Poor democracy (India) vs. Wealthier dictatorship (China)?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

China is fairly clearly a better place to live on aggregate.

[Beet]

False dichotomy.

It is a false dichotomy and a classic cognitive error.  "China has developed in spite of an authoritarian government" is a lot less interesting story than "China has developed because it has pioneered a hybrid third-way form of state driven development."  Even though I've never heard that story articulated in a non fuzzy form.

Right. It's also what the CCP would like everyone to think. The CCP sort of stumbled into an economic miracle after ending their disastrous economic policies from 1949-79. They didn't pioneer anything new. They reaped the rewards of liberalization from the 1980s through the 2000s, and those rewards were great indeed, but now liberalization has stalled out and is going backwards.

(Infrastructure is sort of a red herring- these flashy projects draw attention, but government willingness to build isn't the decisive factor that drives development. That is why India will still develop in spite of the things Sbane points out, and probably why Indians aren't clamoring for a dictatorship.

Mao was perfectly willing to build infrastructure. In fact he was obsessed with heavy industry as well. But he couldn't finance any of it because China was too poor. During the 1980s, China was even poorer than India, "despite" (more likely because of) 40 years of dictatorship. They also had this little thing called the Great Leap Forward which killed 40 million people in artificial famine which India never had. The communists appreciated infrastructure, science, and heavy and light industry, but what they failed to appreciate was an ordered, regulated, but open market.)

[compson III]

(Infrastructure is sort of a red herring- these flashy projects draw attention, but government willingness to build isn't the decisive factor that drives development. That is why India will still develop in spite of the things Sbane points out, and probably why Indians aren't clamoring for a dictatorship.

You might be interested in this old Larry Summers paper I was reading the other day:
http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/106/2/445.abstract

Once you disaggregate the capital stock into investment in structures vs. investment in equipment, the former is irrelevant to economic growth.

[angus]

'would you rather go to war with Iran and have a strong America or negotiate with Iran and be a cheese eating surrender monkey?'

Depends upon the cheese.  If it's something mild like mozzarella or provolone or brie, then I'd rather attempt to negotiate with Iran, but if it's Limburger or Blue Cheese then I'd much rather face the nuclear holocaust which would be the inevitable outcome of a US/Iran war.

[politicus]

'would you rather go to war with Iran and have a strong America or negotiate with Iran and be a cheese eating surrender monkey?'

Depends upon the cheese.  If it's something mild like mozzarella or provolone or brie, then I'd rather attempt to negotiate with Iran, but if it's Limburger or Blue Cheese then I'd much rather face the nuclear holocaust which would be the inevitable outcome of a US/Iran war.

[Foucaulf]

What Beet should've said was that it is ridiculous to think "poor democracy" is the defining feature of India, and the same goes for China. If you want to identify preferences here, OP should've pitted Singapore and Kuala Lumpur together.

[angus]

'would you rather go to war with Iran and have a strong America or negotiate with Iran and be a cheese eating surrender monkey?'

Depends upon the cheese.  If it's something mild like mozzarella or provolone or brie, then I'd rather attempt to negotiate with Iran, but if it's Limburger or Blue Cheese then I'd much rather face the nuclear holocaust which would be the inevitable outcome of a US/Iran war.

Flying or X-ray vision is the harder choice.  With flight power I could fly to the moon when things get hot, but with X-ray vision I could peer inside warheads and see which are nuclear and which aren't.

[Boston Bread]

What Beet should've said was that it is ridiculous to think "poor democracy" is the defining feature of India, and the same goes for China. If you want to identify preferences here, OP should've pitted Singapore and Kuala Lumpur together.

My impression was that Malaysia and Singapore were both nominally democratic countries with single-party rule, with Singapore being somewhat more authoritarian. It doesn't seem like a clear contrast.

Brunei vs. Bangladesh would be the purest match between rich dictatorship (absolute somewhat-islamic monarchy style) and a poor democracy (one that has competitive elections) that I can think of.

[Хahar 🤔]

Obviously the current government is deplorable, but there are very few things in which I believe more strongly than I believe in India.

Brunei vs. Bangladesh would be the purest match between rich dictatorship (absolute somewhat-islamic monarchy style) and a poor democracy (one that has competitive elections) that I can think of.

