American Snapshot: "A Nevada IT Worker Asks Why, If Indians Are So “Superior”, Their Country Is Such A Dump"
RichAsianKid
loving arms and their shared vision for democracy or even for the world
etc etc, and yet when you get down to the nitty-gritty details ordinary
Americans pronounce their verdict clear and loud:
http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_052309.htm#b1
From: �An American Citizen With Advanced Degrees� (e-mail him)
Re: Brenda Walker�s Blog: Intel Disseminates Diversity Propaganda (To
Benefit Itself)
I loved Walker�s blog regarding the new Intel ad campaign. As an
American high tech worker I have had my face rubbed in this diversity
nonsense for too long. I've had enough.
If Indians are of such uniformly high caliber, why is the country racked
by massive runaway population growth, grinding poverty and a caste
system that imposes misery on the majority of its one billion people.
One would think that if Indians were as talented as we are repeatedly
told, those superior folks would be able to raise their own country out
of the gutter.
Brenda Walker answers: On the worldwide hypocrisy scale, India rates
number one. Indians have a very overblown belief in their own
superiority based on the alleged spirituality aspect to their culture.
Frankly, Indians have nothing to be arrogant about.Yoga is nice but
India has all kinds of socially acceptable evils, as our reader notes,
and the nasty bits far outweigh the good.
* * *
Now if this rhetoric were directed against third world mainland Chinese
- and it may well be - it would at least be understandable.
But this stab from India's *ally*?
From Americans??
Ouch!!!
scientific
> You hear so much how Indians and Americans are just team, in brotherly
> loving arms and their shared vision for democracy or even for the world
> etc etc, and yet when you get down to the nitty-gritty details ordinary
> Americans pronounce their verdict clear and loud:
>
> http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_052309.htm#b1
>
>
> Re: Brenda Walker’s Blog: Intel Disseminates Diversity Propaganda (To
> Benefit Itself)
>
> I loved Walker’s blog regarding the new Intel ad campaign. As an
> American high tech worker I have had my face rubbed in this diversity
> nonsense for too long. I've had enough.
>
> If Indians are of such uniformly high caliber, why is the country racked
> by massive runaway population growth, grinding poverty and a caste
> system that imposes misery on the majority of its one billion people.
> One would think that if Indians were as talented as we are repeatedly
> told, those superior folks would be able to raise their own country out
> of the gutter.
>
> Brenda Walker answers: On the worldwide hypocrisy scale, India rates
> number one. Indians have a very overblown belief in their own
> superiority based on the alleged spirituality aspect to their culture.
> Frankly, Indians have nothing to be arrogant about.Yoga is nice but
> India has all kinds of socially acceptable evils, as our reader notes,
> and the nasty bits far outweigh the good.
>
> * * *
>
> Now if this rhetoric were directed against third world mainland Chinese
> - and it may well be - it would at least be understandable.
>
> But this stab from India's *ally*?
>
> From Americans??
>
> Ouch!!!
RichAsianKiddish illogical juvenile comment :-(
FYI, one American blog entry doesn't mean "Stab from India's ally --
Americans." BTW, the logic the blogger used can be extended to every
single nationality and nation.The Intel ad refers to hi tech biz and
quite a few Indians in that field are of high caliber. The blogger is
pathetic by overgeneralizing "If Indians are of such uniformly high
caliber."
scientific
> loving arms and their shared vision for democracy or even for the world
> etc etc, and yet when you get down to the nitty-gritty details ordinary
> Americans pronounce their verdict clear and loud:
>
> http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_052309.htm#b1
>
>
> Benefit Itself)
>
> I loved Walker’s blog regarding the new Intel ad campaign. As an
> American high tech worker I have had my face rubbed in this diversity
> nonsense for too long. I've had enough.
>
> If Indians are of such uniformly high caliber, why is the country racked
> by massive runaway population growth, grinding poverty and a caste
> system that imposes misery on the majority of its one billion people.
> One would think that if Indians were as talented as we are repeatedly
> told, those superior folks would be able to raise their own country out
> of the gutter.
>
> Brenda Walker answers: On the worldwide hypocrisy scale, India rates
> number one. Indians have a very overblown belief in their own
> superiority based on the alleged spirituality aspect to their culture.
> Frankly, Indians have nothing to be arrogant about.Yoga is nice but
> India has all kinds of socially acceptable evils, as our reader notes,
> and the nasty bits far outweigh the good.
>
> * * *
>
> Now if this rhetoric were directed against third world mainland Chinese
> - and it may well be - it would at least be understandable.
>
> But this stab from India's *ally*?
>
> From Americans??
>
> Ouch!!!
RichAsianKiddish illogical juvenile comment :-( FYI, one American blog
entry doesn't mean "Stab from India's ally -- Americans." BTW, the
logic the blogger used can be extended to every single nationality and
nation.The Intel ad refers to hi tech biz and quite a few Indians in
THAT field are of high caliber. The blogger is pathetic by
overgeneralizing "If Indians are of such uniformly high caliber."
harmony
"RichAsianKid" <RichAs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hbgrln$mcg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> If Indians are of such uniformly high caliber, why is the country racked
> by massive runaway population growth, grinding poverty and a caste
> system that imposes misery on the majority of its one billion people.
> One would think that if Indians were as talented as we are repeatedly
> told, those superior folks would be able to raise their own country out
> of the gutter.
>
rak, here is the mantra again that you need to sned out to your friends : it
is the 3m, stupid.
> Brenda Walker answers: On the worldwide hypocrisy scale, India rates
> number one. Indians have a very overblown belief in their own
> superiority based on the alleged spirituality aspect to their culture.
> Frankly, Indians have nothing to be arrogant about.Yoga is nice but
> India has all kinds of socially acceptable evils, as our reader notes,
> and the nasty bits far outweigh the good.
>
ok, one more time: it is the 3m, stupid.
P. Rajah
No, it's _you_, stupid! Want some chili sauce to go with your Chinese
ass-sucking?
RichAsianKid
Sure! Will happily tell them India's been oppressed or oppressing itself
century after century. :)
RichAsianKid
> On Oct 19, 9:58 am, RichAsianKid <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> You hear so much how Indians and Americans are just team, in brotherly
>> loving arms and their shared vision for democracy or even for the world
>> etc etc, and yet when you get down to the nitty-gritty details ordinary
>> Americans pronounce their verdict clear and loud:
>>
>> http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_052309.htm#b1
>>
>>
>> Benefit Itself)
>>
>> I loved Walker�s blog regarding the new Intel ad campaign. As an
On technicalities which you (like drydem or residualimage or whatever)
care about:
1. Americans I didn't say America - and still plural - i.e. not just one
as you implied (first the letter itself which was a response, then
"Brenda Walker"'s comments as quoted, and finally the title of the post
from the editor). Not to mention how e-zines or any publications try to
cater to rather than alienate readership I'd imagine.
2. As said this rhetoric could be directed against 3rd world
mainland Chinese.
3. Agree wholeheartedly Indians are not *uniformly* high caliber.
RichAsianKid
> RichAsianKid wrote:
>> You hear so much how Indians and Americans are just team, in brotherly
>> loving arms and their shared vision for democracy or even for the world
>> etc etc, and yet when you get down to the nitty-gritty details ordinary
>> Americans pronounce their verdict clear and loud:
>>
>> http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_052309.htm#b1
>>
>>
>> Benefit Itself)
>>
>> I loved Walker’s blog regarding the new Intel ad campaign. As an
>> American high tech worker I have had my face rubbed in this diversity
>> nonsense for too long. I've had enough.
>>
>> If Indians are of such uniformly high caliber, why is the country racked
>> by massive runaway population growth, grinding poverty and a caste
>> system that imposes misery on the majority of its one billion people.
>> One would think that if Indians were as talented as we are repeatedly
>> told, those superior folks would be able to raise their own country out
>> of the gutter.
>>
>> Brenda Walker answers: On the worldwide hypocrisy scale, India rates
>> number one. Indians have a very overblown belief in their own
>> superiority based on the alleged spirituality aspect to their culture.
>> Frankly, Indians have nothing to be arrogant about.Yoga is nice but
>> India has all kinds of socially acceptable evils, as our reader notes,
>> and the nasty bits far outweigh the good.
>>
>> * * *
>>
>> Now if this rhetoric were directed against third world mainland
>> Chinese - and it may well be - it would at least be understandable.
>>
>> But this stab from India's *ally*?
>>
>> From Americans??
>>
>> Ouch!!!
>
> of Asia. Singapore, Hong Kong and Japan about the only ones that
> approach a Western standard.
>
>
Actually India sucks more than you or anyone can imagine, e.g.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article1421393.ece
But is India a shithole? I politely disagree.
Let's not be unfair and call a spade a spade
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/article5707554.ece
India's not a shithole....it's a urinehole.
P. Rajah
Are Chinese *uniformly* high caliber? I wholeheartedly disagree.
Penang
> RichAsianKid wrote:
> > scientific wrote:
> >> On Oct 19, 9:58 am, RichAsianKid <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> You hear so much how Indians and Americans are just team, in brotherly
> >>> loving arms and their shared vision for democracy or even for the world
> >>> etc etc, and yet when you get down to the nitty-gritty details ordinary
> >>> Americans pronounce their verdict clear and loud:
>
> >>> http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_052309.htm#b1
>
>
> >>> Benefit Itself)
>
> >>> I loved Walker’s blog regarding the new Intel ad campaign. As an
Oooooh, someone got confused, right?
Did RAK ever even once identify himself as a "Chinese"?
Why this coconut nigger so antsy? Why? Is it because deep down inside
he knew that he isn't as capable as even the Chinese from Chinatown??
Yeah, those low-caliber Chinks. Even that you can't beat?
scientific
> scientific wrote:
> > On Oct 19, 9:58 am, RichAsianKid <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> You hear so much how Indians and Americans are just team, in brotherly
> >> loving arms and their shared vision for democracy or even for the world
> >> etc etc, and yet when you get down to the nitty-gritty details ordinary
> >> Americans pronounce their verdict clear and loud:
>
> >> http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_052309.htm#b1
>
>
> >> Benefit Itself)
>
> >> I loved Walker’s blog regarding the new Intel ad campaign. As an
'Growing Indo-US relationship has unnerved China'
http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/oct/20/indo-us-ties-unnerved-china.htm
The deepening of strategic relationship between India and the US has
unnerved China, an eminent American scholar said, arguing that
Beijing's [ Images ] four-decade-old policy of dealing with New Delhi
[ Images ] on their own terms has gone haywire.
Participating in a panel discussion on "China 2025" organised on
Monday by the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations, Evan
Feigenbaum, its Senior Fellow for East, Central and South Asia, said
Beijing is increasingly becoming concerned about the growing Indo-US
relationship.
"Since 1962, the Chinese strategists have basically decided that they
can deal with India on their own terms. But when you introduce the
United States into that equation, it introduces all kinds of
uncertainties into Chinese planning, he said.
Feigenbaum noted that for China, India has so far been a second, if
not a third tier security priority. Voicing a similar opinion another
eminent scholar said that in a unipolar Asia, where China is the
dominant power, it is India, which to some extent balances the power
of Beijing. "Asia without active participation of the US is not
multipolar, it is unipolar with China as the dominant power, possibly
balanced to some extent by India," Princeton University's Professor of
Politics and International Affairs, Aaron Friedberg said in the
discussion.
Commenting on the effect of Indo-US economic relationship on China,
Feigenbaum said, "The United States is still India's number one
trading partner. But in goods, China's now number one. So there is
enormous amount of strategic mistrust on both sides." He noted, China
is increasingly moving to the centre of India's defence planning,
replacing Pakistan.
The world is in for a "period of India-China tension" he said adding,
"There are things that are ratcheting up on the border a little bit,
but I think broadly tamped down within limits that are set by the
political leaderships on both sides." Feigenbaum said Pakistan is a
prominent factor in Indo-China relationship."At the end of the day, as
things are deteriorating between China and India, Indians are still
watching very closely what's happening between Beijing and Islamabad
[ Images ]," he said.
Speaking on the US-China relationship Friedberg said if tensions
between these nations grow, all of Asia and perhaps other regions as
well could be divided into something that might resemble "a new Cold
War". At present, he said it is fair to say that the Sino-American
relationship is profoundly mixed. It contains important elements of
both competition and cooperation.
Lalit K Jha in Washington, DC
P. Rajah
> On Oct 19, 9:16 pm, "P. Rajah" <u...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> RichAsianKid wrote:
>>> scientific wrote:
>>>> On Oct 19, 9:58 am, RichAsianKid <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> You hear so much how Indians and Americans are just team, in brotherly
>>>>> loving arms and their shared vision for democracy or even for the world
>>>>> etc etc, and yet when you get down to the nitty-gritty details ordinary
>>>>> Americans pronounce their verdict clear and loud:
>>>>> http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_052309.htm#b1
>>>>> From: �An American Citizen With Advanced Degrees� (e-mail him)
>>>>> Re: Brenda Walker�s Blog: Intel Disseminates Diversity Propaganda (To
>>>>> Benefit Itself)
>>>>> I loved Walker�s blog regarding the new Intel ad campaign. As an
Did he ever imply that he was anything but? Moreover, what does that
have to do with my remark?
> Why this coconut nigger so antsy? Why? Is it because deep down inside
> he knew that he isn't as capable as even the Chinese from Chinatown??
>
> Yeah, those low-caliber Chinks. Even that you can't beat?
Are you a rice-paddy gook? Racial epithets can go both ways.
ind...@india.com
making 50K per annum :- if you are so intelligent telling us how to run
business, why are you not rich?
harmony
just making sure: you sure you will tell them it is oppressing itself with
the infamous 3m?
RichAsianKid
Yep, as India only has itself to blame either (a) being oppressed (in
which case it clearly weak and hence don't deserve sympathy) or (b)
oppressing itself (its people clearly deserve it as they love their own
miserable state)
RichAsianKid
> On Oct 20, 5:47 am, RichAsianKid <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> scientific wrote:
>>> On Oct 19, 9:58 am, RichAsianKid <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> You hear so much how Indians and Americans are just team, in brotherly
>>>> loving arms and their shared vision for democracy or even for the world
>>>> etc etc, and yet when you get down to the nitty-gritty details ordinary
>>>> Americans pronounce their verdict clear and loud:
>>>> http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_052309.htm#b1
>>>> Benefit Itself)
>>>> I loved Walker�s blog regarding the new Intel ad campaign. As an
1. Are you suggesting the US is China's strategic enemy?
2. "When you get down to the nitty-gritty details ordinary Americans"
may not share the same love for Indians
3. It's funny cuz Mr. Rajah once suggested the US are in cahoots with
China and *that's* why China has been growing so much faster than India
(in spite of the latter having all such advantages as democracy, English
facility, British style institutions, freedom, diversity etc...wow.....)
If this is a misinterpretation I'm sure Mr. Rajah will correct RAK.
scientific
> scientific wrote:
> > On Oct 20, 5:47 am, RichAsianKid <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> scientific wrote:
> >>> On Oct 19, 9:58 am, RichAsianKid <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> You hear so much how Indians and Americans are just team, in brotherly
> >>>> loving arms and their shared vision for democracy or even for the world
> >>>> etc etc, and yet when you get down to the nitty-gritty details ordinary
> >>>> Americans pronounce their verdict clear and loud:
> >>>> http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_052309.htm#b1
> >>>> Benefit Itself)
> >>>> I loved Walker’s blog regarding the new Intel ad campaign. As an
1) I don't know if you read the article 'Growing Indo-US relationship
has unnerved China'
{{http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/oct/20/indo-us-ties-unnerved-
china}} seriously :-)
Quote
panel discussion on "China 2025" organised on
Monday by the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations, Evan
Feigenbaum, its Senior Fellow for East, Central and South Asia, said
Beijing is increasingly becoming concerned about the growing Indo-US
relationship.
Unquote
2) This statement is too general :-) Whatever I say would most
probably get a "On technicalities which you (like drydem or
residualimage or whatever) care about: " kind of response from you.
3) I can't comment on this for I haven't seen that posting by
Mr.Rajah. I have strong suspicion that you really don't read "all the
replies" to your exceedingly large number of postings ;-)
ltlee1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nah. India is still China's second tier or third tier security
priority despite its recent provocation, from the Chinese point of
view. The belief is that India does not really want to fight China.
Rather, India is trying to demonstrate to America that it can be
useful against China.
http://military.china.com/zh_cn/critical3/27/20091021/15674113.html
印度最近对中国频繁挑衅，网上此类消息很多，最嚣张的是印度总理汉莫辛格访问中印争议地区和邀请DL拉磨访问藏南争议地区。后者更是挑战中国核心利
益。不过笔者认为印度的过度嚣张不是真的要与中国搞实战，真正目的还是为了迎合美国的遏中战略。最近的三军指挥官开会应对所谓的"中国军队入侵行为"，
颇有拿"美印陆军联合演习"这张虎皮做大旗的意味。
The China version of the 'Growing Indo-US relationship has unnerved
China' article
http://intl.ce.cn/zgysj/200910/21/t20091021_20241062.shtml
P. Rajah
With pleasure. I said that western capitalists, led by Kissinger and
associates(the "shapers of the New World Order"), conspired to move
American manufacturing to China. I did not say that "the US are in
cahoots with China". I further remarked that Kissinger and associates
have no national loyalties, only worshiping at the altar of Mammon.
That said, geo-politics is not a zero-sum game, so while the US may
co-operate with India on some issues, it may actually side with China on
others, and as has been recently shown, China and India may actually
jointly oppose the US on some issues. But there is no question that the
US sees China as its greatest military challenge in the coming decades,
despite the fact that it is American capitalists and American consumers
that have helped to build China.
ltlee1
> RichAsianKid wrote:
> > scientific wrote:
> >> On Oct 20, 5:47 am, RichAsianKid <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> scientific wrote:
> >>>> On Oct 19, 9:58 am, RichAsianKid <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> You hear so much how Indians and Americans are just team, in brotherly
> >>>>> loving arms and their shared vision for democracy or even for the
> >>>>> world
> >>>>> etc etc, and yet when you get down to the nitty-gritty details
> >>>>> ordinary
> >>>>> Americans pronounce their verdict clear and loud:
> >>>>> http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_052309.htm#b1
> >>>>> Benefit Itself)
> >>>>> I loved Walker’s blog regarding the new Intel ad campaign. As an
Let us say the above about western capitalists, led aby Kissinger and
etc are
true. The question is more or less the same. Why not India given its
advantages
as democracy, English facility, British style institutions, freedom,
diversity etc?
Why these Mammon only western capitalists do not conspire to move
American
manufacturing to India?
>
> That said, geo-politics is not a zero-sum game, so while the US may
> co-operate with India on some issues, it may actually side with China on
> others, and as has been recently shown, China and India may actually
> jointly oppose the US on some issues. But there is no question that the
> US sees China as its greatest military challenge in the coming decades,
> despite the fact that it is American capitalists and American consumers
> that have helped to build China.- Hide quoted text -
Penang
Then you and China are dead wrong.
I live in Malaysia where there are plenty of Indians here. Our daily
interactions with the Indians here tell us one thing ---- THEY ARE
*NOT* TO BE TRUSTED, PERIOD !!
Don't ever think that "India does not really want to fight China",
because India is filled with people who have their brain installed
backwards.
wusong
India will never become a world power - NEVER. Why? Because of their
religious caste system and the so-called "democracy" that enforces it.
report2009
Dabian"? Too embarrass to show or you think others will notice who you
are?
India's caste system, gee, you think netters don't know? We have been
saying this for years finally you have learned...
> religious caste system and the so-called "democracy" that enforces it.- Hide quoted text -
Anti-DabianchenVirus
about anyone or anything.
Too bad, puta Dabianchen/Meichi, that you were not born in Taiwan, and
that you have no balls between your legs. That is why you can only
dream of being a "guy from Taiwan", but you cannot read and write
Chinese. You can only cut-and-paste Chinese articles and Chinese
phrases from the internet. You have no higher education and no
qualifications, so you can only troll the net all day long and post
trash on these various newsgroups using a host of different IDs. Too
bad you are so ugly too: http://www.flickr.com/photos/64156901@N00/3415206204/
. Too bad everyone knows you are a pathological liar.
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
ltlee1
As much as they want to fight China, they want to fight Pakistan and
gain control of Kashmir more. As long as they cannot take Kashmir,
fighting China will not be its priority.
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://military.china.com/zh_cn/critical3/27/20091021/15674113.html
> > 印度最近对中国频繁挑衅，网上此类消息很多，最嚣张的是印度总理汉莫辛格访问中印争议地区和邀请DL拉磨访问藏南争议地区。后者更是挑战中国核心利
> > 益。不过笔者认为印度的过度嚣张不是真的要与中国搞实战，真正目的还是为了迎合美国的遏中战略。最近的三军指挥官开会应对所谓的"中国军队入侵行为"，
> > 颇有拿"美印陆军联合演习"这张虎皮做大旗的意味。
>
> > The China version of the 'Growing Indo-US relationship has unnerved
> > China' articlehttp://intl.ce.cn/zgysj/200910/21/t20091021_20241062.shtml- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
ltlee1
Democracy is negatice for India right now. But it can also be
dangerous by
pushing India toward militarism.
P. Rajah
> On Oct 21, 8:43 am, "P. Rajah" <u...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> RichAsianKid wrote:
>>> scientific wrote:
>>>> On Oct 20, 5:47 am, RichAsianKid <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> scientific wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 19, 9:58 am, RichAsianKid <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> You hear so much how Indians and Americans are just team, in brotherly
>>>>>>> loving arms and their shared vision for democracy or even for the
>>>>>>> world
>>>>>>> etc etc, and yet when you get down to the nitty-gritty details
>>>>>>> ordinary
>>>>>>> Americans pronounce their verdict clear and loud:
>>>>>>> http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_052309.htm#b1
>>>>>>> Benefit Itself)
>>>>>>> I loved Walker�s blog regarding the new Intel ad campaign. As an
Because India does not have the authoritarianism that pure capitalists
love so much. Authoritarianism keeps wages low, allows for currency
control, keeps environmentalists in check, and keeps those pesky workers
from demanding anything other than what is given to them. All of which
translates into low, controlled/controllable costs.
