflation was at the door and international investors were fleeing. Unsurprisingly, markets for Brazil's sovereign debt were anticipating an imminent and chaotic default.
Regional prospects looked no better. Only a year before, Argentina had defaulted amidst social unrest, which pushed the country's middle class into poverty. Global conditions were dire. In the aftermath of the tech bubble, global growth seemed subdued.
As soon as Lula arrived in the capital, he called for a slate of emergency cabinet meetings and solicited his ministers for tax-reform proposals and fiscal investments to boost capital investments in order to achieve growth rates of 5%.

In a matter of weeks, Lula had calmed the markets with a slate of appointments. A former international banker, Henrique Meirelles, took over the Central Bank, while Palocci, the new finance minister, announced a stringent fiscal policy.
Along with macroeconomic stabilization, Lula fought for substantial change. Old faces were not enough — new people were needed to initiate a truly new era in Brazil.
But there is more to the story. Lula's economic policies were also born under favorable stars. In 2001, China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO). Shortly thereafter, Lula initiated Brazil's economic reforms.
The main Brazilian exports were commodities whose prices depended significantly on the demand of China and the United States.
When Lula won the presidency in 2002, Brazil's main trading partners were the United States (25.5%), the Netherlands (5.3%), Germany (4.2%) and China (4.2%).
Over the eight years, the U.S. share collapsed, while the Chinese share more than tripled. By 2009, Brazil's main trading partners were China (13.2%), the United States (9.6%), Argentina (7.8%) and the Netherlands (5.0%).
The writing was on the wall. As long as demand in these two nations continued for commodities, Brazil will continue to grow — but if demand were to fall abruptly, the situation could get difficult.


Brazil's "BRIC" potential

In 2010, Brazil grew by 7.5%, as fast as in 1986. Coupled with the appreciation of the currency, the nation's GDP soared to $2.1 trillion. Brazil overtook Italy to rank as the world's seventh-largest economy, while GDP per capita surpassed that of Mexico.




A day after the release of the annual figures, the Central Bank raised interest rates by 0.5% for the second time this year. Brazil would prefer to have a more manageable growth target (in the range of 4.5-5%).
However, Brazil is now struggling with increasing overheating — and the nation's postwar economic record provides many examples of unsustainable growth.
In the early 2000s, Brazil was among the four large emerging economies with the greatest growth potential in the future. It was also one of the very few that managed to couple robust growth with reduction of inequality, especially through cash-transfer programs which had been initiated during President Cardoso's rule in the 1990s.
When Lula won the presidency heading the left-wing Workers' Party (PT) in the early 2000s, his primary objective was first to stabilize the economy and then to lay a foundation for the struggle against poverty, and it was the poor who he spoke to.
In the 2010s, Lula's success has shifted the emphasis of the government to the booming economy and expanding middle class. Now the goal is to provide new opportunities for the upwardly mobile, while ensuring income transfers to the poorest.
In the past few years, international investors have taken note of the Brazil story. What 15-20 years ago was seen as a lost cause is now considered one of the most attractive emerging markets, as evidenced by the recent purchases of Blackstone and JP Morgan Chase in Brazil.

However, to sustain growth in the 2010s, Rousseff must be able to manage the rising inflation, an overvalued currency and large increases in consumer credit.
In order to realize its full BRIC potential, Brazil has to undertake seven critical steps. First, reduce the importance of the informal sector. Second, correct macroeconomic deficiencies (including the high interest rate and a relatively high government-debt-to-GDP ratio).
Third, reduce the notorious red tape. Fourth, streamline the labor code. Fifth, contain political corruption. Sixth, improve the quality of public services (e.g., education, justice and security). And seventh, develop new infrastructure.
In order to engage in the Asian trajectory of growth, however, even more reforms are needed, including far greater trade openness, significantly higher investment and savings and substantially lower public and foreign debt.
President Lula created the foundation for the new Brazil. President Rousseff must sustain the gains. It is a tall order — but no longer impossible.

 

[sukhish]

brazil is still not a consumption based economy, same is true for china. consumer based economy is essential.