This isn't the sort of thing that would be visible to a foreigner, but despite appearances, Bangladesh is not a democracy. Elections in Bangladesh involve multiple parties but they are not competitive.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Obviously the current government is deplorable, but there are very few things in which I believe more strongly than I believe in India.

Brunei vs. Bangladesh would be the purest match between rich dictatorship (absolute somewhat-islamic monarchy style) and a poor democracy (one that has competitive elections) that I can think of.

This isn't the sort of thing that would be visible to a foreigner, but despite appearances, Bangladesh is not a democracy. Elections in Bangladesh involve multiple parties but they are not competitive.

     Is it like Russian electoral type events or is it something a little less ethically problematic?

[warandwar]

Obviously the current government is deplorable, but there are very few things in which I believe more strongly than I believe in India.

Brunei vs. Bangladesh would be the purest match between rich dictatorship (absolute somewhat-islamic monarchy style) and a poor democracy (one that has competitive elections) that I can think of.

This isn't the sort of thing that would be visible to a foreigner, but despite appearances, Bangladesh is not a democracy. Elections in Bangladesh involve multiple parties but they are not competitive.

     Is it like Russian electoral type events or is it something a little less ethically problematic?

Ethically problematic is a good word for it.

[Gustaf]

I know it'll piss people off but the problem in India isn't so much democracy as it is the Gandhi legacy of being suspicious of markets. One can of course claim that this wouldn't have been in place without democracy but I doubt that that is particularly true, actually.

Having been to both I think I'd rather be in India.

[Beet]

(Infrastructure is sort of a red herring- these flashy projects draw attention, but government willingness to build isn't the decisive factor that drives development. That is why India will still develop in spite of the things Sbane points out, and probably why Indians aren't clamoring for a dictatorship.

You might be interested in this old Larry Summers paper I was reading the other day:
http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/106/2/445.abstract

Once you disaggregate the capital stock into investment in structures vs. investment in equipment, the former is irrelevant to economic growth.

That's no surprise, really. Structures don't necessarily improve productivity... residential structures, for instance are clearly consumer items.

[compson III]

I know it'll piss people off but the problem in India isn't so much democracy as it is the Gandhi legacy of being suspicious of markets. One can of course claim that this wouldn't have been in place without democracy but I doubt that that is particularly true, actually.

Having been to both I think I'd rather be in India.

You can call it what you want but capitalism was not going to be important until Westernization to some degree wiped away much of the strength of the caste system.  You can't have a productive class of capitalists until money is the primary means of social distinction.

[angus]

Westernization to some degree wiped away much of the strength of the caste system. 

Yes, it's a good thing that the English showed up in India to teach Sammy egalitarianism because, you know, the English have never gone in for any sort of caste system.

[compson III]

Westernization to some degree wiped away much of the strength of the caste system.  

Yes, it's a good thing that the English showed up in India to teach Sammy egalitarianism because, you know, the English have never gone in for any sort of caste system.

Full egalitarianism is not as important as that the bourgeoisie is at parity in social standing with other classes and that it drives the social dynamics at the top level.  You don't need everyone to be an entrepreneur, just a solid class of them.  You change the social dynamics so that the upper class competes for distinction via wealth accumulation.

To clarify, the point isn't that the gap between the top and the bottom is narrowed; rather the maintenance of that gap is dependent on wealth accumulation.

[angus]

Ah, well, I've avoided any serious posts in this thread till I saw your post, but I guess I'm hooked now.  You do make a bizarre point.  I'm not sure I can agree with the value system inherent in your comment, since Westerners have historically shown a willingness to make caste systems as well as Indians have.  Nevertheless, it's hard to argue with the statement that you can't have a productive capitalist class unless capital becomes the prime motivator. 

[compson III]

Well admittedly the West has benefited from some pretty strong boundaries.  Wealth accumulation without boundaries is just pure Vikingism.

Not sure if I'm really talking about the banal "rule of law" though when I say "strong boundaries."  This is what the libertarians get wrong.  You could say government is off limits as a tool in wealth accumulation.  Well eminent domain was rapacious before and during the Industrial Revolution in England.  Yet somehow the British bourgeoisie declined to use government permanently as a means for rent seeking and instead spent their time tinkering with machines and inventing new things.

I don't think there's an institutional answer for this really.  There's a kind of benevolence behind it that's inexplicable.  It's just cultural superiority perhaps (for its time and place).  Or pure circumstance.