Anti-DabianchenVirus
Chinese", and now all that you can show for it are just repetitive
girlish infantile insults of a primary school girl, because that is
what you really are, puta abianchen/Meichi. You are just a mental
retard! AND an ugly one at that!
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/7576019d05116a21?hl=en
On Oct 21, 6:43 am, report2009 <repost20...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Anti-DabianchenVirus
You *know*, puta abianchen/Meichi? What do you "know"? You are an
uneducated Philippino whore sitting by your computer when you don't
have any clients (which is all the time), and all you have shown to be
able to do in the 10 years' of trolling in scc is that you can only
cut-and-paste articles and phrases from the net. You have shown that
you are a mental retard, with a serious learning disability, and you
are ugly - VERY UGLY : http://www.flickr.com/photos/64156901@N00/3415206204/
.
On Oct 21, 6:43 am, report2009 <repost20...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
report2009
kill that one too? Haha!
Hey psycho Xangdi, just because abianchen exposed your racist act when
you pretended as a black guy using ID "Leroy B Jones" to harass black
people in November 2007 so you wanted revenge against abianchen for
the rest of your life? Get over it! Anyway, don't you think that's
hilarious when you got exposed, one netter said you got caught pants
down! Because of that, you abandoned your infamous ID "Chairman Mao
Says". That's also hilarious. Hehe!
Abianchen, a Filipino whore Meichi? No kidding! Hey, anyone believes
you and Rusty Old Fool's lies? Haha!
Oops, psycho Xangdi is going to repost his stolen Filipino girl's
photo to "prove" (frame actually) abianchen is "Filipino whore Meichi"
for revenge. Abianchen has become the most important person in his
life. Psycho Xangdi even calls himself "Virus for Dabian". Can you
believe it?!
On Oct 21, 10:46 am, Anti-DabianchenVirus <wuso...@rocketmail.com>
wrote:
Anti-DabianchenVirus
don't have any clients (which is all the time), and all you have shown
to be able to do in the 10 years' of trolling in scc is that you can
only cut-and-paste articles and phrases from the net. You have shown
that you are a mental retard, with a serious learning disability, and
you are ugly - VERY UGLY : http://www.flickr.com/photos/64156901@N00/3415206204/
.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
ltlee1
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > On Oct 21, 8:43 am, "P. Rajah" <u...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> RichAsianKid wrote:
> >>> scientific wrote:
> >>>> On Oct 20, 5:47 am, RichAsianKid <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> scientific wrote:
> >>>>>> On Oct 19, 9:58 am, RichAsianKid <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> You hear so much how Indians and Americans are just team, in brotherly
> >>>>>>> loving arms and their shared vision for democracy or even for the
> >>>>>>> world
> >>>>>>> etc etc, and yet when you get down to the nitty-gritty details
> >>>>>>> ordinary
> >>>>>>> Americans pronounce their verdict clear and loud:
> >>>>>>> http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_052309.htm#b1
> >>>>>>> Benefit Itself)
> >>>>>>> I loved Walker’s blog regarding the new Intel ad campaign. As an
Are you saying that average Inidans are doing better than average
Chinese because India "does not have the authoritarianism that
pure capitalists love so much"?
You had talked quite a lot on fast development and environmental
degradation. How about not so fast development or no development
and environment degradation?
""Families in villages, for example, don't send their daughters to
school because they have to go out to collect wood for fuel during
the
day. And as the forest has retreated, what took the grandmother two
hours to collect, takes the mother four hours, and the daughters
six?"
This is true for more than two thirds of Indian's households who
still
depend entirely on wood fuel-- they walk a few miles a day to collect
wood for a fire and burn cakes of cow dung in polluting open stoves."
Picture perfect rural tranqulity?
Alright, alright, not all Indians burn wood for fuel. Some burn coal.
But
coal also pollutes. No? In case you don't know much about India, try
this.
"One instance of pollution that has had a particularly ruinous impact
on India'se economy and its politics has been our coal mines. Across
central India, the fly ash generated by India's vast, badly regualted
coal
manufacturing industry truns the sky the color of rust, and the waste
is
discarded in the open, creating large areas of barren wasteland. The
environmental destruction from caol mining has fanned peasant anger
across these regions and aided the rise of the Naxalite movement."
(Quotes from IMAGINING INDIA by Nandan Nilekani)
>
>
>
> >> That said, geo-politics is not a zero-sum game, so while the US may
> >> co-operate with India on some issues, it may actually side with China on
> >> others, and as has been recently shown, China and India may actually
> >> jointly oppose the US on some issues. But there is no question that the
> >> US sees China as its greatest military challenge in the coming decades,
> >> despite the fact that it is American capitalists and American consumers
> >> that have helped to build China.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
P. Rajah
> On Oct 21, 10:27 am, "P. Rajah" <u...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> ltlee1 wrote:
>>> On Oct 21, 8:43 am, "P. Rajah" <u...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>> RichAsianKid wrote:
>>>>> scientific wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 20, 5:47 am, RichAsianKid <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> scientific wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Oct 19, 9:58 am, RichAsianKid <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> You hear so much how Indians and Americans are just team, in brotherly
>>>>>>>>> loving arms and their shared vision for democracy or even for the
>>>>>>>>> world
>>>>>>>>> etc etc, and yet when you get down to the nitty-gritty details
>>>>>>>>> ordinary
>>>>>>>>> Americans pronounce their verdict clear and loud:
>>>>>>>>> http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_052309.htm#b1
>>>>>>>>> Benefit Itself)
>>>>>>>>> I loved Walker�s blog regarding the new Intel ad campaign. As an
Where have I said that? You are creating new attributions to me, and
asking me to defend them. Your question was on why western capitalist
inflows preferred China to India. I answered that question. Having no
comeback for that, you go off on a tangent.
> You had talked quite a lot on fast development and environmental
> degradation. How about not so fast development or no development
> and environment degradation?
The environmental situation in India would have been far worse had India
adopted the Chinese model of economic advancement regardless of the
consequences. I am not denying that there is substantial degradation of
the environment in India, but that is driven mostly by legacy issues
like population and outdated industrial infrastructure. To ignore the
environment now would not only be irresponsible for India, but also
ruinous, given the already fragile ecology.
Environmentalists in the Indian state of Kerala, for example, forced
Pepsico to adopt new strategies to reduce their ruinous use of local
water resources, and to implement mechanisms to recharge groundwater.
This did not happen in China until recently, after the Indian activism
highlighted this issue.
http://www.pepsiindia.co.in/pepsiinitiative.html
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/08/china-targets-coca-cola-pepsi-for-excessive-water-use.php
harmony
(a) part was applicable in the past which saw 100 years of alien rule, which
thankfully, is over.
(b) part applies to the present india.
however, what you say is merely descrbing the symptom, and is not new; it's
well known to millions of indians. but being a smart guy, you have to
provide the diagnosis. what you are saying is like saying a patient sick -
of course he is; no point saying that, is it? but where is the diagnosis?
without pointing to 3m, you are not going to make much headway.
ltlee1
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > On Oct 21, 10:27 am, "P. Rajah" <u...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> ltlee1 wrote:
> >>> On Oct 21, 8:43 am, "P. Rajah" <u...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >>>> RichAsianKid wrote:
> >>>>> scientific wrote:
> >>>>>> On Oct 20, 5:47 am, RichAsianKid <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> scientific wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Oct 19, 9:58 am, RichAsianKid <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> You hear so much how Indians and Americans are just team, in brotherly
> >>>>>>>>> loving arms and their shared vision for democracy or even for the
> >>>>>>>>> world
> >>>>>>>>> etc etc, and yet when you get down to the nitty-gritty details
> >>>>>>>>> ordinary
> >>>>>>>>> Americans pronounce their verdict clear and loud:
> >>>>>>>>> http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_052309.htm#b1
> >>>>>>>>> Benefit Itself)
> >>>>>>>>> I loved Walker’s blog regarding the new Intel ad campaign. As an
Sorry. I guess I am spoiled by many SCC posters who understand the
nuance
of a question better. Let me explain.
1. It is a fact that western capitalist inflows preferred China over
India.
2. It is obvious that western capitalist preferred China over India
over their own
selfish reasons.
I know you agree with the above two points. Now another obvious point
which
you appearantly fail to grasp or don't agree according to your
previous posts.
3. Western capitalist inflows are good for the Chinese people after
all the costs
and benefits are considered.
Given point #3, the OBVIOUS assumption is this.
4. that a competent India governemnt
would do and probably had done everything it can to attract western
capitalist inflow.
Now the question:
5. Why India fails?
Answer1: India governemnt officials do not care about the well being
of the people?
Answer2: They tried their best, yet they fail.
To be sure, you had pointed out the much repeated boilerplate issues
against
China's system. Is this answer adequate? I would say no. It is quite
simple.
Low wage alone does not mean good wage from the employers's point of
view,
docile worker alone does not mean productive worker. Ultimately
western
capitalists would only invest in China if its workers are productive.
Uneducated,
unhealthy, and unhappy/rebellious workers cannot be productive workers
no
matter how low and controllable are the wages.
As long as you fail to acknowledge Chinese workers are productive
workers which
reflect the Chinese government's quality of governance, you did not
answer the
question at all UNLESS you are disputing point #3 and/or #4 above.
>
> > You had talked quite a lot on fast development and environmental
> > degradation. How about not so fast development or no development
> > and environment degradation?
>
> The environmental situation in India would have been far worse had India
> adopted the Chinese model of economic advancement regardless of the
> consequences.
You don't really know. Do you?
> I am not denying that there is substantial degradation of
> the environment in India, but that is driven mostly by legacy issues
> like population and outdated industrial infrastructure. To ignore the
> environment now would not only be irresponsible for India, but also
> ruinous, given the already fragile ecology.
>
> Environmentalists in the Indian state of Kerala, for example, forced
> Pepsico to adopt new strategies to reduce their ruinous use of local
> water resources, and to implement mechanisms to recharge groundwater.
> This did not happen in China until recently, after the Indian activism
> highlighted this issue.
I will answer this point later.
>
> http://www.pepsiindia.co.in/pepsiinitiative.htmlhttp://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/08/china-targets-coca-cola-pepsi...> ""Families in villages, for example, don't send their daughters to
P. Rajah
> On Oct 21, 12:08 pm, "P. Rajah" <u...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> ltlee1 wrote:
>>> On Oct 21, 10:27 am, "P. Rajah" <u...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>> ltlee1 wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 21, 8:43 am, "P. Rajah" <u...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>>> RichAsianKid wrote:
>>>>>>> scientific wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Oct 20, 5:47 am, RichAsianKid <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> scientific wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 19, 9:58 am, RichAsianKid <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> You hear so much how Indians and Americans are just team, in brotherly
>>>>>>>>>>> loving arms and their shared vision for democracy or even for the
>>>>>>>>>>> world
>>>>>>>>>>> etc etc, and yet when you get down to the nitty-gritty details
>>>>>>>>>>> ordinary
>>>>>>>>>>> Americans pronounce their verdict clear and loud:
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_052309.htm#b1
>>>>>>>>>>> Benefit Itself)
>>>>>>>>>>> I loved Walker�s blog regarding the new Intel ad campaign. As an
The question was why China was preferred as an investment destination
for western capitalists. I answered that. Now you want me to say that it
was, after all, good for China. I'm not going to dispute that, although
those tens of millions of Chinese who have slaved for low wages, and
sacrificed their health and their lives for those same low wages without
any safety net, might disagree about how good it was for them*. What I
am saying is that you cannot ask why India did not provided the same
conditions, given their radically different systems of government. It
would be like asking why China has such a glaring lack of private news
networks as compared to India, or why internet access is filtered by the
state as opposed to the US where there is no such censorship.
* http://extras.sltrib.com/china/
http://www.alternet.org/story/43051/
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_news?id=161545654
> Given point #3, the OBVIOUS assumption is this.
>
> 4. that a competent India governemnt
> would do and probably had done everything it can to attract western
> capitalist inflow.
The Indian government does not have the constitutional authority to ban
workers' rights, to appropriate resources for corporate use without(or
with minimal) compensation, to muzzle the press, to prevent internal
migration and various other measures that PRC has taken. Granted, it has
not done all that it can and should, but don't forget that prior to the
Kissinger epiphany, PRC hadn't done all that it could have and should
have for the betterment of the Chinese people. As I observed with ARAK,
you are choosing a particular moment in time when China is making
progress to make an argument that pre-supposes or implies that this has
always been the case, and comparing apples and oranges to "prove" your
point.
Oddly enough, workers' rights seem to be the most suppressed in what was
supposed to be a "workers' paradise"!
> Now the question:
> 5. Why India fails?
>
> Answer1: India governemnt officials do not care about the well being
> of the people?
> Answer2: They tried their best, yet they fail.
They have not failed. They are making progress, but more slowly than is
possible. A growth rate of 6-7% in a global recession is not exactly an
indicator of failure, no matter how hard you try to paint it that way.
> To be sure, you had pointed out the much repeated boilerplate issues
> against
> China's system. Is this answer adequate? I would say no. It is quite
> simple.
> Low wage alone does not mean good wage from the employers's point of
> view,
> docile worker alone does not mean productive worker. Ultimately
> western
> capitalists would only invest in China if its workers are productive.
> Uneducated,
> unhealthy, and unhappy/rebellious workers cannot be productive workers
> no
> matter how low and controllable are the wages.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/15/opinion/15wed1.html
http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/18/best-countries-for-business-bizcountries09-business-washington-best-countries.html
Average total compensation for a Chinese worker is $0.67/hour, compared
to $23.65/hour for an American worker. That includes taxes, pensions,
insurance and other related costs. So average take-home pay for a
Chinese worker is in the $80-110/month range, as opposed to over
$2000/month for the American worker.
In the steel industry, an American steel worker makes about 20% more
steel each year than his Chinese counterpart, with 2/3rds fewer carbon
emissions. If productivity was the measure, then steel would not be made
in China, nor would Chinese steel be cheap.
> As long as you fail to acknowledge Chinese workers are productive
> workers which
> reflect the Chinese government's quality of governance, you did not
> answer the
> question at all UNLESS you are disputing point #3 and/or #4 above.
When western capitalists began investing in China 30 years ago,
productivity in China was quite low. That has changed somewhat, as
increasing capital reserves have enabled investment in productivity.
However, a dependable source of cheap and compliant labour, rather than
productivity, was one of the main drivers for the capitalists.
http://www.evolvingexcellence.com/blog/2009/10/only-lean-can-save-china.html
>>> You had talked quite a lot on fast development and environmental
>>> degradation. How about not so fast development or no development
>>> and environment degradation?
>> The environmental situation in India would have been far worse had India
>> adopted the Chinese model of economic advancement regardless of the
>> consequences.
>
> You don't really know. Do you?
Yes, I do. I have traveled extensively in India, and know that it is on
the precipice of environmental disaster if the wrong policies are
adopted. A good part of the problem is over-population, and that again
is something that a democratic government could not legislate against,
unlike an authoritarian state like PRC.
RichAsianKid
> On Oct 21, 10:40 am, RichAsianKid <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> scientific wrote:
>>> On Oct 20, 5:47 am, RichAsianKid <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> scientific wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 19, 9:58 am, RichAsianKid <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> You hear so much how Indians and Americans are just team, in brotherly
>>>>>> loving arms and their shared vision for democracy or even for the world
>>>>>> etc etc, and yet when you get down to the nitty-gritty details ordinary
>>>>>> Americans pronounce their verdict clear and loud:
>>>>>> http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_052309.htm#b1
>>>>>> Benefit Itself)
>>>>>> I loved Walker�s blog regarding the new Intel ad campaign. As an
That would only apply if you agree with 100% of your posted articles or
at least 100% of this quoted article.
If your answer is a "yes", why be rounadbout and not post Aaron Friedberg's?
BTW notice how many Jewish surnames?
>
> 2) This statement is too general :-) Whatever I say would most
> probably get a "On technicalities which you (like drydem or
> residualimage or whatever) care about: " kind of response from you.
OK
>
> 3) I can't comment on this for I haven't seen that posting by
> Mr.Rajah. I have strong suspicion that you really don't read "all the
> replies" to your exceedingly large number of postings ;-)
He'll answer I'm sure.
RichAsianKid
But then isn't the US still so very short-sighted in the 21st century?
China in the *21st century* is still growing faster than India,
way after Kissinger, and amazingly even **after** the economic crisis!!
If I recall correctly, 2008 China growth rate was 9%; India's was 7.4%.
In 2009 China's growth rate are 6.1, 7.9 in Q1 and Q2 while India's was
still under China's at 5.8 and 6.1. At one point I even thought, hey,
India could have overtaken China's esp with the latter's export collapse
that spells doom and gloom! Yet nope. India still failed. How come? And
btw just released figures today: 8.9% in Q3 for China.
Which is important because it's a question of trust - read again, trust
- who at the beginning of the year guaranteed an 8% annual growth
rate, whereas everyone else said that would not be possible and IMF and
whatever figures had to be revised again, again, and again. Of course
things can still change in the coming 3 months, opera ain't over till
fat lady sings, a meteor can wipe out life on earth tomorrow who knows.
But if it's "confidence" that brought upon the economic collapse, think
power of the reverse.
All that is a detour of course, and question stands: why are Americans
still helping out the Chinese (with their still higher growth rates)??
Take a look again:
Have you thought about the balancing and countervailing force and
hypothesis, especially if America has no national loyalties which you
admitted to already:
As Tom Friedman alluded to, it's possible Indians are just dumb. Or at
least dumber.
Why can't you Mr. Rajah - or perhaps India - accept that at least as a
hypothesis?
RichAsianKid
Why thankfully over? How can you be so ungrateful anyway?
> (b) part applies to the present india.
> however, what you say is merely descrbing the symptom, and is not new; it's
> well known to millions of indians. but being a smart guy, you have to
> provide the diagnosis. what you are saying is like saying a patient sick -
> of course he is; no point saying that, is it? but where is the diagnosis?
> without pointing to 3m, you are not going to make much headway.
>
But what if your headache is really a brain tumor and your doctor tells
you it ain't a migraine. And what if human capital plays a role here,
that Indians collectively just don't measure up?
Old territory here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:National_IQ_Lynn_Vanhanen_2006_IQ_and_Global_Inequality.png
Why can't that play a role in India's failure in spite of everything
going for it? http://tinyurl.com/ylnuqd6
Or why can't Indians accept responsibility? Is it just another
blame-game much like how negroes always blame whitey? Why can't the
people be at fault in a democracy -- **especially** in a democracy.
ltlee1
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > On Oct 21, 12:08 pm, "P. Rajah" <u...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> ltlee1 wrote:
> >>> On Oct 21, 10:27 am, "P. Rajah" <u...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >>>> ltlee1 wrote:
> >>>>> On Oct 21, 8:43 am, "P. Rajah" <u...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> RichAsianKid wrote:
> >>>>>>> scientific wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Oct 20, 5:47 am, RichAsianKid <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> scientific wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Oct 19, 9:58 am, RichAsianKid <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> You hear so much how Indians and Americans are just team, in brotherly
> >>>>>>>>>>> loving arms and their shared vision for democracy or even for the
> >>>>>>>>>>> world
> >>>>>>>>>>> etc etc, and yet when you get down to the nitty-gritty details
> >>>>>>>>>>> ordinary
> >>>>>>>>>>> Americans pronounce their verdict clear and loud:
> >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_052309.htm#b1
> >>>>>>>>>>> Benefit Itself)
> >>>>>>>>>>> I loved Walker’s blog regarding the new Intel ad campaign. As an
No. You had not.
Western capitalists want to maximize profit. And they need productive
workers. If they prefer country A over country B, the reason is that
country A's workers are more productive.
You repeated the usual accusations against China and them proceded
to conclude that "All of which translates into low, controlled/
controllable
costs" wihtout demonstrating such a link does exist. In addition, you
totally ignore the output side of the equation.
> Now you want me to say that it
> was, after all, good for China.
Not at all.
Western capital inflow provides job for the workers and helps lifting
the
the technology level of a developing country is well known. It is not
an
"I say you say" issue. If anyone should think differently, he is
welcomed
to dispute it.
> I'm not going to dispute that, although
> those tens of millions of Chinese who have slaved for low wages, and
> sacrificed their health and their lives for those same low wages without
> any safety net, might disagree about how good it was for them*.
As if you know. Why the "might"? If you know it as a fact,
substantiate
your claim. Sorry to inform you that you are quite mistaken.
> What I
> am saying is that you cannot ask why India did not provided the same
> conditions, given their radically different systems of government. It
> would be like asking why China has such a glaring lack of private news
> networks as compared to India, or why internet access is filtered by the
> state as opposed to the US where there is no such censorship.
>
> *http://extras.sltrib.com/china/http://www.alternet.org/story/43051/http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_news?id=161545654
Irrelevant.
Anyway, America's private profit maximizing and people dumbing down
press is my favorite subject. We will have plaenty of opportunity to
discuss
the issue.
>
> > Given point #3, the OBVIOUS assumption is this.
>
> > 4. that a competent India governemnt
> > would do and probably had done everything it can to attract western
> > capitalist inflow.
>
> The Indian government does not have the constitutional authority to ban
> workers' rights, to appropriate resources for corporate use without(or
> with minimal) compensation, to muzzle the press, to prevent internal
> migration and various other measures that PRC has taken.
Show one western capitalist ompany's path to profit is through the
banning
of workers' rights, approapriate resources for corporate use without
fair
compensation, muzzling the press and preventing internal migration and
etc.
> Granted, it has
> not done all that it can and should, but don't forget that prior to the
> Kissinger epiphany, PRC hadn't done all that it could have and should
> have for the betterment of the Chinese people. As I observed with ARAK,
> you are choosing a particular moment in time when China is making
> progress to make an argument that pre-supposes or implies that this has
> always been the case, and comparing apples and oranges to "prove" your
> point.
>
> Oddly enough, workers' rights seem to be the most suppressed in what was
> supposed to be a "workers' paradise"!