 

[Rage]

Brazil is the black horse. What exactly the "Thing" you refer to that they are missing? When India is busy battling with Pakistan and western countries focus on containing China, the black horse is silently rising which leave old world powers such as France, British behind. Brazil enjoys a positive environment to develop that both China, India don't have. It will be a manner of time for majority of people to realize Brazil's true potential.

That "thing" that he refers to is people. It is people that build a country not land, not resources, not armies. Yes, a modicum-minimum of these is required to sustain some level of initial domestic activity. But in this age of globalization, the resources that one initially possess are relegated to a mere 'contingency' status. Japan, with a population of 128 million and a landmass 1/9th-10th that of India, has a similar average population density. Many of its islands are even uninhabitable because of their volcanic mountains and tectonic activity. Even in China, where close to 60% of the landmass is occupied by the Tibetan plateau and Xinjiang, vast tracts of land are hostile to inhabitation because of cold and desert. Both countries are perfect examples of how relative resource paucity have not been allowed to hold them back. Yet, Japan never had and could never have as much potential as China. Simply because, once China started industrializing and maintained itself along that growth trajectory, the eventual resolution of 'technological-coefficients' <fancy jargon for levels of technology in industrial production> would ensure, that the population-compounded consumption, investment and gross production values it could achieve would far exceed anything Japan could attain in the long-run. The same applies in the context of India-Brazil. Resources, in terms of their extractive-industrial use, have assumed less significance in this day and age. India, however, faces a unique scenario, in that it is industrializing at a time when another voracious, large power with an even larger appetite for resources, is industrializing and has been industrializing for some time now; and the relative paucity of resources and the associated demand-time lag, and consequently higher prices, may impinge on its growth.

The other thing that is important for nation building is good relations, and this is particularly true in the case of more diminutive countries. We have already seen how Pakistan's fortunes have changed, once it got on the 'wrong side of the fence.

Resources, however are still important for one singular reason; and that is because they afford a degree of strategic-leverage over neighboring states. And this is particularly true for a country like India, where in an age of ever growing water-scarcity, and exceedingly tight water-pressures, the failure to come to a consolidated agreement will militate necessary action.

 

[jazzguy]

That "thing" that he refers to is people. It is people that build a country not land, not resources, not armies. Yes, a modicum-minimum of these is required to sustain some level of initial domestic activity. But in this age of globalization, the resources that one initially possess are relegated to a mere 'contingency' status. Japan, with a population of 128 million and a landmass 1/9th-10th that of India, has a similar average population density. Many of its islands are even uninhabitable because of their volcanic mountains and tectonic activity. Even in China, where close to 60% of the landmass is occupied by the Tibetan plateau and Xinjiang, vast tracts of land are hostile to inhabitation because of cold and desert. Both countries are perfect examples of how relative resource paucity have not been allowed to hold them back. Yet, Japan never had and could never have as much potential as China. Simply because, once China started industrializing and maintained itself along that growth trajectory, the eventual resolution of 'technological-coefficients' <fancy jargon for levels of technology in industrial production> would ensure, that the population-compounded consumption, investment and gross production values it could achieve would far exceed anything Japan could attain in the long-run. The same applies in the context of India-Brazil. Resources, in terms of their extractive-industrial use, have assumed less significance in this day and age. India, however, faces a unique scenario, in that it is industrializing at a time when another voracious, large power with an even larger appetite for resources, is industrializing and has been industrializing for some time now; and the relative paucity of resources and the associated demand-time lag, and consequently higher prices, may impinge on its growth.

The other thing that is important for nation building is good relations, and this is particularly true in the case of more diminutive countries. We have already seen how Pakistan's fortunes have changed, once it got on the 'wrong side of the fence.

Resources, however are still important for one singular reason; and that is because they afford a degree of strategic-leverage over neighboring states. And this is particularly true for a country like India, where in an age of ever growing water-scarcity, and exceedingly tight water-pressures, the failure to come to a consolidated agreement will militate necessary action.

Your statement here is contradict to the reports we have read from Indian mainstream media regarding inhabitation in Tibet. Indian media told us that majority people in Tibet now are non-Tibetan immigrant from inland China. Obviously, Tibet is good for inhabitation.