Just one small example to show that you are quite ignorant about
China. Walmart
does not allow its workers to form unions. Not in America. But it is
pressured
by the Chinese government to allow its workers to from union in China.
>
> > Now the question:
> > 5. Why India fails?
>
> > Answer1: India governemnt officials do not care about the well being
> > of the people?
> > Answer2: They tried their best, yet they fail.
>
> They have not failed. They are making progress, but more slowly than is
> possible. A growth rate of 6-7% in a global recession is not exactly an
> indicator of failure, no matter how hard you try to paint it that way.
>
> http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/12/best-countries-employment-careers-le...
>
> > To be sure, you had pointed out the much repeated boilerplate issues
> > against
> > China's system. Is this answer adequate? I would say no. It is quite
> > simple.
> > Low wage alone does not mean good wage from the employers's point of
> > view,
> > docile worker alone does not mean productive worker. Ultimately
> > western
> > capitalists would only invest in China if its workers are productive.
> > Uneducated,
> > unhealthy, and unhappy/rebellious workers cannot be productive workers
> > no
> > matter how low and controllable are the wages.
>
>
> Average total compensation for a Chinese worker is $0.67/hour, compared
> to $23.65/hour for an American worker. That includes taxes, pensions,
> insurance and other related costs. So average take-home pay for a
> Chinese worker is in the $80-110/month range, as opposed to over
> $2000/month for the American worker.
>
> In the steel industry, an American steel worker makes about 20% more
> steel each year than his Chinese counterpart, with 2/3rds fewer carbon
> emissions. If productivity was the measure, then steel would not be made
> in China, nor would Chinese steel be cheap.
American steel is only a shadow of its former self precising because
of
productivity issue. At present, surviving steel mills in America are
mini-mills
producing specialized and high profit margin items.
>
> > As long as you fail to acknowledge Chinese workers are productive
> > workers which
> > reflect the Chinese government's quality of governance, you did not
> > answer the
> > question at all UNLESS you are disputing point #3 and/or #4 above.
>
> When western capitalists began investing in China 30 years ago,
> productivity in China was quite low. That has changed somewhat, as
> increasing capital reserves have enabled investment in productivity.
> However, a dependable source of cheap and compliant labour, rather than
> productivity, was one of the main drivers for the capitalists.
A worker is only dependable and productive to the extent that he or
she is
healthy and happy. And if you think taking about the workers' right
and all
those western press nonsense is the way to make workers healthy and
happy, you are quite mistaken.
>
> http://www.evolvingexcellence.com/blog/2009/10/only-lean-can-save-chi...
>
> >>> You had talked quite a lot on fast development and environmental
> >>> degradation. How about not so fast development or no development
> >>> and environment degradation?
> >> The environmental situation in India would have been far worse had India
> >> adopted the Chinese model of economic advancement regardless of the
> >> consequences.
>
> > You don't really know. Do you?
>
> Yes, I do. I have traveled extensively in India, and know that it is on
> the precipice of environmental disaster if the wrong policies are
> adopted. A good part of the problem is over-population, and that again
> is something that a democratic government could not legislate against,
> unlike an authoritarian state like PRC.
No. You don't as long as you cannot really see the future. You can
project
the present into the future. But you don't really know.
>> I am not denying that there is substantial degradation of
> >> the environment in India, but that is driven mostly by legacy issues
> >> like population and outdated industrial infrastructure. To ignore the
> >> environment now would not only be irresponsible for India, but also
> >> ruinous, given the already fragile ecology.
>
> >> Environmentalists in the Indian state of Kerala, for example, forced
> >> Pepsico to adopt new strategies to reduce their ruinous use of local
> >> water resources, and to implement mechanisms to recharge groundwater.
> >> This did not happen in China until recently, after the Indian activism
> >> highlighted this issue.
>
> > I will answer this point later.
> >>http://www.pepsiindia.co.in/pepsiinitiative.htmlhttp://www.treehugger......> ""Families in villages, for example, don't send their daughters to
P. Rajah
Old territory indeed, and discredited. Not surprising that you are
regurgitating it, trying to claim again that it has relevance to your
argument which is: high IQ = high income. Even ignoring the fact that
China's average IQ is not the claimed 105(see Beijing studies I had
linked to before), the very link you are revisiting actually runs
counter to your argument, with allegedly low IQ countries such as Gabon,
Swaziland, Namibia and Antigua ahead in PPP-GNI, despite decades of
double-digit growth in PRC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality
> Why can't that play a role in India's failure in spite of everything
> going for it? http://tinyurl.com/ylnuqd6
You're calling a 6.7% growth rate in the middle of the greatest global
recession in 70 years a "failure"? Pathetic!
> Or why can't Indians accept responsibility? Is it just another
> blame-game much like how negroes always blame whitey? Why can't the
> people be at fault in a democracy -- **especially** in a democracy.
Why can't you accept that India is growing, even without all the help
that China has received? Why must you always try to defend your own lack
of intelligence by positing that certain ethnic groups lack
intelligence? Why are you so bloody insecure in yourself?
P. Rajah
Are you really this stupid to presume that all ties to the US shut down
at the start of the 21st century? Kissinger and associates are still
very active in China(see their website), Neil Bush is parked in Hong
Kong collecting fees for connections, and Walmart and other big-box
chains still import the bulk of their merchandise from China. So the
American capitalist and the American consumer are still very much a
vital part of the China story.
> If I recall correctly, 2008 China growth rate was 9%; India's was 7.4%.
> In 2009 China's growth rate are 6.1, 7.9 in Q1 and Q2 while India's was
> still under China's at 5.8 and 6.1. At one point I even thought, hey,
> India could have overtaken China's esp with the latter's export collapse
> that spells doom and gloom!
And on what basis did you arrive at that possibility? Perhaps that India
would magically grow factories to make the goods that China had a
surplus of and couldn't sell? Or was it perhaps India's $1 trillion
stimulus package? </sarcasm>
> Yet nope. India still failed. How come? And
> btw just released figures today: 8.9% in Q3 for China.
Did you also perhaps read something about Americans suddenly shifting
their purchases to India? You have nothing but strawman arguments to
buttress your discredited claims of intellectual superiority.
> Which is important because it's a question of trust - read again, trust
> - who at the beginning of the year guaranteed an 8% annual growth
> rate, whereas everyone else said that would not be possible and IMF and
> whatever figures had to be revised again, again, and again. Of course
> things can still change in the coming 3 months, opera ain't over till
> fat lady sings, a meteor can wipe out life on earth tomorrow who knows.
> But if it's "confidence" that brought upon the economic collapse, think
> power of the reverse.
>
> All that is a detour of course, and question stands: why are Americans
> still helping out the Chinese (with their still higher growth rates)??
> Take a look again:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/qgmt2o
Yes, do take another look. Why did high IQ China lag behind India until
1984? As I asked you before, were the Chinese a low IQ country prior to
1978? I have thoroughly rebutted all of your arguments, and yet you
continue to triumphantly dredge up the same old tired discredited arguments.
In a 500-year perspective, both China and India performed badly. Which,
to use your hypothesis, must prove that they are both low IQ countries:
http://gongszeto.squarespace.com/storage/percent-world-gdp-1500.jpg
And this must conclusively prove that American IQ is way, way above
China and India:
http://gongszeto.squarespace.com/storage/share_world_output.gif
> Have you thought about the balancing and countervailing force and
> hypothesis, especially if America has no national loyalties which you
> admitted to already:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/29kfeb
Again, you resort to strawman arguments. You claim that I said that
_America_ has no national loyalties. Show me where I have said that.
People like *you*, while technically American citizens, have no national
loyalty to the country of your birth/citizenship.
> As Tom Friedman alluded to, it's possible Indians are just dumb. Or at
> least dumber.
That must be why Microsoft opened its second Asian research center in India.
> Why can't you Mr. Rajah - or perhaps India - accept that at least as a
> hypothesis?
Why can't you accept the fact that you are a dumb bigot only fueled by
all-consuming racist hatred rather than the slightest intelligence?
P. Rajah
> On Oct 21, 4:50 pm, "P. Rajah" <u...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>> The question was why China was preferred as an investment destination
>> for western capitalists. I answered that.
>
> No. You had not.
> Western capitalists want to maximize profit. And they need productive
> workers. If they prefer country A over country B, the reason is that
> country A's workers are more productive.
I am going to stop this discussion with you, because you obviously are
incapable of understanding the most basic of basics. I _had_ answered
that question, as anyone who reads this thread can plainly see.
>> I'm not going to dispute that, although
>> those tens of millions of Chinese who have slaved for low wages, and
>> sacrificed their health and their lives for those same low wages without
>> any safety net, might disagree about how good it was for them*.
>
> As if you know. Why the "might"? If you know it as a fact,
> substantiate
> your claim. Sorry to inform you that you are quite mistaken.
It is a style of writing, and I am not surprised that you make a literal
interpretation of that. Yes, they _would_ disagree, as any humans who
have been abused and reduced to medical wrecks woul.
>> Oddly enough, workers' rights seem to be the most suppressed in what was
>> supposed to be a "workers' paradise"!
>
> Just one small example to show that you are quite ignorant about
> China. Walmart
> does not allow its workers to form unions. Not in America. But it is
> pressured
> by the Chinese government to allow its workers to from union in China.
Walmart does not actually ban its workers from forming unions. It
legally cannot do so. Being a pure capitalist company(and China's
biggest corporate sponsor), it opposes unions and pressures its workers
to reject union drives. China, on the other hand, has but one workers
union, run by the government. Not exactly conducive to the point of
workers unions, is it?
>> In the steel industry, an American steel worker makes about 20% more
>> steel each year than his Chinese counterpart, with 2/3rds fewer carbon
>> emissions. If productivity was the measure, then steel would not be made
>> in China, nor would Chinese steel be cheap.
>
> American steel is only a shadow of its former self precising because
> of
> productivity issue. At present, surviving steel mills in America are
> mini-mills
> producing specialized and high profit margin items.
I just told you that an American steel worker is more productive and
less polluting than a Chinese steel worker, and you simply seem unable
to wrap that fact around your head.
"U.S. labor productivity in the steel industry is 12.1 times the labor
productivity in the Chinese steel industry."
http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2009hearings/written_testimonies/09_03_24_wrts/09_03_24_haley_statement.php
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/steel-important-to-us-but_b_259570.html
Now, I am done with you. There is only so long that I am willing to try
to put some sense into the head of an intransigent fool.
ltlee1
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > On Oct 21, 4:50 pm, "P. Rajah" <u...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> >> The question was why China was preferred as an investment destination
> >> for western capitalists. I answered that.
>
> > No. You had not.
> > Western capitalists want to maximize profit. And they need productive
> > workers. If they prefer country A over country B, the reason is that
> > country A's workers are more productive.
>
> I am going to stop this discussion with you, because you obviously are
> incapable of understanding the most basic of basics. I _had_ answered
> that question, as anyone who reads this thread can plainly see.
See what?
Is this why you delete my explanation on why your answer is
inadequate.
>
> >> I'm not going to dispute that, although
> >> those tens of millions of Chinese who have slaved for low wages, and
> >> sacrificed their health and their lives for those same low wages without
> >> any safety net, might disagree about how good it was for them*.
>
> > As if you know. Why the "might"? If you know it as a fact,
> > substantiate
> > your claim. Sorry to inform you that you are quite mistaken.
>
> It is a style of writing, and I am not surprised that you make a literal
> interpretation of that. Yes, they _would_ disagree, as any humans who
> have been abused and reduced to medical wrecks woul.
Who are the tens of millio would disagree?
Please substantiate your claim by providing real evidence, not your
empty
speculation.
>
> >> Oddly enough, workers' rights seem to be the most suppressed in what was
> >> supposed to be a "workers' paradise"!
>
> > Just one small example to show that you are quite ignorant about
> > China. Walmart
> > does not allow its workers to form unions. Not in America. But it is
> > pressured
> > by the Chinese government to allow its workers to from union in China.
>
> Walmart does not actually ban its workers from forming unions. It
> legally cannot do so. Being a pure capitalist company(and China's
> biggest corporate sponsor), it opposes unions and pressures its workers
> to reject union drives.
Walmart does not allow its workers to form unions. Whether you call it
a ban
or not is immaterial. The fact is still the fact. Number of union
formed by Walmart
workers in America is a big fat zero.
> China, on the other hand, has but one workers
> union, run by the government. Not exactly conducive to the point of
> workers unions, is it?
China's workers' union run by the government. Where do you get this?
Please get your fact straight.
>
> >> In the steel industry, an American steel worker makes about 20% more
> >> steel each year than his Chinese counterpart, with 2/3rds fewer carbon
> >> emissions. If productivity was the measure, then steel would not be made
> >> in China, nor would Chinese steel be cheap.
>
> > American steel is only a shadow of its former self precising because
> > of
> > productivity issue. At present, surviving steel mills in America are
> > mini-mills
> > producing specialized and high profit margin items.
>
> I just told you that an American steel worker is more productive and
> less polluting than a Chinese steel worker, and you simply seem unable
> to wrap that fact around your head.
Of course the surveying steel mill are productive. Else they would be
in China.
> "U.S. labor productivity in the steel industry is 12.1 times the labor
> productivity in the Chinese steel industry."http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2009hearings/written_testimonies/09_03_2...
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/steel-important-to-us-but_...
>
> Now, I am done with you. There is only so long that I am willing to try
> to put some sense into the head of an intransigent fool.
It is always your choice to read and/or to respond to my post.
P. Rajah
By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, December 1, 2004; Page A25
Wal-Mart has finally found a union it can live with.
Up to now America's largest employer has opposed every effort of its
employees to form a union. Wal-Mart doesn't recognize unions; it doesn't
even recognize "employees." The proper Wal-Mart name for its workers is
"associates," a term that connotes higher status and collegiality and
that actually means lower pay and workplace autocracy. For the privilege
of associating themselves with Wal-Mart, its employees are paid so
little that many can't afford the health insurance the company
generously allows them to buy. One study of health care in Las Vegas
revealed that a plurality of that city's employed Medicaid recipients
worked at Wal-Mart.
But that was the old Wal-Mart. Last week Wal-Mart announced that if its
associates wanted a union to represent them, that would be hunky-dory --
as long as the union was affiliated with the All-China Federation of
Trade Unions, a body dominated by the Chinese Communist Party.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23725-2004Nov30.html
P. Rajah
"China's workers' union run by the government. Where do you get this? Please get your fact straight."
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/55/859.html
Founded on May 1, 1925, the All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU) is a body under the leadership of the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CCCPC).
After the CCP's takeover in 1949, the Chinese labor movement lost its independence, as the CCP concentrated all union activity under the state-run All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU), which to date functions more as an arm of the party than as a genuine representative of workers' interests. In 1966, at the start of the Cultural Revolution, the ACFTU was dissolved as Mao denounced unions as "counter-revolutionary." It was reconstituted again in 1978 and has since continued to serve as the sole legally sanctioned union.
In 1989, workers joined with students in the Tiananmen Square protests that spread throughout the country. Hundreds of thousands of workers created branches of a new Worker Autonomous Federation (WAF). When the regime cracked down, one of its key aims was the total suppression of WAF. Thousands of workers were arrested or forced into exile. Despite this repression, workers have continued to organize independent unions, including the Free Labour Union of China (1992–94), League for Protection of the Rights of the Working People (LPRWP), and Hired-Hand Workers' Federation in Shenzhen (1994), among others. None have survived for long. Since 1999, worker protests have gained strength, with strikes sometimes involving tens of thousands of people lasting weeks and even months. If there is an attempt to organize a new or permanent worker organization, Chinese authorities have acted severely, as in Liaoyang City, in Liaoning Province. There, in March 2002, several thousand workers marched under the banner of the independent Liaoyang City Unemployed and Bankrupt Workers Provisional Union to demand a government investigation into corruption that had bankrupted their factories. The arrests of the workers' representatives after six days of protests led to larger protests, and after a year of governmental manipulation and intimidation, the leaders were sentenced to several years in prison.
http://www.democracyweb.org/association/china.php
When Chinese Workers Unite, The Bosses Often Run the Union
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/29/world/when-chinese-workers-unite-the-bosses-often-run-the-union.html
ltlee1
> This is in response to an individual's comment:
> "China's workers' union run by the government. Where do you get this? Please get your fact straight."
> The Chinese government recognizes the All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU) as the sole representative of Chinese workers.
The All-China Federation of Trade Unions is not run the by governemnt.
That is all.
> http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/55/859.html
> Founded on May 1, 1925, the All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU) is a body under the leadership of the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CCCPC).
> After the CCP's takeover in 1949, the Chinese labor movement lost its independence, as the CCP concentrated all union activity under the state-run All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU), which to datefunctions more as an arm of the party than as a genuine representative of workers' interests. In 1966, at the start of the Cultural Revolution, the ACFTU was dissolved as Mao denounced unions as "counter-revolutionary." It was reconstituted again in 1978 and has since continued to serve as the sole legally sanctioned union.
> In 1989, workers joined with students in the Tiananmen Square protests that spread throughout the country. Hundreds of thousands of workers created branches of a new Worker Autonomous Federation (WAF). When the regime cracked down, one of its key aims was the total suppression of WAF. Thousands of workers were arrested or forced into exile. Despite this repression, workers have continued to organize independent unions, including the Free Labour Union of China (1992–94), League for Protection of the Rights of the Working People (LPRWP), and Hired-Hand Workers' Federation in Shenzhen (1994), among others.None have survived for long. Since 1999, worker protests have gained strength, with strikes sometimes involving tens of thousands of people lasting weeks and even months. If there is an attempt to organize a new or permanent worker organization, Chinese authorities have acted severely, as in Liaoyang City, in Liaoning Province. There, in March 2002, several thousand workers marched under the banner of the independent Liaoyang City Unemployed and Bankrupt Workers Provisional Union to demand a government investigation into corruption that had bankrupted their factories. The arrests of the workers' representatives after six days of protests led to larger protests, and after a year of governmental manipulation and intimidation, the leaders were sentenced to several years in prison.http://www.democracyweb.org/association/china.php
P. Rajah
> On Oct 22, 2:22 pm, "P. Rajah" <u...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> This is in response to an individual's comment:
>> "China's workers' union run by the government. Where do you get this? Please get your fact straight."
>> The Chinese government recognizes the All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU) as the sole representative of Chinese workers.
>>
>
> The All-China Federation of Trade Unions is not run the by governemnt.
> That is all.
>
Earlier, I called you an intransigent fool. You just showed the readers
my justification for doing so.
ltlee1
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > On Oct 22, 2:22 pm, "P. Rajah" <u...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> >> This is in response to an individual's comment:
> >> "China's workers' union run by the government. Where do you get this? Please get your fact straight."
> >> The Chinese government recognizes the All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU) as the sole representative of Chinese workers.
>
> > The All-China Federation of Trade Unions is not run the by governemnt.
> > That is all.
>
> Earlier, I called you an intransigent fool. You just showed the readers
> my justification for doing so.
Call me names woould not change the reality.
>
>
>
> >>http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/55/859.html
> >> Founded on May 1, 1925, the All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU) is a body under the leadership of the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CCCPC).
> >> After the CCP's takeover in 1949, the Chinese labor movement lost its independence, as the CCP concentrated all union activity under the state-run All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU), which to datefunctions more as an arm of the party than as a genuine representative of workers' interests. In 1966, at the start of the Cultural Revolution, the ACFTU was dissolved as Mao denounced unions as "counter-revolutionary." It was reconstituted again in 1978 and has since continued to serve as the sole legally sanctioned union.
> >> In 1989, workers joined with students in the Tiananmen Square protests that spread throughout the country. Hundreds of thousands of workers created branches of a new Worker Autonomous Federation (WAF). When the regime cracked down, one of its key aims was the total suppression of WAF. Thousands of workers were arrested or forced into exile. Despite this repression, workers have continued to organize independent unions, including the Free Labour Union of China (1992–94), League for Protection of the Rights of the Working People (LPRWP), and Hired-Hand Workers' Federation in Shenzhen (1994), among others.None have survived for long. Since 1999, worker protests have gained strength, with strikes sometimes involving tens of thousands of people lasting weeks and even months. If there is an attempt to organize a new or permanent worker organization, Chinese authorities have acted severely, as in Liaoyang City, in Liaoning Province. There, in March 2002, several thousand workers marched under the banner of the independent Liaoyang City Unemployed and Bankrupt Workers Provisional Union to demand a government investigation into corruption that had bankrupted their factories. The arrests of the workers' representatives after six days of protests led to larger protests, and after a year of governmental manipulation and intimidation, the leaders were sentenced to several years in prison.http://www.democracyweb.org/association/china.php
> >> When Chinese Workers Unite, The Bosses Often Run the Unionhttp://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/29/world/when-chinese-workers-unite-th...- Hide quoted text -
Penang
That only shows how stupid you are, Mr. Lee.
You don't know Indians and yet you want to show off your
"intelligence". You don't know them at all, and yet you still want to
tell us about Pakistan and Kashmir.
C'mon, Mr. Lee, admit that you have NO IDEA AT ALL about India and
Indians.
Stop being such a woooosie, Mr. Lee !
You are behaving just like those white liberals in America, who have
no idea of China and never stop telling the world how bad is China,
how bad are the Han people and so on.
By saying things about "Pakistan" and "Kashmir" when you have NO IDEA
WHAT KIND OF HUMANS THE INDIANS ARE, you are no difference from those
white liberal assholes, do you know that, Mr. Lee ?
> > >http://military.china.com/zh_cn/critical3/27/20091021/15674113.html
> > > 印度最近对中国频繁挑衅，网上此类消息很多，最嚣张的是印度总理汉莫辛格访问中印争议地区和邀请DL拉磨访问藏南争议地区。后者更是挑战中国核心利
> > > 益。不过笔者认为印度的过度嚣张不是真的要与中国搞实战，真正目的还是为了迎合美国的遏中战略。最近的三军指挥官开会应对所谓的"中国军队入侵行为"，
> > > 颇有拿"美印陆军联合演习"这张虎皮做大旗的意味。
>
> > > The China version of the 'Growing Indo-US relationship has unnerved
> > > China' articlehttp://intl.ce.cn/zgysj/200910/21/t20091021_20241062.shtml-Hide quoted text -
ltlee1
Sounds like you have a strong view on "WHAT KIND OF HUMANS THE
INDIANS ARE." I assume you have a lot of first hand experience.
Instead of
calling me names, .why don't you tell what you have gathered from your
first
hand experience?
>
> > > >http://military.china.com/zh_cn/critical3/27/20091021/15674113.html
> > > > 印度最近对中国频繁挑衅，网上此类消息很多，最嚣张的是印度总理汉莫辛格访问中印争议地区和邀请DL拉磨访问藏南争议地区。后者更是挑战中国核心利
> > > > 益。不过笔者认为印度的过度嚣张不是真的要与中国搞实战，真正目的还是为了迎合美国的遏中战略。最近的三军指挥官开会应对所谓的"中国军队入侵行为"，
> > > > 颇有拿"美印陆军联合演习"这张虎皮做大旗的意味。
>
> > > > The China version of the 'Growing Indo-US relationship has unnerved
> > > > China' articlehttp://intl.ce.cn/zgysj/200910/21/t20091021_20241062.shtml-Hidequoted text -
RichAsianKid
Question stands. Why empower China even if indirectly? And assuming
India wanted economic development or even closer US ties, where, how
and why did India go wrong?
>
>> If I recall correctly, 2008 China growth rate was 9%; India's was 7.4%.
>> In 2009 China's growth rate are 6.1, 7.9 in Q1 and Q2 while India's was
>> still under China's at 5.8 and 6.1. At one point I even thought, hey,
>> India could have overtaken China's esp with the latter's export collapse
>> that spells doom and gloom!
>
> And on what basis did you arrive at that possibility? Perhaps that India
> would magically grow factories to make the goods that China had a
> surplus of and couldn't sell? Or was it perhaps India's $1 trillion
> stimulus package? </sarcasm>
I thought China's just some useless knockoff machine, while India is
brimming with boundless individuality and vibrancy and undiscovered
genius just waiting for that cataclysmic 2008 financial crisis moment to
break free. Guess not....
>
>> Yet nope. India still failed. How come? And
>> btw just released figures today: 8.9% in Q3 for China.
>
> Did you also perhaps read something about Americans suddenly shifting
> their purchases to India? You have nothing but strawman arguments to
> buttress your discredited claims of intellectual superiority.
1. Didn't you just answer your own question above? "Perhaps that India
would magically grow factories to make the goods that China had a
surplus of and couldn't sell?"
2. How come India's growth rate is still so slow vis-a-vis China's and
diverged since Q1?
>
>
>> Which is important because it's a question of trust - read again,
>> trust - who at the beginning of the year guaranteed an 8% annual growth
>> rate, whereas everyone else said that would not be possible and IMF
>> and whatever figures had to be revised again, again, and again. Of
>> course things can still change in the coming 3 months, opera ain't
>> over till fat lady sings, a meteor can wipe out life on earth tomorrow
>> who knows. But if it's "confidence" that brought upon the economic
>> collapse, think power of the reverse.
>>
>> All that is a detour of course, and question stands: why are Americans
>> still helping out the Chinese (with their still higher growth rates)??
>> Take a look again:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/qgmt2o
>
> Yes, do take another look. Why did high IQ China lag behind India until
> 1984? As I asked you before, were the Chinese a low IQ country prior to
> 1978? I have thoroughly rebutted all of your arguments, and yet you
> continue to triumphantly dredge up the same old tired discredited
> arguments.
Then poor poor poor India - now fighting two fronts: China AND
America at the same time? What prospects can India even begin to have? Geez!
Again from the data itself http://tinyurl.com/qgmt2o I'd say it's the
clearest reflection of deficiency staring at your face: India did NOT
parlay its whatever initial socioeconomic advantage into something much
better and much greater than China. It fell behind. That speaks of a
colossal deficit and deficiency.
>
> In a 500-year perspective, both China and India performed badly. Which,
> to use your hypothesis, must prove that they are both low IQ countries:
> http://gongszeto.squarespace.com/storage/percent-world-gdp-1500.jpg
>
> And this must conclusively prove that American IQ is way, way above
> China and India:
> http://gongszeto.squarespace.com/storage/share_world_output.gif
>
Didn't "superior" America still choose China over India as you've
broadcasted to all of us here?
>
>> Have you thought about the balancing and countervailing force and
>> hypothesis, especially if America has no national loyalties which you
>> admitted to already:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/29kfeb
>
> Again, you resort to strawman arguments. You claim that I said that
> _America_ has no national loyalties. Show me where I have said that.
> People like *you*, while technically American citizens, have no national
> loyalty to the country of your birth/citizenship.
>
Guess Kissinger and associates aren't America ("I further remarked that
Kissinger and associates have no national loyalties, only worshiping at
the altar of Mammon.") But then doesn't that hark back to my OP's point
namely "A Nevada IT Worker Asks Why, If Indians Are So �Superior�, Their
Country Is Such A Dump"
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.indian/msg/06035a4658a4b877?
>
>> As Tom Friedman alluded to, it's possible Indians are just dumb. Or at
>> least dumber.
>
>
> That must be why Microsoft opened its second Asian research center in
> India.
Where's Microsoft's first Asian research center?
>
>> Why can't you Mr. Rajah - or perhaps India - accept that at least as a
>> hypothesis?
>
> Why can't you accept the fact that you are a dumb bigot only fueled by
> all-consuming racist hatred rather than the slightest intelligence?
You refuse to believe India is dumber, and I actually don't blame you.
Truth often bites. :)
Cheers,
RichAsianKid
BwahahahA!! Why expose your innumeracy again?!!!! Say, when some women
are taller than men does that mean men are in general not taller than
women? Bwahahahaaaaa!!!!!!!!
(Don't now blame this on Indian ed, please)
>
>> Why can't that play a role in India's failure in spite of everything
>> going for it? http://tinyurl.com/ylnuqd6
>
> You're calling a 6.7% growth rate in the middle of the greatest global
> recession in 70 years a "failure"? Pathetic!
Nope, being second to China should not be viewed as failure. In fact it
is still a great accomplishment. Hooray!!
>
>
>> Or why can't Indians accept responsibility? Is it just another
>> blame-game much like how negroes always blame whitey? Why can't the
>> people be at fault in a democracy -- **especially** in a democracy.
>
> Why can't you accept that India is growing, even without all the help
> that China has received? Why must you always try to defend your own lack
> of intelligence by positing that certain ethnic groups lack
> intelligence? Why are you so bloody insecure in yourself?
RAK accepts India should be proud being second to China in many ways.
And that is saying a lot. There are many countries which cannot compare
themselves to India. Say Zimbabwe for instance.
ltlee1
> >>news:hbm6mn$agj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >>> harmony wrote:
> >>>> "RichAsianKid" <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:hbj14p$ei1$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >>>>> harmony wrote:
> >>>>>> "RichAsianKid" <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> Old territory indeed, and discredited. Not surprising that you are
> regurgitating it, trying to claim again that it has relevance to your
> argument which is: high IQ = high income.
High IQ = high Income cannot discredited although it may not be
realized
objectviely.
Fifty-five professors-- all experts in intelligence and allied field
-- had
signed a open letter (Dec 13, 1994, WSJ) containing 25 statements
about IQ. Statement 11:
"The practical advantages of having a higher IQ increase as life
settings
become more complex (novel, ambiguous, changing, unpredictable, or
multi-faceted). For example, a high IQ is generally necessary to
perform
well in highly complex or fluid jobs (the professions, management); it
is
a considerable advantage in moderately complex jobs (crafts, clerical
and police work); but it provides less advantage in settings that
require
only routine decision or simple problem solving (unskilled work.)"
People from country with rich natural resources and/or good farmland
can certainly make more than China which per capita natural resource
and
farm land are low. But as a country continue to develope and the
economy
becomes more and more complex, IQ will certainly exest itself. I
don't
believe IQ determinism. At the same time, people who ignore IQ as a
factor
important factor are only hiding their heads in the sand.
> Even ignoring the fact that
> China's average IQ is not the claimed 105(see Beijing studies I had
> linked to before), the very link you are revisiting actually runs
> counter to your argument, with allegedly low IQ countries such as Gabon,
> Swaziland, Namibia and Antigua ahead in PPP-GNI, despite decades of
> double-digit growth in PRC.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality
>
> > Why can't that play a role in India's failure in spite of everything
> > going for it? http://tinyurl.com/ylnuqd6
>
> You're calling a 6.7% growth rate in the middle of the greatest global
> recession in 70 years a "failure"? Pathetic!
>
> > Or why can't Indians accept responsibility? Is it just another
> > blame-game much like how negroes always blame whitey? Why can't the
> > people be at fault in a democracy -- **especially** in a democracy.
>
> Why can't you accept that India is growing, even without all the help
> that China has received? Why must you always try to defend your own lack
> of intelligence by positing that certain ethnic groups lack
> intelligence? Why are you so bloody insecure in yourself?- Hide quoted text -
P. Rajah
You are neither literate in history and politics, nor are you capable of
understanding _anything_ that does not buttress your pathetic
discredited IQ argument. *America* did not empower the Chinese, in fact
there have been a lot of protests over the years about the shifting of
American manufacturing jobs to China. There have been so many actions
taken over the past 30-40 years that dismantled America's capabilities
just so the pure capitalists at the top of the heap could make even more
money. Real American income has been dropping since the early 50s,
mostly as cheap imports from protectionist countries began to flood the
American market and destroy American jobs. The drop in income has been
compensated in the consumer market by opening the floodgates of consumer
credit, which is why a significant proportion of Americans find
themselves in lifelong debt. China even today has tremendous tariff and
non-tariff barriers that protect its domestic corporations and industry.
One such example is solar panels, which cannot be sold in China unless
there is 75% domestic content.
In 1971, when India and Pakistan fought a war, the US pressured India to
end the war prematurely, sending its 7th Fleet into the waters off
India's east coast to make the point. Wanna take a wild guess at who
made that decision? Your friend Henry Kissinger. During discussions with
Nixon at that time(as revealed by declassified documents), Kissinger
referred to the Indians as "bastards", and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi
as a "bitch". Kissinger did not want India to go to war against
Pakistan, despite the fact that the Pakistani army had decimated the
population of what was then East Pakistan, from 75 million down to 68
million in 8 months, in what was the largest genocide since WW2, and the
presence of 12 million refugees from Bangladesh in India.
"Nixon and Kissinger did not want "to get [the] West Pakistanis turned
against us," in part because President Yahya was providing a secret
communication link for their quest for rapprochement with China. The
close China-Pakistan relationship was central to Nixon's wish to "tilt"
U.S. policy toward Pakistan in part to show Beijing that Washington
would support its allies."
[...]
"Their agreement that China could put pressure on India: 'I think we've
got to tell [the Chinese] that some movement on their part � toward the
Indian border could be very significant.'"
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20050629/index.htm
Even as he and Nixon were secretly courting the Chinese, Kissinger
called the Japanese "treacherous sons of bitches" for doing exactly what
he was doing.
Doing the right thing, and promoting human rights, was never a priority
for Kissinger. Indeed, it was never a consideration at all. Tragically,
he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973.
>>> If I recall correctly, 2008 China growth rate was 9%; India's was 7.4%.
>>> In 2009 China's growth rate are 6.1, 7.9 in Q1 and Q2 while India's was
>>> still under China's at 5.8 and 6.1. At one point I even thought, hey,
>>> India could have overtaken China's esp with the latter's export
>>> collapse
>>> that spells doom and gloom!
>>
>> And on what basis did you arrive at that possibility? Perhaps that
>> India would magically grow factories to make the goods that China had
>> a surplus of and couldn't sell? Or was it perhaps India's $1 trillion
>> stimulus package? </sarcasm>
>
> I thought China's just some useless knockoff machine, while India is
> brimming with boundless individuality and vibrancy and undiscovered
> genius just waiting for that cataclysmic 2008 financial crisis moment to
> break free. Guess not....
India will, in time, do very well indeed, despite the massive economic
disadvantage of not having the clients of Kissinger and associates on
board. You don't need to strain your tiny racist mind over that.
>>> Yet nope. India still failed. How come? And
>>> btw just released figures today: 8.9% in Q3 for China.
>>
>> Did you also perhaps read something about Americans suddenly shifting
>> their purchases to India? You have nothing but strawman arguments to
>> buttress your discredited claims of intellectual superiority.
>
>
> 1. Didn't you just answer your own question above? "Perhaps that India
> would magically grow factories to make the goods that China had a
> surplus of and couldn't sell?"
I was being sarcastic, as you should have been able to tell. Does anyone
open up factories to make goods that there is a surplus of?
> 2. How come India's growth rate is still so slow vis-a-vis China's and
> diverged since Q1?
Because it didn't throw hundreds of billions of dollars to prop up the
"growth" rate. Take the stimulus out of the equation, and what would the
growth rate be?
http://www.businessinsider.com/china-wants-to-stop-making-so-much-stuff-2009-9
>>> Which is important because it's a question of trust - read again,
>>> trust - who at the beginning of the year guaranteed an 8% annual growth
>>> rate, whereas everyone else said that would not be possible and IMF
>>> and whatever figures had to be revised again, again, and again. Of
>>> course things can still change in the coming 3 months, opera ain't
>>> over till fat lady sings, a meteor can wipe out life on earth
>>> tomorrow who knows. But if it's "confidence" that brought upon the
>>> economic collapse, think power of the reverse.
>>>
>>> All that is a detour of course, and question stands: why are Americans
>>> still helping out the Chinese (with their still higher growth
>>> rates)?? Take a look again:
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/qgmt2o
>>
>> Yes, do take another look. Why did high IQ China lag behind India
>> until 1984? As I asked you before, were the Chinese a low IQ country
>> prior to 1978? I have thoroughly rebutted all of your arguments, and
>> yet you continue to triumphantly dredge up the same old tired
>> discredited arguments.
>
> Then poor poor poor India - now fighting two fronts: China AND
> America at the same time? What prospects can India even begin to have?
> Geez!
Complete non-sequitor, bubbling up from the depths of your bigotry.
> Again from the data itself http://tinyurl.com/qgmt2o I'd say it's the
> clearest reflection of deficiency staring at your face: India did NOT
> parlay its whatever initial socioeconomic advantage into something
> much better and much greater than China. It fell behind. That speaks
> of a colossal deficit and deficiency.
India's so-called "socio-economic advantage" was the existence of an
English-language education system that catered to perhaps 2% of the
population, and a legal system broadly based on the British system. That
did not exactly provide huge impetus for economic change, although it
did provide some small advantage. But you also seem to conveniently
ignore the fact that China, beginning from an approximately equal
per-capita GDP in 1949, fell behind India over the next 30 years. That
must speak of "a colossal deficit and deficiency", eh? India's real
problems began with partition at independence, and the wars with
Pakistan. Unfortunately, the US chose to back the dictators of Pakistan,
mistakenly believing it could be a strong frontline state against the
Soviets. The American ambiguity toward India continues to this day, with
the US still propping up a Pakistan that clearly does not have US
interests at heart, and redirects US largesse toward augmenting
offensive capability and its proxy war against India.
>> In a 500-year perspective, both China and India performed badly.
>> Which, to use your hypothesis, must prove that they are both low IQ
>> countries:
>> http://gongszeto.squarespace.com/storage/percent-world-gdp-1500.jpg
>>
>> And this must conclusively prove that American IQ is way, way above
>> China and India:
>> http://gongszeto.squarespace.com/storage/share_world_output.gif
>>
>
> Didn't "superior" America still choose China over India as you've
> broadcasted to all of us here?
As I've stated over and over again(and still cannot get through to your
racist mind), it wasn't "America" that chose China.
>>> Have you thought about the balancing and countervailing force and
>>> hypothesis, especially if America has no national loyalties which
>>> you admitted to already:
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/29kfeb
>>
>> Again, you resort to strawman arguments. You claim that I said that
>> _America_ has no national loyalties. Show me where I have said that.
>> People like *you*, while technically American citizens, have no
>> national loyalty to the country of your birth/citizenship.
>>
>
> Guess Kissinger and associates aren't America ("I further remarked
> that Kissinger and associates have no national loyalties, only
> worshiping at the altar of Mammon.")
No, they certainly aren't.
> But then doesn't that hark back to my OP's point namely "A Nevada IT
> Worker Asks Why, If Indians Are So �Superior�, Their Country Is Such A
> Dump"
The "Nevada IT Worker" is an idiot, because the Indians working in the
US are not the typical Indian. They are much better educated, and for
the most part are the cream of the crop in their particular field. This
is why foreign-born Indian-Americans are the second highest-earning
ethnic group in America, next only to the foreign-born
Japanese-Americans who have an unusually high percentage of managers.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.indian/msg/06035a4658a4b877?
>
>
>
>>
>>> As Tom Friedman alluded to, it's possible Indians are just dumb. Or
>>> at least dumber.
>>
>>
>> That must be why Microsoft opened its second Asian research center in
>> India.
>
> Where's Microsoft's first Asian research center?
My point is that if Indians are dumb, Microsoft would not have opened a
research center in India, coincidentally enough, at the same time that
Friedman was in China making the allusions you refer to.
>>> Why can't you Mr. Rajah - or perhaps India - accept that at least as
>>> a hypothesis?
>>
>> Why can't you accept the fact that you are a dumb bigot only fueled
>> by all-consuming racist hatred rather than the slightest intelligence?
>
> You refuse to believe India is dumber, and I actually don't blame you.
> Truth often bites. :)
It often does, which is why you cannot reconcile yourself to it.
harmony
that's 1000 yrs.
According to economic historian Angus Maddison in his book The World
Economy: A ... India had the world's largest economy from the 1st to 11th
century, ....
>> (b) part applies to the present india.
>> however, what you say is merely descrbing the symptom, and is not new;
>> it's well known to millions of indians. but being a smart guy, you have
>> to provide the diagnosis. what you are saying is like saying a patient
>> sick - of course he is; no point saying that, is it? but where is the
>> diagnosis? without pointing to 3m, you are not going to make much
>> headway.
>
> But what if your headache is really a brain tumor and your doctor tells
> you it ain't a migraine. And what if human capital plays a role here, that
> Indians collectively just don't measure up?
>
more pertinent: the doctor will tell you what causes brain tumor: too much
smoking, alcohol, heavy meat eating etc.
> Old territory here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:National_IQ_Lynn_Vanhanen_2006_IQ_and_Global_Inequality.png
>
> Why can't that play a role in India's failure in spite of everything going
> for it? http://tinyurl.com/ylnuqd6
>
india has pretty good human capital, which isn't allowed to realize its
potential because of its politics is beyond repair due to 3m.
> Or why can't Indians accept responsibility? Is it just another blame-game
> much like how negroes always blame whitey? Why can't the people be at
> fault in a democracy -- **especially** in a democracy.
>
this i agree with. india has to take responsibility for letting 3m paralyze
it.
right diagnosis, right remedy.
Penang
Mr. Lee, please get your fact right.
Only 52 professors, not 55 !
Richard D. Arvey, University of Minnesota
Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr., University of Minnesota
John B. Carroll, Un. Of North Caroline at Chapel Hill
Raymond B. Cattell, University of Hawaii
David B. Cohen, University of Texas at Austin
Rene V. Dawis, University of Minnesota
Douglas K. Detterman, Case Western Reserve Un.
Marvin Dunnette, University of Minnesota
Hand Eysenck, University of London
Jack Feldman, Georgia Institute of Technology
Edwin A. Fleishman, George Mason University
Grover G. Gilmore, Case Western Reserve University
Robert A. Gordon, Johns Hopkins University
Linda S. Gottfredson, University of Delaware
Robert L. Greene, Case Western Reserve University
Richard J. Haler, University of California at Irvine
Garrett Hardin, University of California at Berkeley
Robert Hogan, University of Tulsa
Joseph M. Horn, University of Texas at Austin
Lloyd G. Humphreys, Un.of Illinois.@ Cham'-Urbana
John E. Hunter, Michigan State University
Seymour W. Itzkoff, Smith College
Douglas N. Jackson, Un. Of Western Ontario
James J. Jenkins, University of South Florida
Arthur R. Jensen, University of California at Berkeley
Alan S. Kaufman, University of Alabama
Nadeen L. Kaufman, Cal. School of Psychology@S.D.
Timothy Z. Keith, Alfred University
Nadine Lambert, University of California at Berkeley
John C. Loehlin, University of Texas at Austin
David Lubinski, Iowa State University
David T. Lykken, University of Minnesota
Richard Lynn, University of Ulster at Coleraine
Paul E. Meehl, University of Minnesota
R. Travis Osborne, university of Georgia
Robert Perloff, University of Pittsburgh
Robert Plomin, Institute of Psychiatry, London
Cecil R. Reynolds, Texas A&M University
David C. Rowe, University of Arizona
J. Phillippe Rushton, Un. Of Western Ontario
Vincent Sarich, University of California at Berkeley
Sandra Scarr, University of Virginia
Frank L. Schmidt, University of Iowa
Lyle F. Schoenfeldt, Texas A&M University
James C. Sharf, George Washington University
Herman Spitz, former director E.R. Johnstone Training and Research
Center, Bordentown,
N.J.
Julian C. Stanley, Johns Hopkins University
Del Thiessen, University of Texas at Austin
Lee A. Thompson, Case Western Reserve University
Robert M. Thorndike, Western Washington Un.
Philip Anthony Vernon, Un. of Western Ontario
Lee Willerman, University of Texas at Austin
Larry
No one open up factories to make goods that there is a surplus of. If it
takes the stimulus out of the equation, growth rate would be 3 or 4
percents. Yes, That must speak of "a colossal deficit and deficiency". But
there are so many other countries had same economic performance as China had
for that period of time. China had nothing to feel shame. At that time,
China also develop nuclear weapons, rockets and other sophiscated
technologies. If you count these, China actually did a much better job than
other countries which has similar economy perform with China. China should
feel so proud.
"P. Rajah" <us...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:hbsje...@news3.newsguy.com...
> RichAsianKid wrote:
>
>> P. Rajah wrote:
>>> RichAsianKid wrote:
>>>
>>>> P. Rajah wrote:
>>>>> RichAsianKid wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> scientific wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 20, 5:47 am, RichAsianKid <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> scientific wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 19, 9:58 am, RichAsianKid <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> You hear so much how Indians and Americans are just team, in
>>>>>>>>>> brotherly
>>>>>>>>>> loving arms and their shared vision for democracy or even for the
>>>>>>>>>> world
>>>>>>>>>> etc etc, and yet when you get down to the nitty-gritty details
>>>>>>>>>> ordinary
>>>>>>>>>> Americans pronounce their verdict clear and loud:
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_052309.htm#b1
>>>>>>>>>> From: "An American Citizen With Advanced Degrees" (e-mail him)
>>>>>>>>>> Re: Brenda Walker's Blog: Intel Disseminates Diversity Propaganda
>>>>>>>>>> (To
>>>>>>>>>> Benefit Itself)
>>>>>>>>>> I loved Walker's blog regarding the new Intel ad campaign. As an
> got to tell [the Chinese] that some movement on their part . toward the
>> Worker Asks Why, If Indians Are So "Superior", Their Country Is Such A
P. Rajah
Hi: No one open up factories to make goods that there is a surplus of. If it takes the stimulus out of the equation, growth rate would be 3 or 4 percents. Yes, That must speak of "a colossal deficit and deficiency". But there are so many other countries had same economic performance as China had for that period of time. China had nothing to feel shame. At that time, China also develop nuclear weapons, rockets and other sophiscated technologies. If you count these, China actually did a much better job than other countries which has similar economy perform with China. China should feel so proud.
China's Economy: Behind All the Hype
Despite an impressive rebound, an innovation shortfall may hobble sustainable growth
As the West struggles to recover, China is on track for 8% growth this year and is about to overtake Japan as the world's No. 2 economy and Germany as the No. 1 exporter. Now the mainland is charging ahead in new industries, unveiling homegrown airliners, electric cars, and high-speed trains.
But delve beneath the muscular statistics and hype about advances in strategic industries, and China doesn't seem so prepared to catapult into a role of global economic leadership. Experts familiar with highly touted Chinese achievements such as commercial jets and high-speed trains say the technologies that underpin them were largely developed elsewhere. There is no Chinese Sony, Toyota, or Samsung on the horizon. While Beijing's $586 billion stimulus package and a 150% increase in bank lending have spurred impressive growth, "the question," says Morgan Stanley (MS) Asia Chairman Stephen S. Roach, "is the quality of that growth."
By Beijing's own admission, the economic model that has powered China for three decades can no longer be counted on to move it forward. The mainland has prospered largely through construction and by exporting all manner of consumer goods churned out in low-wage factories; workers parked their savings in state-run banks, which then loaned the money to companies to make more stuff. But technology and managerial knowhow came mostly from multinationals, and the costs—pollution, decaying social services, and a yawning gap between the urban rich and rural poor—were largely ignored. Though that model has fueled phenomenal growth, Hu and others now call it "unbalanced" and "unsustainable."
[.....]For a glimpse of what may lie ahead if China fails to transform its economy, head to the southern city of Dongguan. The thousands of factories in the Pearl River Delta industrial hub churn out televisions, furniture, toys, and a seemingly infinite number of other products for consumers worldwide. But with China's exports down 15% in September—the 11th consecutive month of decline—Dongguan is reeling. In the Changping district, once dubbed "little Hong Kong," shuttered factories are overgrown with weeds. The karaoke bars and restaurants, which once catered to the thousands of Hong Kong and Taiwanese managers who have fled, are quiet. Sure, the economy of Guangdong Province is on track for 9% growth this year, but that's due mainly to massive government spending on public works, such as an airport expansion and a nuclear power station. "What Guangdong is facing, all of China is facing," says Wang Yiyang, vice-director of Guangdong's development research center, an arm of the provincial government. "We have to find new sources of competitiveness."
[....]
NO INCUBATOR OF INNOVATION
China has a long way to go, though, in innovation. The mainland has dramatically boosted research spending and boasts the world's biggest pool of science and engineering graduates. But aside from Internet games, the country creates few breakthrough products, due in no small measure to the perennial problem of rampant counterfeiting. China last year exported $416 billion worth of high-tech goods. But subtract the mainland operations of Taiwanese contract manufacturers and the likes of Nokia (NOK), Samsung, and Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), and China is an electronics lightweight.http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_44/b4153036870077.htm
Penang
Thank you very much.
I appreciate it.
Keep thinking that China is backward, if that suits you best.
Thanks again !
On Oct 23, 8:13 pm, "P. Rajah" <u...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> Larry wrote:Hi: No one open up factories to make goods that there is a surplus of. If it takes the stimulus out of the equation, growth rate would be 3 or 4 percents. Yes, That must speak of "a colossal deficit and deficiency". But there are so many other countries had same economic performance as China had for that period of time. China had nothing to feel shame. At that time, China also develop nuclear weapons, rockets and other sophiscated technologies. If you count these, China actually did a much better job than other countries which has similar economy perform with China. China should feel so proud.China's Economy: Behind All the HypeDespite an impressive rebound, an innovation shortfall may hobble sustainable growth
> As the West struggles to recover, China is on track for 8% growth this year and is about to overtake Japan as the world's No. 2 economy and Germany as the No. 1 exporter. Now the mainland is charging ahead in new industries, unveiling homegrown airliners, electric cars, and high-speed trains.
>
> But delve beneath the muscular statistics and hype about advances in strategic industries, and China doesn't seem so prepared to catapult into a role of global economic leadership. Experts familiar with highly touted Chinese achievements such as commercial jets and high-speed trains saythe technologies that underpin them were largely developed elsewhere. There is no Chinese Sony, Toyota, or Samsung on the horizon. While Beijing's $586 billion stimulus package and a 150% increase in bank lending have spurred impressive growth, "the question," says Morgan Stanley (MS) Asia Chairman Stephen S. Roach, "is the quality of that growth."
>
> By Beijing's own admission, the economic model that has powered China for three decades can no longer be counted on to move it forward. The mainland has prospered largely through construction and by exporting all manner of consumer goods churned out in low-wage factories; workers parked their savings in state-run banks, which then loaned the money to companies to make more stuff.But technology and managerial knowhow came mostly from multinationals, and the costs—pollution, decaying social services, and a yawning gap between the urban rich and rural poor—were largely ignored.Though that model has fueled phenomenal growth, Hu and others now call it "unbalanced" and "unsustainable."[.....]
> For a glimpse of what may lie ahead if China fails to transform its economy, head to the southern city of Dongguan. The thousands of factories in the Pearl River Delta industrial hub churn out televisions, furniture, toys, and a seemingly infinite number of other products for consumers worldwide. But with China's exports down 15% in September—the 11th consecutive month of decline—Dongguan is reeling. In the Changping district, once dubbed "little Hong Kong," shuttered factories are overgrown with weeds. The karaoke bars and restaurants, which once catered to the thousands of Hong Kong and Taiwanese managers who have fled, are quiet. Sure, the economy of Guangdong Province is on track for 9% growth this year, but that's due mainly to massive government spending on public works, such as an airport expansion and a nuclear power station. "What Guangdong is facing, all of China is facing," says Wang Yiyang, vice-director of Guangdong's development research center, an arm of the provincial government. "We have to find new sources of competitiveness."
> [....]NO INCUBATOR OF INNOVATIONChina has a long way to go, though, in innovation. The mainland has dramatically boosted research spending and boasts the world's biggest pool of science and engineering graduates. But aside from Internet games,the country creates few breakthrough products, due in no small measure to the perennial problem of rampant counterfeiting. China last year exported $416 billion worth of high-tech goods. But subtract the mainland operations of Taiwanese contract manufacturers and the likes of Nokia (NOK), Samsung, and Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), and China is an electronics lightweight.http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_44/b4153036870077.htm"P. Rajah"<us...@newsguy.com>wrote in messagenews:hbsje...@news3.newsguy.com...RichAsianKid wrote:P. Rajah wrote:RichAsianKid wrote:P. Rajah wrote:RichAsianKid wrote:scientific wrote:On Oct 20, 5:47 am, RichAsianKid<RichAsian...@hotmail.com>wrote:scientific wrote:On Oct 19, 9:58 am, RichAsianKid<RichAsian...@hotmail.com>wrote:You hear so much how Indians and Americans are just team, in brotherly loving arms and their shared vision for democracy or even for the world etc etc, and yet when you get down to the nitty-gritty details ordinary Americans pronounce their verdict clear and loud:http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_052309.htm#b1From: "An American Citizen With Advanced Degrees" (e-mail him) Re: Brenda Walker's Blog: Intel Disseminates Diversity Propaganda (To Benefit Itself) I loved Walker's blog regarding the new Intel ad campaign. As an American high tech worker I have had my face rubbed in this diversity nonsense for too long. I've had enough. If Indians are of such uniformly high caliber, why is the country racked by massive runaway population growth, grinding poverty and a caste system that imposes misery on the majority of its one billion people. One would think that if Indians were as talented as we are repeatedly told, those superior folks would be able to raise their own country out of the gutter. Brenda Walker answers: On the worldwide hypocrisy scale, India rates number one. Indians have a very overblown belief in their own superiority based on the alleged spirituality aspect to their culture. Frankly, Indians have nothing to be arrogant about.Yoga is nice but India has all kinds of socially acceptable evils, as our reader notes, and the nasty bits far outweigh the good. * * * Now if this rhetoric were directed against third world mainland Chinese - and it may well be - it would at least be understandable. But this stab from India's *ally*? From Americans?? Ouch!!!RichAsianKiddish illogical juvenile comment :-( FYI, one American blog entry doesn't mean "Stab from India's ally -- Americans." BTW, the logic the blogger used can be extended to every single nationality and nation.The Intel ad refers to hi tech biz and quite a few Indians in that field are of high caliber. The blogger is pathetic by overgeneralizing "If Indians are of such uniformly high caliber."On technicalities which you (like drydem or residualimage or whatever) care about: 1. Americans I didn't say America - and still plural - i.e. not just one as you implied (first the letter itself which was a response, then "Brenda Walker"'s comments as quoted, and finally the title of the post from the editor). Not to mention how e-zines or any publications try to cater to rather than alienate readership I'd imagine. 2. As said this rhetoric could be directed against 3rd world mainland Chinese. 3. Agree wholeheartedly Indians are not *uniformly* high caliber.'Growing Indo-US relationship has unnerved China'http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/oct/20/indo-us-ties-unnerved-china.htmThe deepening of strategic relationship between India and the US has unnerved China, an eminent American scholar said, arguing that Beijing's [ Images ] four-decade-old policy of dealing with New Delhi [ Images ] on their own terms has...
>
> read more »
RichAsianKid
But see, now you have an even bigger problem. You said Kissinger called
the Japanese "treacherous sons of bitches", similar to what how he
called Gahdhi a "bitch". How come Japan then grew even more than China?
Comparison between 1950 and 2000 GDP per capita Ratio
(2000/1950)
China - Chine 8.166901
India - Inde 3.16158 <-----
Japan - Japon 10.76842
South Korea 19.06327
Taiwan 17.5401
Hong Kong 9.583983
Singapore - Singapour 9.468626
And what about the rest of East Asia?
How come India is such a pathetic slowpoke?
>>>> If I recall correctly, 2008 China growth rate was 9%; India's was 7.4%.
>>>> In 2009 China's growth rate are 6.1, 7.9 in Q1 and Q2 while India's was
>>>> still under China's at 5.8 and 6.1. At one point I even thought, hey,
>>>> India could have overtaken China's esp with the latter's export
>>>> collapse
>>>> that spells doom and gloom!
>>>
>>> And on what basis did you arrive at that possibility? Perhaps that
>>> India would magically grow factories to make the goods that China had
>>> a surplus of and couldn't sell? Or was it perhaps India's $1 trillion
>>> stimulus package? </sarcasm>
>>
>> I thought China's just some useless knockoff machine, while India is
>> brimming with boundless individuality and vibrancy and undiscovered
>> genius just waiting for that cataclysmic 2008 financial crisis moment to
>> break free. Guess not....
>
> India will, in time, do very well indeed, despite the massive economic
> disadvantage of not having the clients of Kissinger and associates on
> board. You don't need to strain your tiny racist mind over that.
>
Again, to repeat: how come Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore then
grew even faster than China and India lags so far behind so many
countries (or colonies at the time) compared to India?
Comparison between 1950 and 2000. GDP per capita Ratio
(2000/1950)
China - Chine 8.166901
India - Inde 3.16158 <-----
Japan - Japon 10.76842
South Korea 19.06327
Taiwan 17.5401
Hong Kong 9.583983
Singapore - Singapour 9.468626
>>>> Yet nope. India still failed. How come? And
>>>> btw just released figures today: 8.9% in Q3 for China.
>>>
>>> Did you also perhaps read something about Americans suddenly shifting
>>> their purchases to India? You have nothing but strawman arguments to
>>> buttress your discredited claims of intellectual superiority.
>>
>>
>> 1. Didn't you just answer your own question above? "Perhaps that India
>> would magically grow factories to make the goods that China had a
>> surplus of and couldn't sell?"
>
> I was being sarcastic, as you should have been able to tell. Does anyone
> open up factories to make goods that there is a surplus of?
But if India is so smart and innovative how come it is not churning out
higher-quality goods than China (ref once poor Korea) that the rest of
the world wants to buy?
>
>> 2. How come India's growth rate is still so slow vis-a-vis China's and
>> diverged since Q1?
>
> Because it didn't throw hundreds of billions of dollars to prop up the
> "growth" rate. Take the stimulus out of the equation, and what would the
> growth rate be?
Are you now suggesting that China's CCP is doing something *for* its
country while Indian's government isn't? That somehow economic growth is
*not* important for India? Hmmmm we all know http://tinyurl.com/2v5ufg
Let's hope the UK is not slanting or biased....
> http://www.businessinsider.com/china-wants-to-stop-making-so-much-stuff-2009-9
>
>
>>>> Which is important because it's a question of trust - read again,
>>>> trust - who at the beginning of the year guaranteed an 8% annual growth
>>>> rate, whereas everyone else said that would not be possible and IMF
>>>> and whatever figures had to be revised again, again, and again. Of
>>>> course things can still change in the coming 3 months, opera ain't
>>>> over till fat lady sings, a meteor can wipe out life on earth
>>>> tomorrow who knows. But if it's "confidence" that brought upon the
>>>> economic collapse, think power of the reverse.
>>>>
>>>> All that is a detour of course, and question stands: why are Americans
>>>> still helping out the Chinese (with their still higher growth
>>>> rates)?? Take a look again:
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/qgmt2o
>>>
>>> Yes, do take another look. Why did high IQ China lag behind India
>>> until 1984? As I asked you before, were the Chinese a low IQ country
>>> prior to 1978? I have thoroughly rebutted all of your arguments, and
>>> yet you continue to triumphantly dredge up the same old tired
>>> discredited arguments.
>>
>> Then poor poor poor India - now fighting two fronts: China AND
>> America at the same time? What prospects can India even begin to have?
>> Geez!
>
> Complete non-sequitor, bubbling up from the depths of your bigotry.
Are you for or against America based on this whole thread?
(Not sure if that is how you spell "sequitor" btw maybe this is another
example of Indian education I don't know? Don't get me wrong, I'm not a
kindergarten teacher and I hate to pick on petty things like spelling,
but this is one that trips ups lots of people - I'm inclined to think
it's not a typo as the "o" and "u" are not directly adjacent to each
other on the keyboard....)
Just look at your first paragraph and take the overall view and it
sounds like you're against. Correct RAK if he's wrong. :)
As for IQ, why is it that China/Indian trajectories *diverge* after the
early 1990s as I've said so many times?
http://i33.tinypic.com/ftivc1.jpg
Yet IQs are stable in spite of economic flux!!
http://www.vdare.com/images/042306_ss_pic2.jpg
The above highly suggests that IQs (human capital) are independent
variables, not dependent variables as they do not rise *in tandem* with
economic performance, strongly point the arrow of causation being not $$
-> human capital, but rather the other way round where human capital -> $$.
>
>> Again from the data itself http://tinyurl.com/qgmt2o I'd say it's the
>> clearest reflection of deficiency staring at your face: India did NOT
>> parlay its whatever initial socioeconomic advantage into something
>> much better and much greater than China. It fell behind. That speaks
>> of a colossal deficit and deficiency.
>
> India's so-called "socio-economic advantage" was the existence of an
> English-language education system that catered to perhaps 2% of the
> population, and a legal system broadly based on the British system. That
> did not exactly provide huge impetus for economic change, although it
> did provide some small advantage. But you also seem to conveniently
> ignore the fact that China, beginning from an approximately equal
> per-capita GDP in 1949, fell behind India over the next 30 years. That
> must speak of "a colossal deficit and deficiency", eh? India's real
> problems began with partition at independence, and the wars with
> Pakistan. Unfortunately, the US chose to back the dictators of Pakistan,
> mistakenly believing it could be a strong frontline state against the
> Soviets. The American ambiguity toward India continues to this day, with
> the US still propping up a Pakistan that clearly does not have US
> interests at heart, and redirects US largesse toward augmenting
> offensive capability and its proxy war against India.
Again I see that India's failure to parlay its 1950 headstart as yet
another strong datapoint for India's deficits. That is, to repeat, China
in spite of being behind had just shred India to pieces:
http://i33.tinypic.com/ftivc1.jpg
And now you're saying also in spite of the English language education
system India still falls behind (??), and now blames America also (which
is why I wrote above - you now seem to want to fight the G2 - China AND
America) Wow!!!!
It's all blame, blame, blame, blame. Everybody else's fault but your own.
Wow!!!!!
>
>>> In a 500-year perspective, both China and India performed badly.
>>> Which, to use your hypothesis, must prove that they are both low IQ
>>> countries:
>>> http://gongszeto.squarespace.com/storage/percent-world-gdp-1500.jpg
>>>
>>> And this must conclusively prove that American IQ is way, way above
>>> China and India:
>>> http://gongszeto.squarespace.com/storage/share_world_output.gif
>>>
>>
>> Didn't "superior" America still choose China over India as you've
>> broadcasted to all of us here?
>
> As I've stated over and over again(and still cannot get through to your
> racist mind), it wasn't "America" that chose China.
>
Now, Kissinger being the secretary of state is pretty high profile, the
5th in the presidential line of succession. How is it possible American
democracy failed its people? Democracy failed? You serious?????
>>>> Have you thought about the balancing and countervailing force and
>>>> hypothesis, especially if America has no national loyalties which
>>>> you admitted to already:
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/29kfeb
>>>
>>> Again, you resort to strawman arguments. You claim that I said that
>>> _America_ has no national loyalties. Show me where I have said that.
>>> People like *you*, while technically American citizens, have no
>>> national loyalty to the country of your birth/citizenship.
>>>
>>
>> Guess Kissinger and associates aren't America ("I further remarked
>> that Kissinger and associates have no national loyalties, only
>> worshiping at the altar of Mammon.")
>
> No, they certainly aren't.
Thanks for confirming my above point "Again, Kissinger being the
secretary of state is pretty high profile, the 5th in the presidential
line of succession. Are you saying American democracy failed its
people?" Guess everyone's just chained and oppressed ready to break free.
>
>> But then doesn't that hark back to my OP's point namely "A Nevada IT
>> Worker Asks Why, If Indians Are So �Superior�, Their Country Is Such A
>> Dump"
>
> The "Nevada IT Worker" is an idiot, because the Indians working in the
> US are not the typical Indian. They are much better educated, and for
> the most part are the cream of the crop in their particular field. This
> is why foreign-born Indian-Americans are the second highest-earning
> ethnic group in America, next only to the foreign-born
> Japanese-Americans who have an unusually high percentage of managers.
>
FINALLY Mr. Rajah sees the light!! And *that's* why when people say oh
these brown Indian Americans make so much money and are so rich and
extrapolate how India will somehow be like them and generalize etc etc
etc RAK says bunk!!!!!! One swallow doesn't make a summer, no! Thank
you, and you're right Mr. Rajah, RAK is happy to say!!
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.indian/msg/06035a4658a4b877?
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> As Tom Friedman alluded to, it's possible Indians are just dumb. Or
>>>> at least dumber.
>>>
>>>
>>> That must be why Microsoft opened its second Asian research center in
>>> India.
>>
>> Where's Microsoft's first Asian research center?
>
> My point is that if Indians are dumb, Microsoft would not have opened a
> research center in India, coincidentally enough, at the same time that
> Friedman was in China making the allusions you refer to.
India isn't the Asia's first thought then is it? In fact and this is
from wiki, in 2004, MIT Technology Review named Microsoft Research Asia
(not China, but Asia...) �the hottest computer lab in the world�.
Provide counter-evidence for us please?
>
>>>> Why can't you Mr. Rajah - or perhaps India - accept that at least as
>>>> a hypothesis?
>>>
>>> Why can't you accept the fact that you are a dumb bigot only fueled
>>> by all-consuming racist hatred rather than the slightest intelligence?
>>
>> You refuse to believe India is dumber, and I actually don't blame you.
>> Truth often bites. :)
>
>
> It often does, which is why you cannot reconcile yourself to it.
http://www.vdare.com/images/042306_ss_pic2.jpg
RAK admits he finds the above sweet. :)
Or let's put it this way which RAK thought you even would agree: $$ is
not everything. :)
ltlee1
Yes. You are right and I am wrong. 52 instead of 55.
Thank you for correcting me.
> Nadeen L. Kaufman, Cal. School of Psychol...@S.D.
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
P. Rajah
> india has pretty good human capital, which isn't allowed to realize its
> potential because of its politics is beyond repair due to 3m.
No, the politics may be beyond repair because of anti-Indian shitheads
like you.
Now go and see if you can taste kesar ghee-shakkar when you kiss Chinese
ass again.
P. Rajah
Japan was already a global economic power by then. In the 1975-2000
period, Japanese growth leveled off, like that of the US:
http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/images/ww_gdp_per_capita.jpg
On a percentage basis, Japanese GDP in the 1975-2000 period did not grow
"even more than China", as you erroneously claim.
During that same period, South Korea and China grew their GDP by
flooding the west with cheap goods while protection their internal
markets from foreign competition. I would give South Korea much more
credit for their growth than China, because they did it in a
more-or-less democratic environment, and they didn't degrade their
environment to anything near like the Chinese.
> Comparison between 1950 and 2000 GDP per capita Ratio
> (2000/1950)
>
> China - Chine 8.166901
> India - Inde 3.16158 <-----
> Japan - Japon 10.76842
> South Korea 19.06327
> Taiwan 17.5401
> Hong Kong 9.583983
> Singapore - Singapour 9.468626
>
> And what about the rest of East Asia?
>
> How come India is such a pathetic slowpoke?
As they say, there are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are
statistics. You have proven to be a consummate manipulator of
statistics. So lets say we look at the 1945-1955 period:
http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/images/ww_gdp_per_capita.jpg
Explain why China was so dismally below India during that period,
despite its great advantage of having historically been a single nation
for much longer, of having had such great leadership, a single language,
etc. Compare the 1600-1950 timeline for Britain, France, Germany, etc.,
and explain why China remained so pathetically far behind. You are a
pathetic racist who is squeezing out every last drop of propaganda value
in what is but a blip in the timeline.
Classic tactic of "truth by repetition". See my remarks above.
>>>>> Yet nope. India still failed. How come? And
>>>>> btw just released figures today: 8.9% in Q3 for China.
>>>>
>>>> Did you also perhaps read something about Americans suddenly
>>>> shifting their purchases to India? You have nothing but strawman
>>>> arguments to buttress your discredited claims of intellectual
>>>> superiority.
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. Didn't you just answer your own question above? "Perhaps that
>>> India would magically grow factories to make the goods that China had
>>> a surplus of and couldn't sell?"
>>
>> I was being sarcastic, as you should have been able to tell. Does
>> anyone open up factories to make goods that there is a surplus of?
>
> But if India is so smart and innovative how come it is not churning out
> higher-quality goods than China (ref once poor Korea) that the rest of
> the world wants to buy?
"once poor Korea" also began by making low quality, but very cheap,
goods. As recently as 20 years ago, Korean products were not known for
their quality. As for India, it is beginning to become a hub for certain
kinds of manufacturing, and will do well in time. Your problem is that
you hate Indians so much that admitting even the possibility that India
might someday become a prosperous nation sticks in your craw. It doesn't
matter if India is not as fast-growing as China, or does not reach
China's GDP level.
>>> 2. How come India's growth rate is still so slow vis-a-vis China's
>>> and diverged since Q1?
>>
>> Because it didn't throw hundreds of billions of dollars to prop up the
>> "growth" rate. Take the stimulus out of the equation, and what would
>> the growth rate be?
>
> Are you now suggesting that China's CCP is doing something *for* its
> country while Indian's government isn't? That somehow economic growth is
> *not* important for India? Hmmmm we all know http://tinyurl.com/2v5ufg
> Let's hope the UK is not slanting or biased....
http://extras.sltrib.com/china/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/31/AR2006073101399_pf.html
>> http://www.businessinsider.com/china-wants-to-stop-making-so-much-stuff-2009-9
Don't want to admit that China's 3rd quarter "growth rate" has resulted
in excessive inventory lying around, that villages in China are filled
with washing machines and appliances for which they have no water or power?
http://www.aei.org/outlook/100061
I do sometimes make spelling mistakes, as there is some conflict between
the British English and American spelling. Sometimes, that confusion
finds its way into words such as non-sequitur, which I mis-spelled. Do
you have another example of my mis-spelling as an indicator of my low
IQ?
And while you're at it, why not check your own spelling and grammatical
constructs? "similar to what how he called Gahdhi a 'bitch'".
And maybe chide Mr. Lee on how his relatively poor English
gives away his low IQ?
> Just look at your first paragraph and take the overall view and it
> sounds like you're against. Correct RAK if he's wrong. :)
As always, you are wrong. My first paragraph was an indictment of the
anti-American pro-pure capitalism of Kissinger and associates. Despite
repeated clarification regarding your conflation of K&A with "America",
you continue to do so in keeping with your agenda of truth by repetition.
> As for IQ, why is it that China/Indian trajectories *diverge* after the
> early 1990s as I've said so many times?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/qgmt2o
>
> http://i33.tinypic.com/ftivc1.jpg
You ask a question on IQ based on references that have nothing to do
with IQ? Smart, real smart!
Japanese GDP growth rate in the period 1992-2009 was blown away by
India's growth rate. Perhaps you would be so kind as to shine the light
of your IQ hypothesis on that fact, and proclaim the Indians to be of
much higher IQ than the Japanese?
> Yet IQs are stable in spite of economic flux!!
>
> http://www.vdare.com/images/042306_ss_pic2.jpg
Rather than providing graphics from your favourite, er I mean favorite,
racist website, why not provide actual IQ studies that were done? In an
earlier exchange, I pointed out that the most recent study I found for
Beijing gave an IQ of 100 for the Beijing population, which without
doubt must be more highly concentrated with higher-IQ people and have
greater educational resources than most other parts of the country. How
the figure now being touted(mostly by the ilk of vdare.com), that
Chinese _average_ IQ is now approaching 110, is arrived at, I have no
idea. Perhaps you could explain.
In this study, there is evidence of a dramatic increase in measured IQ
levels after salt iodination was introduced:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/epa08/lin-1991.pdf
The scores for high-fluoride, low-iodine areas in China are comparable
to the IQ scores for the Indian population with similar circumstances.
Iodized salt is still not much used in India, despite a ban in 2006 on
the sale of non-iodized salt.
Once again, you disingenuously fail to address the issue of why China
fell behind India during the 1949-1975 period, simply because to do so
would invalidate your racist hypothesis. So also if you were to address
the headstart China had over the rest of the world from centuries ago.
> And now you're saying also in spite of the English language education
> system India still falls behind (??), and now blames America also (which
> is why I wrote above - you now seem to want to fight the G2 - China AND
> America) Wow!!!!
G2?? That's a laugh! Thanks for the joke, ARAK!
But I sadly note that you still appear unable to shake off your
propensity for the tactic of truth by repetition, and keep saying that I
blame America, that I am against America, etc., completely ignoring my
distinction between America and pure-capitalists who happen to be
American, and European as well. Kissinger himself was not born in America.
> It's all blame, blame, blame, blame. Everybody else's fault but your own.
>
> Wow!!!!!
>
>
>>
>>>> In a 500-year perspective, both China and India performed badly.
>>>> Which, to use your hypothesis, must prove that they are both low IQ
>>>> countries:
>>>> http://gongszeto.squarespace.com/storage/percent-world-gdp-1500.jpg
>>>>
>>>> And this must conclusively prove that American IQ is way, way above
>>>> China and India:
>>>> http://gongszeto.squarespace.com/storage/share_world_output.gif
>>>>
>>>
>>> Didn't "superior" America still choose China over India as you've
>>> broadcasted to all of us here?
>>
>> As I've stated over and over again(and still cannot get through to
>> your racist mind), it wasn't "America" that chose China.
>>
>
> Now, Kissinger being the secretary of state is pretty high profile, the
> 5th in the presidential line of succession. How is it possible American
> democracy failed its people? Democracy failed? You serious?????
Who elected him to be Secretary of State? He was actually the National
Security Advisor in 1971, also a non-elected position. But you make the
fallacious argument also that covert actions of individuals, elected or
otherwise, is a "failure of democracy". You have made it abundantly
clear that you are no fan of democracy, yet you continue to freely
choose to live in a democracy, the very same democracy you keep running
down.
>>>>> Have you thought about the balancing and countervailing force and
>>>>> hypothesis, especially if America has no national loyalties which
>>>>> you admitted to already:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/29kfeb
>>>>
>>>> Again, you resort to strawman arguments. You claim that I said that
>>>> _America_ has no national loyalties. Show me where I have said that.
>>>> People like *you*, while technically American citizens, have no
>>>> national loyalty to the country of your birth/citizenship.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Guess Kissinger and associates aren't America ("I further remarked
>>> that Kissinger and associates have no national loyalties, only
>>> worshiping at the altar of Mammon.")
>>
>> No, they certainly aren't.
>
> Thanks for confirming my above point "Again, Kissinger being the
> secretary of state is pretty high profile, the 5th in the presidential
> line of succession. Are you saying American democracy failed its
> people?" Guess everyone's just chained and oppressed ready to break free.
Don't see you bolting for China, do we? Wish you would. There's a
rickshaw with your name on it in Shanghai. You might be able to burn a
little rubber with it if you can trick out the electric motor.
>>> But then doesn't that hark back to my OP's point namely "A Nevada IT
>>> Worker Asks Why, If Indians Are So �Superior�, Their Country Is Such
>>> A Dump"
>>
>> The "Nevada IT Worker" is an idiot, because the Indians working in the
>> US are not the typical Indian. They are much better educated, and for
>> the most part are the cream of the crop in their particular field.
>> This is why foreign-born Indian-Americans are the second
>> highest-earning ethnic group in America, next only to the foreign-born
>> Japanese-Americans who have an unusually high percentage of managers.
>>
>
> FINALLY Mr. Rajah sees the light!! And *that's* why when people say oh
> these brown Indian Americans make so much money and are so rich and
> extrapolate how India will somehow be like them and generalize etc etc
> etc RAK says bunk!!!!!! One swallow doesn't make a summer, no! Thank
> you, and you're right Mr. Rajah, RAK is happy to say!!
Thanks for acknowledging that I'm right, ARAK, but I have to correct
you, once again, on your unwarranted extrapolation. While Indians in the
US are better educated than their compatriots in India, it does not
warrant your implication that Indians in general cannot do better as
their level and quality of education improves.
To give you a simple analogy you might be capable of understanding: A
group of bearded men. Some are given razors and use them to shave their
beards. Clean-shaven(like a baby's butt) ARAK shows up to take a look,
because he believes that clean-shaven faces are an indicator of high IQ.
"Ha, ha, ha,", laughs Mr. ARAK, "some of you may have shaved your
beards, but I can clearly see that not all of you are capable of doing
it, because you have low IQ as a group!"
Your entire hypothesis of superior Chinese IQ has been shown time and
again to be totally bogus, and like your fellow mole, Mr. Lee, you prove
to be completely intransigent in your views in the face of evidence to
the contrary.
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.indian/msg/06035a4658a4b877?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> As Tom Friedman alluded to, it's possible Indians are just dumb. Or
>>>>> at least dumber.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That must be why Microsoft opened its second Asian research center
>>>> in India.
>>>
>>> Where's Microsoft's first Asian research center?
>>
>> My point is that if Indians are dumb, Microsoft would not have opened
>> a research center in India, coincidentally enough, at the same time
>> that Friedman was in China making the allusions you refer to.
>
> India isn't the Asia's first thought then is it? In fact and this is
> from wiki, in 2004, MIT Technology Review named Microsoft Research Asia
> (not China, but Asia...) �the hottest computer lab in the world�.
>
> Provide counter-evidence for us please?
Counter-evidence for what? You posited that Indians are too dumb for
multinationals to be investing in Indian brain-power(per the Friedman
link you provided), and I countered with the fact that Microsoft chose
to establish its second Asian research centre in India. Obviously, MS
does not think that Indians are dumb.
As for why the Beijing centre is called the "Asian" centre, it is
because of popular usage. Like when you and Mr. Lee make references to
Asians, you do not include South Asians or West Asians(yes, the Arabs)
under that grouping, although logically they are also Asians. So the
Beijing "Asia" centre is Microsoft's lab for the "Asian", i.e., the
Oriental area.
>>>>> Why can't you Mr. Rajah - or perhaps India - accept that at least
>>>>> as a hypothesis?
>>>>
>>>> Why can't you accept the fact that you are a dumb bigot only fueled
>>>> by all-consuming racist hatred rather than the slightest intelligence?
>>>
>>> You refuse to believe India is dumber, and I actually don't blame
>>> you. Truth often bites. :)
>>
>>
>> It often does, which is why you cannot reconcile yourself to it.
>
> http://www.vdare.com/images/042306_ss_pic2.jpg
>
> http://tinyurl.com/qgmt2o
>
> RAK admits he finds the above sweet. :)
>
> Or let's put it this way which RAK thought you even would agree: $$ is
> not everything. :)
Of course you would find it sweet, because despite evidence to the
contrary, your racist mind continues to cling to unsupported claims put
out by the Klan.
RichAsianKid
1. South Korea has much higher IQ than India. An estimated 25-point gap.
In fact Korea probably has marginally higher IQ than China.
2. Your graph clearly shows how slow India is - not only wrt China but
also to Korea (ravaged by the Korean War) on a log scale. Your data
confirms India is slow.
3. My numbers are 1950-2000, not 1975-2000. Of course you can point out
1990-2000 in Japan's lost decade, or maybe just focus in on a quarter
(how come Q1 of all countries dropped in 2009 etc.) and just extend the
x-axis timeline infinity but the end result does not change: India is
still slow economically however you slice and dice the data - as once
again noted in your graph, and there is no obvious inflection point or a
'takeoff' in the early 1990s where economic liberalization took place.
India still falls behind. How come?
>
>
>> Comparison between 1950 and 2000 GDP per capita Ratio
>> (2000/1950)
>>
>> China - Chine 8.166901
>> India - Inde 3.16158 <-----
>> Japan - Japon 10.76842
>> South Korea 19.06327
>> Taiwan 17.5401
>> Hong Kong 9.583983
>> Singapore - Singapour 9.468626
>>
>> And what about the rest of East Asia?
>>
>> How come India is such a pathetic slowpoke?
>
> As they say, there are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are
> statistics. You have proven to be a consummate manipulator of
> statistics. So lets say we look at the 1945-1955 period:
> http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/images/ww_gdp_per_capita.jpg
>
> Explain why China was so dismally below India during that period,
> despite its great advantage of having historically been a single nation
> for much longer, of having had such great leadership, a single language,
> etc. Compare the 1600-1950 timeline for Britain, France, Germany, etc.,
> and explain why China remained so pathetically far behind. You are a
> pathetic racist who is squeezing out every last drop of propaganda value
> in what is but a blip in the timeline.
No one will say that North Koreans are congenitally more stupid than
South Koreans, or Japanese. Yet North Koreans are very poor. Like I
said, there are many ways for a country to fail. But it does NOT
therefore follow that with economic liberalization or the right
conditions then magically every country will become wealthy. Just as
malnutrition can stunt height it does NOT follow therefore that with
adequate nutrition everyone will be equally tall as I said many times
before.
What you're doing here is once again desperately making excuses for a
really pathetic Indian performance, citing bad circumstances, maybe bad
luck, exploitation etc. Fact is, many of the East Countries have had it
worse - Korea being a great example; China had its cultural revolutions
and purges and tens of millions were slaughtered. And yet in spite of
all that you see their modern growth path which is clearly *divergent*
from that of India's, and I might add, other South Indian countries from
Sri Lanka to Bangladesh to Pakistan to Nepal. Sri Lanka is no Taiwan,
Bangladesh is no Japan. And guess what? South Asia's countries are all
of much lower IQs than East Asian countries. India vs China is merely
one data point. That's cold hard fact and posturing and wailing and
refusing to look at it will not make it go away.
Let's put things in more colloquial and manageable terms: India quite
simply sucks. :)
>
>
>>>>>> Yet nope. India still failed. How come? And
>>>>>> btw just released figures today: 8.9% in Q3 for China.
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you also perhaps read something about Americans suddenly
shifting their purchases to India? You have nothing but strawman
arguments to buttress your discredited claims of intellectual superiority.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1. Didn't you just answer your own question above? "Perhaps that
India would magically grow factories to make the goods that China had a
surplus of and couldn't sell?"
>>>
>>> I was being sarcastic, as you should have been able to tell. Does
anyone open up factories to make goods that there is a surplus of?
>>
>> But if India is so smart and innovative how come it is not churning out
>> higher-quality goods than China (ref once poor Korea) that the rest
of the world wants to buy?
>
> "once poor Korea" also began by making low quality, but very cheap,
> goods. As recently as 20 years ago, Korean products were not known for
> their quality. As for India, it is beginning to become a hub for certain
> kinds of manufacturing, and will do well in time. Your problem is that
> you hate Indians so much that admitting even the possibility that India
> might someday become a prosperous nation sticks in your craw. It doesn't
> matter if India is not as fast-growing as China, or does not reach
> China's GDP level.
The best Indians can pine for is some type of cafe-au-lait South
American country like Brazil. Which is actually not a poor country - it
is considered middle-income, and is much richer than India, as well as
China (so far). But India will be extremely unlikely to become something
like a Japan, or a Taiwan (whose GDP PPP is on par with the EU now, not
shown in your graph), or Singapore type society (whose GDP PPP is
actually higher than the US and Sweden and Switzerland etc.). China may
or may not become one, but based on *precedence* of city-state scale
economies of Hong Kong and Singapore and island-state scale economies as
in Taiwan I bet China over India anytime, the latter of which has none
(look at pathetic states of Sri Lanka, Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh).
And this goes back to the role of human capital as I alluded to above.
There is no overlap at all wrt the East Asian cluster and the South
Asian cluster. In fact the gap is so large (20 points or so) that it's
even larger than the black-white IQ difference in the US.
>
>
>>>> 2. How come India's growth rate is still so slow vis-a-vis China's
and diverged since Q1?
>>>
>>> Because it didn't throw hundreds of billions of dollars to prop up
the "growth" rate. Take the stimulus out of the equation, and what would
the growth rate be?
>>
>> Are you now suggesting that China's CCP is doing something *for* its
>> country while Indian's government isn't? That somehow economic
growth is *not* important for India? Hmmmm we all know
http://tinyurl.com/2v5ufg
>> Let's hope the UK is not slanting or biased....
>
> http://extras.sltrib.com/china/
>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/31/AR2006073101399_pf.html
Doesn't answer the question about the China stimulus question does it?
What stimulus package did India dish out, what size, what amount etc.
And how come it has been India that has been so very muted in North
America after the economic collapse. It's always China China China ad
nauseum. Somehow India just miraculously dropped out of the picture!
No, to most, India is at best an ornament, seriously. And it takes tough
times to flush out sheer poseurs from the real thing. :)
>
>>>
http://www.businessinsider.com/china-wants-to-stop-making-so-much-stuff-2009-9
>
>
> Don't want to admit that China's 3rd quarter "growth rate" has resulted
> in excessive inventory lying around, that villages in China are filled
> with washing machines and appliances for which they have no water or
power?
>
> http://www.aei.org/outlook/100061
One of the advantages of being from a so-called UHNWI family is you look
at things differently from the middle class (though admitted there is
something in common with upper middle class individuals which I still
consider as pillars of society). The details sometimes don't come first,
you almost acquire a second instinct to look at the overall and bigger
picture. Afterall, if all these investment bankers or advisors are
really so great, how come most of them are not even millionaires? What
do they slave at their 9-5 jobs day in day out making sometimes not even
6-digit figures forecasting and predicting?
The point I'm making is you can just myopically focus in on
imperfections or temporary fluctuations (as your GDP topic above) but
you're missing the forest for the trees. What "is" always come before
the what "should". And more importantly it's the zeitgeist that's
missed. Alan Greenspan understood this principle when he once said how
satisfied or happy the people are is the best predictor of a country's
direction far outstripping any other predictor in economics. In a way
this is no rocket science - people like wealth and are happy when they
have them and thus he's saying the best predictor of wealth is wealth
itself. But it's interesting how it can even be, perchance, captured by
numbers. In a Pew Global survey released last year, 86% of Chinese are
satisfied with their own country's direction, compared to India's mere
41%. A larger than 2-fold difference. And in the long run in the broader
picture it is this which irons out whatever piecemeal imperfections or
inconvenient bumps along the way.
I didn't say that you're of low IQ; just said India as a whole as
evidenced is cognitively impoverished, which should be blindingly
obvious to anyone with two eyes.
BTW I'm not aware that "sequitor" is the British variant of sequitur. Is
it? Maybe you know more about this than RAK does. :)
>
>
>> Just look at your first paragraph and take the overall view and it
sounds like you're against. Correct RAK if he's wrong. :)
>
> As always, you are wrong. My first paragraph was an indictment of the
> anti-American pro-pure capitalism of Kissinger and associates. Despite
> repeated clarification regarding your conflation of K&A with "America",
> you continue to do so in keeping with your agenda of truth by repetition.
>
Way way back though President Calvin Coolidge once famously said the
business of America is business.
Sounds like *both* China and America (capitalism, biz etc.) aren't
exactly riding high on your scale of approval.
(Hey are you planning to be one of those 'no justice no peace' activists
at the next WTO?)
>
>> As for IQ, why is it that China/Indian trajectories *diverge* after
the early 1990s as I've said so many times?
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/qgmt2o
>>
>> http://i33.tinypic.com/ftivc1.jpg
>
> You ask a question on IQ based on references that have nothing to do
> with IQ? Smart, real smart!
>
> Japanese GDP growth rate in the period 1992-2009 was blown away by
> India's growth rate. Perhaps you would be so kind as to shine the light
> of your IQ hypothesis on that fact, and proclaim the Indians to be of
> much higher IQ than the Japanese?
But as your graph you yourself posted (you presumably approved) has
shown us:
http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/images/ww_gdp_per_capita.jpg
Japan certainly didn't grow as slow as India now when it was at India's
stage of development in 1945 did it?
And note the converging curves, on a log scale no less, between
China/Korea and America, while India just languishes without any
semblance of closing the gap.
You yourself have provided all posters here with an answer and confirmed
what RAK has been saying all along!!!
Thank you again.
>
>
>> Yet IQs are stable in spite of economic flux!!
>>
>> http://www.vdare.com/images/042306_ss_pic2.jpg
>
> Rather than providing graphics from your favourite, er I mean favorite,
> racist website, why not provide actual IQ studies that were done? In an
> earlier exchange, I pointed out that the most recent study I found for
> Beijing gave an IQ of 100 for the Beijing population, which without
> doubt must be more highly concentrated with higher-IQ people and have
> greater educational resources than most other parts of the country. How
> the figure now being touted(mostly by the ilk of vdare.com), that
> Chinese _average_ IQ is now approaching 110, is arrived at, I have no
> idea. Perhaps you could explain.
>
> In this study, there is evidence of a dramatic increase in measured IQ
> levels after salt iodination was introduced:
> http://www.fluoridealert.org/epa08/lin-1991.pdf
>
> The scores for high-fluoride, low-iodine areas in China are comparable
> to the IQ scores for the Indian population with similar circumstances.
> Iodized salt is still not much used in India, despite a ban in 2006 on
> the sale of non-iodized salt.
BWAHAHAHA!!!!! So desperate here are we? RAK's point stands again,
again, again, and let's hold hands and sing together shall we? "Just
because malnutrition stunts height does not mean everyone when
adequately nourished will be equally tall or 7 feet tall!!" This
"non-sequitor" (a nod to Mr. Rajah here -- British spelling I guess??)
is so obvious and glaring! Wow!
I seem to recall India has had a very long history of Brit tutelage,
much like Hong Kong which btw had and still has no natural resources at
all. Shouldn't India be *that* much richer than China by now just like
how Hong Kong is? In fact, Hong Kong now has a higher GDP PPP per
capita than the UK and this happened since its return to China in 1997.
(Singapore, being independent for a longer period of time, has achieved
even higher economic success.) Yet no no no no no, India continues to
languish behind some ravaged communist country in spite of its pedigree,
in spite of its headstart.
Tsk tsk.
This just ain't a picture of high IQ to me....
>
>
>> And now you're saying also in spite of the English language education
>> system India still falls behind (??), and now blames America also
(which is why I wrote above - you now seem to want to fight the G2 -
China AND
>> America) Wow!!!!
>
> G2?? That's a laugh! Thanks for the joke, ARAK!
Ask Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Even G4 will not include India, btw. So sorry!! :)
>
> But I sadly note that you still appear unable to shake off your
> propensity for the tactic of truth by repetition, and keep saying that I
> blame America, that I am against America, etc., completely ignoring my
> distinction between America and pure-capitalists who happen to be
> American, and European as well. Kissinger himself was not born in
America.
One thing for certain: you can blame America for a lot of things, you
can't blame America for India's low IQ. :)
>
>> It's all blame, blame, blame, blame. Everybody else's fault but your
own.
>>
>> Wow!!!!!
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>> In a 500-year perspective, both China and India performed badly.
Which, to use your hypothesis, must prove that they are both low IQ
countries:
http://gongszeto.squarespace.com/storage/percent-world-gdp-1500.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> And this must conclusively prove that American IQ is way, way
above China and India:
>>>>> http://gongszeto.squarespace.com/storage/share_world_output.gif
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Didn't "superior" America still choose China over India as you've
broadcasted to all of us here?
>>>
>>> As I've stated over and over again(and still cannot get through to
your racist mind), it wasn't "America" that chose China.
>>>
>>
>> Now, Kissinger being the secretary of state is pretty high profile, the
>> 5th in the presidential line of succession. How is it possible American
>> democracy failed its people? Democracy failed? You serious?????
>
> Who elected him to be Secretary of State? He was actually the National
> Security Advisor in 1971, also a non-elected position. But you make the
> fallacious argument also that covert actions of individuals, elected or
> otherwise, is a "failure of democracy". You have made it abundantly
> clear that you are no fan of democracy, yet you continue to freely
> choose to live in a democracy, the very same democracy you keep running
> down.
I thought you said this high government official didn't represent
America? How can that be, elected or not? Or does he suddenly represent
America now?
>
>
>>>>>> Have you thought about the balancing and countervailing force
and hypothesis, especially if America has no national loyalties which
you admitted to already:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/29kfeb
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, you resort to strawman arguments. You claim that I said
that _America_ has no national loyalties. Show me where I have said
that. People like *you*, while technically American citizens, have no
national loyalty to the country of your birth/citizenship.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Guess Kissinger and associates aren't America ("I further remarked
that Kissinger and associates have no national loyalties, only
worshiping at the altar of Mammon.")
>>>
>>> No, they certainly aren't.
>>
>> Thanks for confirming my above point "Again, Kissinger being the
>> secretary of state is pretty high profile, the 5th in the presidential
>> line of succession. Are you saying American democracy failed its
people?" Guess everyone's just chained and oppressed ready to break free.
>
> Don't see you bolting for China, do we? Wish you would. There's a
> rickshaw with your name on it in Shanghai. You might be able to burn a
> little rubber with it if you can trick out the electric motor.
Hey you know what's an upcoming great car? The Lexus 2011 LFA
I still have problems with Lexus though - their cars tend to be too
sedate, puts you to a snooze even as a driver; I tend to prefer more
hardcore street-smart BMWs and Porsches instead.
But again any extrapolation from South Indians in America to Indians in
India is out because the American sample is non-representative as you
finally (and I add, congratulations!!, honestly) acknowledged. We agree
on this one when you wrote: "Indians working in the US are not the
typical Indian. They are much better educated, and for the most part are
the cream of the crop in their particular field. This is why foreign
born Indian-Americans are the second highest-earning ethnic group in
America, next only to the foreign born Japanese-Americans who have an
unusually high percentage of managers."
>
>
>>>>
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.indian/msg/06035a4658a4b877?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> As Tom Friedman alluded to, it's possible Indians are just dumb.
Or at least dumber.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That must be why Microsoft opened its second Asian research
center in India.
>>>>
>>>> Where's Microsoft's first Asian research center?
>>>
>>> My point is that if Indians are dumb, Microsoft would not have
opened a research center in India, coincidentally enough, at the same
time that Friedman was in China making the allusions you refer to.
>>
>> India isn't the Asia's first thought then is it? In fact and this is
from wiki, in 2004, MIT Technology Review named Microsoft Research Asia
(not China, but Asia...) �the hottest computer lab in the world�.
>>
>> Provide counter-evidence for us please?
>
> Counter-evidence for what? You posited that Indians are too dumb for
> multinationals to be investing in Indian brain-power(per the Friedman
> link you provided), and I countered with the fact that Microsoft chose
> to establish its second Asian research centre in India. Obviously, MS
> does not think that Indians are dumb.
>
> As for why the Beijing centre is called the "Asian" centre, it is
> because of popular usage. Like when you and Mr. Lee make references to
> Asians, you do not include South Asians or West Asians(yes, the Arabs)
> under that grouping, although logically they are also Asians. So the
> Beijing "Asia" centre is Microsoft's lab for the "Asian", i.e., the
> Oriental area.
Counter-evidence for Microsoft Research Asia (MRA) not being the hottest
computer lab in the world, or in this case, Microsoft Research India
(MRI) being more productive -- afterall isn't India is supposed to be
bubbling with original undiscovered geniuses as I asked before? MRA has
its own entry in wiki, can you point to us where MRI in wiki is? I tried
to find it and learn more about it but didn't. Certainly both cannot be
the 'hottest computer lab in the world'.... ;)
>
>
>>>>>> Why can't you Mr. Rajah - or perhaps India - accept that at
least as a hypothesis?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why can't you accept the fact that you are a dumb bigot only
fueled by all-consuming racist hatred rather than the slightest
intelligence?
>>>>
>>>> You refuse to believe India is dumber, and I actually don't blame
you. Truth often bites. :)
>>>
>>>
>>> It often does, which is why you cannot reconcile yourself to it.
>>
>> http://www.vdare.com/images/042306_ss_pic2.jpg
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/qgmt2o
>>
>> RAK admits he finds the above sweet. :)
>>
>> Or let's put it this way which RAK thought you even would agree: $$
is not everything. :)
>
> Of course you would find it sweet, because despite evidence to the
> contrary, your racist mind continues to cling to unsupported claims put
> out by the Klan.
>
Or more simply people or *peoples* are not equal. By nature.
Penang
> One thing for certain: you can blame America for a lot of things, you
> can't blame America for India's low IQ. :)
Dear RAK,
Please don't tempt him !!
If he turned into another "Free Tibet" or that "Peter" guy, hehe, they
would say that it's because of the American exploitations that all the
Indians turned into assholes.
P. Rajah
Once again, you utterly fail to explain why China lagged India prior to
1975.
> 3. My numbers are 1950-2000, not 1975-2000. Of course you can point out
> 1990-2000 in Japan's lost decade, or maybe just focus in on a quarter
> (how come Q1 of all countries dropped in 2009 etc.)
Odd how you mention that, but ignore the fact that you have consistently
focused on China's performance post 1975, and completely ignored my
request to explain China's lag before that. This is what I meant when I
said that you selectively use statistics.
> and just extend the
> x-axis timeline infinity but the end result does not change: India is
> still slow economically however you slice and dice the data - as once
> again noted in your graph, and there is no obvious inflection point or a
> 'takeoff' in the early 1990s where economic liberalization took place.
There certainly is, for those who have fairly decent eyesight, and are
not blinded by sheer racist hate. There is a clear upward trend after 1992.
> India still falls behind. How come?
I've explained ad nauseum(and India is not "falling behind", as anyone
but the most ignorant of bigots would acknowledge), but apparently you
are not intelligent enough nor unbiased enough to understand it.
Now extend that to the proposition that because one country is growing
at a faster rate than others in a given time span, that it does not
automatically follow that it has higher IQ than other countries. Or to
the proposition that because it is not growing as fast as certain other
countries, that it automatically means that they are low IQ.
In the case of North Korea, they had all the advantages of China,
perhaps even to a greater degree. Apparently the north Koreans, who have
a "marginally higher IQ" than the Chinese, are incapable of translating
that edge in authoritarianism and high IQ into economic progress. South
Korea seems to have done pretty well, despite having that despicable
democracy which you so clearly abhor.
> What you're doing here is once again desperately making excuses for a
> really pathetic Indian performance, citing bad circumstances, maybe bad
> luck, exploitation etc. Fact is, many of the East Countries have had it
> worse - Korea being a great example; China had its cultural revolutions
> and purges and tens of millions were slaughtered. And yet in spite of
> all that you see their modern growth path which is clearly *divergent*
> from that of India's, and I might add, other South Indian countries from
> Sri Lanka to Bangladesh to Pakistan to Nepal. Sri Lanka is no Taiwan,
> Bangladesh is no Japan. And guess what? South Asia's countries are all
> of much lower IQs than East Asian countries. India vs China is merely
> one data point. That's cold hard fact and posturing and wailing and
> refusing to look at it will not make it go away.
To the contrary, you are the desperate one, focusing in on a narrow
performance band(in the context of time), ignoring pertinent factors and
generally schlubbing your way to your racist conclusions.
So do your arguments, frankly.
Last time anyone checked, China was not a city-state or an island-state.
The wealthiest countries in Europe on a per-capita basis are the
principalities, but their models do not lend themselves to the wider
European context.
> And this goes back to the role of human capital as I alluded to above.
> There is no overlap at all wrt the East Asian cluster and the South
> Asian cluster. In fact the gap is so large (20 points or so) that it's
> even larger than the black-white IQ difference in the US.
Based on which studies? I've already shown that the Beijing results have
been exaggerated to represent general Chinese IQ, and that provincial
Chinese IQ is comparable to Indian rural IQ. You have failed to explain
that.
> >>>> 2. How come India's growth rate is still so slow vis-a-vis China's
> and diverged since Q1?
> >>>
> >>> Because it didn't throw hundreds of billions of dollars to prop up
> the "growth" rate. Take the stimulus out of the equation, and what would
> the growth rate be?
> >>
> >> Are you now suggesting that China's CCP is doing something *for* its
> >> country while Indian's government isn't? That somehow economic
> growth is *not* important for India? Hmmmm we all know
> http://tinyurl.com/2v5ufg
> >> Let's hope the UK is not slanting or biased....
> >
> > http://extras.sltrib.com/china/
> >
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/31/AR2006073101399_pf.html
>
>
> Doesn't answer the question about the China stimulus question does it?
> What stimulus package did India dish out, what size, what amount etc.
> And how come it has been India that has been so very muted in North
> America after the economic collapse. It's always China China China ad
> nauseum. Somehow India just miraculously dropped out of the picture!
Can you illustrate how India has "dropped out of the picture"? China's
exports of low-cost goods to the US has gone up many-fold over the past
10 years, and consequently when there has been a drop in consumer
demand, for whatever reasons, this has led to a lot of talk about China.
India's growth has not been driven by such a rapid growth in exports,
and it doesn't have a large footprint on the economies of other
countries, and consequently there has not been a great focus on India's
situation with the global demand decline.
> No, to most, India is at best an ornament, seriously. And it takes tough
> times to flush out sheer poseurs from the real thing. :)
So that's how were you flushed out? China's economic problems in the
face of the disappearing American consumer?
> http://www.businessinsider.com/china-wants-to-stop-making-so-much-stuff-2009-9
>
> >
> >
> > Don't want to admit that China's 3rd quarter "growth rate" has resulted
> > in excessive inventory lying around, that villages in China are filled
> > with washing machines and appliances for which they have no water or
> power?
> >
> > http://www.aei.org/outlook/100061
>
> One of the advantages of being from a so-called UHNWI family is you look
> at things differently from the middle class (though admitted there is
> something in common with upper middle class individuals which I still
> consider as pillars of society). The details sometimes don't come first,
> you almost acquire a second instinct to look at the overall and bigger
> picture. Afterall, if all these investment bankers or advisors are
> really so great, how come most of them are not even millionaires? What
> do they slave at their 9-5 jobs day in day out making sometimes not even
> 6-digit figures forecasting and predicting?
Because they don't own the companies they work for. There are thousands
of Ph.D.s working everywhere who are not even close to being
millionaires. Would you club them in the "low IQ" category, because they
haven't been able to transform their academic achievements into
financial windfalls? Perhaps the basketball player with the $100 million
contract is much smarter?
> The point I'm making is you can just myopically focus in on
> imperfections or temporary fluctuations (as your GDP topic above) but
> you're missing the forest for the trees.
And yet that is precisely what you have done each and every time when I
ask you to explain China's non-performance prior to 1978.
> What "is" always come before
> the what "should". And more importantly it's the zeitgeist that's
> missed. Alan Greenspan understood this principle when he once said how
> satisfied or happy the people are is the best predictor of a country's
> direction far outstripping any other predictor in economics. In a way
> this is no rocket science - people like wealth and are happy when they
> have them and thus he's saying the best predictor of wealth is wealth
> itself. But it's interesting how it can even be, perchance, captured by
> numbers. In a Pew Global survey released last year, 86% of Chinese are
> satisfied with their own country's direction, compared to India's mere
> 41%. A larger than 2-fold difference. And in the long run in the broader
> picture it is this which irons out whatever piecemeal imperfections or
> inconvenient bumps along the way.
http://www.happyplanetindex.org/news/archive/news-2.html
http://www.happiness.org/Resources/Happiness_Studies/Happiest_Countries.aspx
Doesn't exactly jive with your "happy" proposition, does it?
As for the Pew report, you seem to have a problem with numeracy when it
comes to India:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/867/global-economic-gloom
It's not, but I have a habit of using an "o" for words that end in the
"er" sound, like "favour/favor", in the last few years. But thanks for
nitpicking on that, and for pointing out that my mis-spelling is
evidence of cognitive "impoverishment" of Indians, just as Mr. Lee's is
evidence of the cognitive impairment of Chinese.
> >> Just look at your first paragraph and take the overall view and it
> sounds like you're against. Correct RAK if he's wrong. :)
> >
> > As always, you are wrong. My first paragraph was an indictment of the
> > anti-American pro-pure capitalism of Kissinger and associates. Despite
> > repeated clarification regarding your conflation of K&A with "America",
> > you continue to do so in keeping with your agenda of truth by
> repetition.
> >
>
> Way way back though President Calvin Coolidge once famously said the
> business of America is business.
>
> Sounds like *both* China and America (capitalism, biz etc.) aren't
> exactly riding high on your scale of approval.
If China is capitalist, why do they restrict the free flow of goods,
people, services and ideas?
I am pro-capitalism, but not the dog-eat-dog capitalism that has
decimated America's manufacturing base, and led to the decline of the
quality of life of the average American. There is something profound
about responsibility to one's society, which pure capitalists simply
don't get.
> (Hey are you planning to be one of those 'no justice no peace' activists
> at the next WTO?)
Are you going to make the placards?
> >> As for IQ, why is it that China/Indian trajectories *diverge* after
> the early 1990s as I've said so many times?
> >>
> >> http://tinyurl.com/qgmt2o
> >>
> >> http://i33.tinypic.com/ftivc1.jpg
> >
> > You ask a question on IQ based on references that have nothing to do
> > with IQ? Smart, real smart!
> >
> > Japanese GDP growth rate in the period 1992-2009 was blown away by
> > India's growth rate. Perhaps you would be so kind as to shine the light
> > of your IQ hypothesis on that fact, and proclaim the Indians to be of
> > much higher IQ than the Japanese?
>
> But as your graph you yourself posted (you presumably approved) has
> shown us:
>
> http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/images/ww_gdp_per_capita.jpg
>
> Japan certainly didn't grow as slow as India now when it was at India's
> stage of development in 1945 did it?
Japan was not at "India's stage of development" at that time. It had
been bombed out, and was under Allied occupation, but the basics for
economic revival were still in place. One of the factors attributed to
Japan's rapid recovery was the fact that it was prohibited from spending
on defense. Japan, prior to WW2, was in fact an economic powerhouse,
like Germany, so it was not in the same boat as China.
> And note the converging curves, on a log scale no less, between
> China/Korea and America, while India just languishes without any
> semblance of closing the gap.
As you have noted, it is a log scale, and India is certainly on an
upward trajectory. It is certainly not "languishing", which is simply a
figment of your feverish racist imagination.
> You yourself have provided all posters here with an answer and confirmed
> what RAK has been saying all along!!!
>
> Thank you again.
I have shown you to be a race-obsessed bigot, impervious to evidence
that damages your viewpoint, and you thank me! You are very welcome!
> >> Yet IQs are stable in spite of economic flux!!
> >>
> >> http://www.vdare.com/images/042306_ss_pic2.jpg
> >
> > Rather than providing graphics from your favourite, er I mean favorite,
> > racist website, why not provide actual IQ studies that were done? In an
> > earlier exchange, I pointed out that the most recent study I found for
> > Beijing gave an IQ of 100 for the Beijing population, which without
> > doubt must be more highly concentrated with higher-IQ people and have
> > greater educational resources than most other parts of the country. How
> > the figure now being touted(mostly by the ilk of vdare.com), that
> > Chinese _average_ IQ is now approaching 110, is arrived at, I have no
> > idea. Perhaps you could explain.
> >
> > In this study, there is evidence of a dramatic increase in measured IQ
> > levels after salt iodination was introduced:
> > http://www.fluoridealert.org/epa08/lin-1991.pdf
> >
> > The scores for high-fluoride, low-iodine areas in China are comparable
> > to the IQ scores for the Indian population with similar circumstances.
> > Iodized salt is still not much used in India, despite a ban in 2006 on
> > the sale of non-iodized salt.
>
>
> BWAHAHAHA!!!!! So desperate here are we? RAK's point stands again,
> again, again, and let's hold hands and sing together shall we? "Just
> because malnutrition stunts height does not mean everyone when
> adequately nourished will be equally tall or 7 feet tall!!" This
> "non-sequitor" (a nod to Mr. Rajah here -- British spelling I guess??)
> is so obvious and glaring! Wow!
Is that similar to "what how" lack of iodine has affected Chinese and
Indian IQs to practically the exact same degree? Is that similar to
"what how" people who would normally be 7 feet tall would be stunted to
exactly the same height as people who would normally be 5 feet tall,
given the same degree of malnutrition? Don't want to acknowledge the
obvious, do you?
And it certainly was not a non-sequitur, since it still deals with the
relative IQ questions.
Hong Kong was a city-state, and it should be obvious even to the densest
of racists that you cannot compare developing a city-state to developing
a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual nation, or even to a
relatively homogenous country like China. "Brit tutelage", as you call
it, was restricted to developing a cadre of "babus" -or
clerical/administrative class- to help them with their colonial
administration. They certainly did not create wealth in India; rather,
they diminished India's economy, exploiting its raw materials and
agriculture to their benefit. Whatever they did build in India was but
part of the mechanism that helped their exploitation. The exception was
the advanced educational institutions run by religious
organizations(that catered to only a tiny percentage of the population),
which was not necessarily driven by colonial exigencies. But that was
India. Now how about China? Why hasn't it become like Hong Kong already?
Why did Shanghai decline after the Brits left? Why didn't Beijing become
another Hong Kong, or London? Why are Chinese dying, literally, for the
American consumer?
China has more deaths per capita from work-related illnesses each year
than any other country, according to the ILO. In 2005, the most recent
year for which data are available, 386,645 Chinese workers died of
occupational illnesses, according to Chinese government data compiled by
the ILO and cited in the July 14, 2006, Journal of Epidemiology.
Millions more live with fatal diseases caused by factory work, other
epidemiologists estimated in the article.
http://extras.sltrib.com/china/
> In fact, Hong Kong now has a higher GDP PPP per
> capita than the UK and this happened since its return to China in 1997.
> (Singapore, being independent for a longer period of time, has achieved
> even higher economic success.) Yet no no no no no, India continues to
> languish behind some ravaged communist country in spite of its pedigree,
> in spite of its headstart.
>
> Tsk tsk.
>
> This just ain't a picture of high IQ to me....
Actually, all of your arguments, and your consistent ignorance of the
facts, point up the fact that you actually lack intelligence, mired as
you are in the slime of your bigotry.
> >> And now you're saying also in spite of the English language education
> >> system India still falls behind (??), and now blames America also
> (which is why I wrote above - you now seem to want to fight the G2 -
> China AND
> >> America) Wow!!!!
> >
> > G2?? That's a laugh! Thanks for the joke, ARAK!
>
> Ask Zbigniew Brzezinski.
>
> Even G4 will not include India, btw. So sorry!! :)
>
>
> >
> > But I sadly note that you still appear unable to shake off your
> > propensity for the tactic of truth by repetition, and keep saying that I
> > blame America, that I am against America, etc., completely ignoring my
> > distinction between America and pure-capitalists who happen to be
> > American, and European as well. Kissinger himself was not born in
> America.
>
> One thing for certain: you can blame America for a lot of things, you
> can't blame America for India's low IQ. :)
So who do your blame for yours? When someone refuses to even acknowledge
the systemic factors that lead to different sets of results, one can
only conclude that that someone lacks intelligence.
You truly are not very smart, are you?
And if you had an ounce of sense in you, you would understand that the
typical Indian(hundreds of millions of them) have not yet received the
education and the opportunities that those Indians you now see in
America had. It makes no suppositions about the intelligence of those
other Indians, and it would be downright stupid to do so, as you have
done. As and when those opportunities are afforded to them, they will
become more like the Indian-Americans in capability.
I didn't say anything about whether MRA is or is not the hottest lab in
the world. You are diluting and dodging from your own point, which was
that corporations were not investing in Indian brain-power, because of
"low Indian IQ". Nothing but typical of people like you who find their
arguments to be a losing proposition.
I'm tired of your circuitous arguments, your willful avoidance of data
and references that void your racist theories, and your general
automaton-like repetition of discredited views.
P. Rajah
Was it American exploitation that turned you into a dickhead?
ltlee1
> RichAsianKid wrote:
> > P. Rajah wrote:
> > > RichAsianKid wrote:
>
> > >> P. Rajah wrote:
> > >>> RichAsianKid wrote:
>
> > >>>> P. Rajah wrote:
> > >>>>> RichAsianKid wrote:
>
> > >>>>>> P. Rajah wrote:
> > >>>>>>> RichAsianKid wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>>> scientific wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> On Oct 20, 5:47 am, RichAsianKid <RichAsian...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> scientific wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 19, 9:58 am, RichAsianKid <RichAsian...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> You hear so much how Indians and Americans are just team,
> > in brotherly
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> loving arms and their shared vision for democracy or even
> > for the world
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> etc etc, and yet when you get down to the nitty-gritty
> > details ordinary
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Americans pronounce their verdict clear and loud:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_052309.htm#b1
> > him)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Re: Brenda Walker’s Blog: Intel Disseminates Diversity
> > Propaganda (To
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Benefit Itself)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I loved Walker’s blog regarding the new Intel ad campaign.
Don't know the reliabiity of the graph. What happened to India prior
to 1975?
Have you checked the original source?
For comparison, Angus Maddison of Organisation for Economic Co-
operation
and Development Centre, has provided the following information
conerning
China and India's shares of world GDP (percentage of world total) in
his book
CHINESE, ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE IN THE LONG RUN, Second Edition,
Revised and Updated 960-2030 AD"
1700: China 22.3% India 24.4%
1820: China 32.9% India 16%
1952: China 5.2% India 4.0%
1978: China 4.9% India 3.3%
2003: China 1.51% India 5.5%
Judging from teh above figures, it is unlikely that India would have
higher per
capita GDP in comparison with China.
>
> > 3. My numbers are 1950-2000, not 1975-2000. Of course you can point out
> > 1990-2000 in Japan's lost decade, or maybe just focus in on a quarter
> > (how come Q1 of all countries dropped in 2009 etc.)
>
> Odd how you mention that, but ignore the fact that you have consistently
> focused on China's performance post 1975, and completely ignored my
> request to explain China's lag before that. This is what I meant when I
> said that you selectively use statistics.
According to the above cited book, the last time India had beaten
China was 1700.
For obvious reason, India has more arable land.
In case you don't alredy know, India's average IQ, whether it is high
or low,
is really not a matter deduction. IQ can be objectively measured. 81
according
to Richard Lynn. If other studies had indicated otherwise, please
inform.
> >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/31/AR200...
>
> > Doesn't answer the question about the China stimulus question does it?
> > What stimulus package did India dish out, what size, what amount etc.
> > And how come it has been India that has been so very muted in North
> > America after the economic collapse. It's always China China China ad
> > nauseum. Somehow India just miraculously dropped out of the picture!
>
> Can you illustrate how India has "dropped out of the picture"? China's
> exports of low-cost goods to the US has gone up many-fold over the past
> 10 years, and consequently when there has been a drop in consumer
> demand, for whatever reasons, this has led to a lot of talk about China.
> India's growth has not been driven by such a rapid growth in exports,
> and it doesn't have a large footprint on the economies of other
> countries, and consequently there has not been a great focus on India's
> situation with the global demand decline.
>
> > No, to most, India is at best an ornament, seriously. And it takes tough
> > times to flush out sheer poseurs from the real thing. :)
>
> So that's how were you flushed out? China's economic problems in the
> face of the disappearing American consumer?
>
> >http://www.businessinsider.com/china-wants-to-stop-making-so-much-stu...
> > >>>> Again from the data itselfhttp://tinyurl.com/qgmt2oI'd say it's the
> epidemiologists estimated in the article.http://extras.sltrib.com/china/
> > IT Worker Asks Why, If Indians Are So “Superior”, Their Country Is Such
> > (not China, but Asia...) “the hottest computer lab in the world”.
Penang
Ah,,,, it has begun !!
American exploitation has indeed turned the Indians into
assholes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
P. Rajah
So you calling Indians assholes is okay, but you get offended when you
are called a dickhead? So, once again, is it American exploitation that
ModerateMallu
So there is the possibility that Indians hadn't been turned into
assholes before any American "exploitation" (whatever that means). :-)
But unfortunately, such a charitable statement cannot be made about
unexploited thoroughbred ones such as yourself.
RichAsianKid
It's honest Mr. Rajah acquiesces. RAK gives credit when it's due.
(Or let's put it this a more simple way: what makes anyone think from
all the evidence presented that modern India is *not* cognitive
impoverished relative to Korea?)
>> 2. Your graph clearly shows how slow India is - not only wrt China but
>> also to Korea (ravaged by the Korean War) on a log scale. Your data
>> confirms India is slow.
>
> Once again, you utterly fail to explain why China lagged India prior to
> 1975.
>
Changing the subject now are we?
Think how Pakistan nukes and annihilates India tomorrow then you can
forget all about economic growth for India.
But point remains: India liberalized since the early 1990s yet where are
the results? And it is precisely at that point in time India and China's
growth curves diverged.
http://i33.tinypic.com/ftivc1.jpg
>
>> 3. My numbers are 1950-2000, not 1975-2000. Of course you can point out
>> 1990-2000 in Japan's lost decade, or maybe just focus in on a quarter
>> (how come Q1 of all countries dropped in 2009 etc.)
>
> Odd how you mention that, but ignore the fact that you have consistently
> focused on China's performance post 1975, and completely ignored my
> request to explain China's lag before that. This is what I meant when I
> said that you selectively use statistics.
See above. China was throttled by ideology and yet India in spite of it
being liberated still couldn't catch up!!
http://tinyurl.com/qgmt2o & http://i33.tinypic.com/ftivc1.jpg
Shouldn't we equalize environment, i.e. shouldn't we focus exclusively
on post 1990s when India liberalized its economy?
Maybe Mr. Rajah's afraid of staring at disappointment?
>
>> and just extend the
>> x-axis timeline infinity but the end result does not change: India is
>> still slow economically however you slice and dice the data - as once
>> again noted in your graph, and there is no obvious inflection point or
>> a 'takeoff' in the early 1990s where economic liberalization took place.
>
> There certainly is, for those who have fairly decent eyesight, and are
> not blinded by sheer racist hate. There is a clear upward trend after 1992.
>
That's not what I said, again reflecting your innumeracy. Again, look:
http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/images/ww_gdp_per_capita.jpg
It has been going up ever-so-slowly even before 1990 and is *still*
growing very slowly relative to China or Korea.
>
>> India still falls behind. How come?
>
> I've explained ad nauseum(and India is not "falling behind", as anyone
> but the most ignorant of bigots would acknowledge), but apparently you
> are not intelligent enough nor unbiased enough to understand it.
China has higher GDP than India. China's growth rate is also higher than
India's. How can these two facts not point to India falling behind
China more and more in absolute $$ terms? The absolute gap between the
two will continue to grow doesn't Mr. Rajah think?
From Lynn r between IQ and economic growth rate is + 0.7+.
>
>
>> What you're doing here is once again desperately making excuses for a
>> really pathetic Indian performance, citing bad circumstances, maybe bad
>> luck, exploitation etc. Fact is, many of the East Countries have had it
>> worse - Korea being a great example; China had its cultural revolutions
>> and purges and tens of millions were slaughtered. And yet in spite of
>> all that you see their modern growth path which is clearly *divergent*
>> from that of India's, and I might add, other South Indian countries from
>> Sri Lanka to Bangladesh to Pakistan to Nepal. Sri Lanka is no Taiwan,
>> Bangladesh is no Japan. And guess what? South Asia's countries are all
>> of much lower IQs than East Asian countries. India vs China is merely
>> one data point. That's cold hard fact and posturing and wailing and
>> refusing to look at it will not make it go away.
>
> To the contrary, you are the desperate one, focusing in on a narrow
> performance band(in the context of time), ignoring pertinent factors and
> generally schlubbing your way to your racist conclusions.
The IQs given to East Asian nations are roughly:
Hong Kong 108
Singapore 108
SOuth Korea 106
Japan 105
PRC 105
Taiwan 105
The IQs given to South Asian nations are roughly:
Pakistan 84
India 82
Sri Lanka 79
Nepal 78
Bangladesh ~82
There is no overlap at all.
Again, we're not quibbling about a few points here, we're talking about
a gap that's larger than the black-white gap in the US!!!
RAK's not living on $2 a day...
From data available, RAK can't name a single Indian principality or
city-state which in 2005 had even a 5-digit GDP PPP.
Mumbai's GDP PPP was a mere $6687 in 2005, while Delhi's was a mere
$5812. Compare that to Hong Kong which was $33,516. Keep in mind this is
the 'rate' rather than cumulative wealth. In a study released 2006, one
city of Hong Kong of only 7 million people had a larger share of world
wealth than the *entire* subcontinent of India with 1.1 billion
people. Now, how can that be?
>
>
>> And this goes back to the role of human capital as I alluded to above.
>> There is no overlap at all wrt the East Asian cluster and the South
>> Asian cluster. In fact the gap is so large (20 points or so) that it's
>> even larger than the black-white IQ difference in the US.
>
> Based on which studies? I've already shown that the Beijing results have
> been exaggerated to represent general Chinese IQ, and that provincial
> Chinese IQ is comparable to Indian rural IQ. You have failed to explain
> that.
>
And hmmmm. I'd like to know aside from common sense which studies show
Indians in India have 3-digit IQs. Where are they? Certainly not in the
link you yourself provided.
And don't forget, even though Tibetans are dumber than Chinese, they're
still smarter than Indians - their gap with the Han Chinese is ~ 12
points or so. Understood figures are not etched in stone, but at least
it is consistent with gene clines and demic diffusion.
And like I said before, look at the state of Indian education:
"Fact is, in a large study done in 2005, amongst grade 4 students (and
cf to Korea's performance on the TIMSS at the grade 4 level), 3.2% reads
nothing, 8.9% has letter recognition, 18.7% can read a word, 31.7% can
read a paragraph at the grade 1 (!) level, and 37.6% can read a
paragraph at the grade 2 level. Similarly, at the grade 4 level, 7.5% of
Indian kids can do nothing, 24.6% can recognize numbers, 37.4% can
subtract, while only 30.6% can divide."
"If a student is one-grade behind that's slow. But when a student is two
grades behind that is borderline retarded."
And also don't forget also even at the very top, i.e. international
olympiads, Indian students still fall behind their Chinese or Korean
counterparts.
Whatever the cause, Indians still are, as all the evidence points for
all practical purposes, borderline retarded.
You're saying India didn't leave a global footprint; that's actually
understandable and probably true.
Still, just a few years ago there were so many articles India vs China.
Just tune into any business news in whatever channel today. All the
happy talk we hear about India few years ago evaporated - what
"should" or "could" happen or what "may" happen to China didn't quite
materialize; if India cannot overtake China in some equalizing economic
crisis, what makes you think India can overtake China in the future
*especially* when India has a much lower IQ collectively to begin with?
>
>> No, to most, India is at best an ornament, seriously. And it takes
>> tough times to flush out sheer poseurs from the real thing. :)
>
> So that's how were you flushed out? China's economic problems in the
> face of the disappearing American consumer?
>
India's flushed out by process of omission.
>
>> http://www.businessinsider.com/china-wants-to-stop-making-so-much-stuff-2009-9
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Don't want to admit that China's 3rd quarter "growth rate" has
>> resulted
>> > in excessive inventory lying around, that villages in China are filled
>> > with washing machines and appliances for which they have no water
>> or power?
>> >
>> > http://www.aei.org/outlook/100061
>>
>> One of the advantages of being from a so-called UHNWI family is you look
>> at things differently from the middle class (though admitted there is
>> something in common with upper middle class individuals which I still
>> consider as pillars of society). The details sometimes don't come first,
>> you almost acquire a second instinct to look at the overall and bigger
>> picture. Afterall, if all these investment bankers or advisors are
>> really so great, how come most of them are not even millionaires? What
>> do they slave at their 9-5 jobs day in day out making sometimes not even
>> 6-digit figures forecasting and predicting?
>
> Because they don't own the companies they work for. There are thousands
> of Ph.D.s working everywhere who are not even close to being
> millionaires. Would you club them in the "low IQ" category, because they
> haven't been able to transform their academic achievements into
> financial windfalls? Perhaps the basketball player with the $100 million
> contract is much smarter?
The greatest ideas are still the greatest events.
>
>
>> The point I'm making is you can just myopically focus in on
>> imperfections or temporary fluctuations (as your GDP topic above) but
>> you're missing the forest for the trees.
>
> And yet that is precisely what you have done each and every time when I
> ask you to explain China's non-performance prior to 1978.
Answered, see above.
>
>> What "is" always come before
>> the what "should". And more importantly it's the zeitgeist that's
>> missed. Alan Greenspan understood this principle when he once said how
>> satisfied or happy the people are is the best predictor of a country's
>> direction far outstripping any other predictor in economics. In a way
>> this is no rocket science - people like wealth and are happy when they
>> have them and thus he's saying the best predictor of wealth is wealth
>> itself. But it's interesting how it can even be, perchance, captured by
>> numbers. In a Pew Global survey released last year, 86% of Chinese are
>> satisfied with their own country's direction, compared to India's mere
>> 41%. A larger than 2-fold difference. And in the long run in the broader
>> picture it is this which irons out whatever piecemeal imperfections or
>> inconvenient bumps along the way.
>
> http://www.happyplanetindex.org/news/archive/news-2.html
> http://www.happiness.org/Resources/Happiness_Studies/Happiest_Countries.aspx
>
>
> Doesn't exactly jive with your "happy" proposition, does it?
Actually it does, you just conceded RAK's point: China scores higher in
*your* index: China 6.4, India 5.5; once again demonstrating my point
how India falls behind.
>
> As for the Pew report, you seem to have a problem with numeracy when it
> comes to India:
> http://pewresearch.org/pubs/867/global-economic-gloom
>
And aren't you the illiterate one? Wrong survey. RAK specifically said
"Satisfied with their own country's direction".
http://www.greenlaw.org.cn/enblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/pew31.jpg
* * Taken the above 2 together, you have confirmed and solidified again
what RAK has been saying all along - how India continues to fall behind
China * *
India has low IQ regardless of your (in this case, wrong) spelling.
>
>
>> >> Just look at your first paragraph and take the overall view and it
>> sounds like you're against. Correct RAK if he's wrong. :)
>> >
>> > As always, you are wrong. My first paragraph was an indictment of the
>> > anti-American pro-pure capitalism of Kissinger and associates. Despite
>> > repeated clarification regarding your conflation of K&A with
>> "America",
>> > you continue to do so in keeping with your agenda of truth by
>> repetition.
>> >
>>
>> Way way back though President Calvin Coolidge once famously said the
>> business of America is business.
>>
>> Sounds like *both* China and America (capitalism, biz etc.) aren't
>> exactly riding high on your scale of approval.
>
> If China is capitalist, why do they restrict the free flow of goods,
> people, services and ideas?
>
> I am pro-capitalism, but not the dog-eat-dog capitalism that has
> decimated America's manufacturing base, and led to the decline of the
> quality of life of the average American. There is something profound
> about responsibility to one's society, which pure capitalists simply
> don't get.
>
There's an unmentionably good reason why atomistic capitalism thrives in
the US more than Sweden or Japan.
>
>> (Hey are you planning to be one of those 'no justice no peace'
>> activists at the next WTO?)
>
> Are you going to make the placards?
Only if you drive your BMW.
>
>
>> >> As for IQ, why is it that China/Indian trajectories *diverge*
>> after the early 1990s as I've said so many times?
>> >>
>> >> http://tinyurl.com/qgmt2o
>> >>
>> >> http://i33.tinypic.com/ftivc1.jpg
>> >
>> > You ask a question on IQ based on references that have nothing to do
>> > with IQ? Smart, real smart!
>> >
>> > Japanese GDP growth rate in the period 1992-2009 was blown away by
>> > India's growth rate. Perhaps you would be so kind as to shine the
>> light
>> > of your IQ hypothesis on that fact, and proclaim the Indians to be of
>> > much higher IQ than the Japanese?
>>
>> But as your graph you yourself posted (you presumably approved) has
>> shown us:
>>
>> http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/images/ww_gdp_per_capita.jpg
>>
>> Japan certainly didn't grow as slow as India now when it was at India's
>> stage of development in 1945 did it?
>
> Japan was not at "India's stage of development" at that time. It had
> been bombed out, and was under Allied occupation, but the basics for
> economic revival were still in place. One of the factors attributed to
> Japan's rapid recovery was the fact that it was prohibited from spending
> on defense. Japan, prior to WW2, was in fact an economic powerhouse,
> like Germany, so it was not in the same boat as China.
Wait!? In spite of military (and political) defeat Japan rose from
the ashes?
What about India.
Was it a loser or a winner or I don't know what fits your fancy!
>
>
>> And note the converging curves, on a log scale no less, between
>> China/Korea and America, while India just languishes without any
>> semblance of closing the gap.
>
> As you have noted, it is a log scale, and India is certainly on an
> upward trajectory. It is certainly not "languishing", which is simply a
> figment of your feverish racist imagination.
>
See above, forever languishing relative to China.
>
>> You yourself have provided all posters here with an answer and confirmed
>> what RAK has been saying all along!!!
>>
>> Thank you again.
>
> I have shown you to be a race-obsessed bigot, impervious to evidence
> that damages your viewpoint, and you thank me! You are very welcome!
And your real blindspot is the UN 1948-imposed -- and "declaration" no
less -- declaration!!!! -- of "universal human rights". Implying not
just de jure but de facto equality.
Now that is really childish.
Think harder Mr. Rajah.
You talk so much about long ranging view etc etc, why don't you look at
human history itself?
It's not circumstances that make the man; it's how man makes his
circumstance. Do you not agree? And if you do, how it is that India
still fails so spectacularly?
Sounds like you're obsessed about 'exploitation' which of course
doesn't exist. In nature there are only winners and losers. Why does Mr.
Rajah proceed to blame the Brits? Tsk tsk tsk. Perfect blame-game
example just when Indians want a foot when they get an inch, a yard
when they have a foot, and a mile when you have a yard. Come on, is this
double-faced Indian ingratitude posters let alone British posters should
expect?
And recall the numbers:
"Mumbai's GDP PPP was a mere $6687 in 2005, while Delhi's was a mere
$5812. Compare that to Hong Kong which was $33,516. Keep in mind this is
the 'rate' rather than cumulative wealth. In another study released in
2006, the city of Hong Kong of only 7 million people had a larger share
of world wealth than the *entire* subcontinent of India with 1.1 billion
people. Amazing isn't it when you think of it...."
Hmmmm!
>
>> In fact, Hong Kong now has a higher GDP PPP per
>> capita than the UK and this happened since its return to China in 1997.
>> (Singapore, being independent for a longer period of time, has achieved
>> even higher economic success.) Yet no no no no no, India continues to
>> languish behind some ravaged communist country in spite of its
>> pedigree, in spite of its headstart.
>>
>> Tsk tsk.
>>
>> This just ain't a picture of high IQ to me....
>
> Actually, all of your arguments, and your consistent ignorance of the
> facts, point up the fact that you actually lack intelligence, mired as
> you are in the slime of your bigotry.
But we're still looking for evidence of an aggregate 3-digit collective
Indian IQ.....
>
>
>> >> And now you're saying also in spite of the English language education
>> >> system India still falls behind (??), and now blames America also
>> (which is why I wrote above - you now seem to want to fight the G2 -
>> China AND
>> >> America) Wow!!!!
>> >
>> > G2?? That's a laugh! Thanks for the joke, ARAK!
>>
>> Ask Zbigniew Brzezinski.
>>
>> Even G4 will not include India, btw. So sorry!! :)
>>
>>
>> >
>> > But I sadly note that you still appear unable to shake off your
>> > propensity for the tactic of truth by repetition, and keep saying
>> that I
>> > blame America, that I am against America, etc., completely ignoring my
>> > distinction between America and pure-capitalists who happen to be
>> > American, and European as well. Kissinger himself was not born in
>> America.
>>
>> One thing for certain: you can blame America for a lot of things, you
>> can't blame America for India's low IQ. :)
>
> So who do your blame for yours? When someone refuses to even acknowledge
> the systemic factors that lead to different sets of results, one can
> only conclude that that someone lacks intelligence.
Facts remain: the IQs given to East Asian nations are roughly:
Hong Kong 108
Singapore 108
SOuth Korea 106
Japan 105
PRC 105
Taiwan 105
The IQs given to South Asian nations are roughly:
Pakistan 84
India 82
Sri Lanka 79
Nepal 78
Bangladesh ~82
Or is this now circumstances that make the man and it's not how man
makes his circumstance. Bwahahaha!!!! Another instance of
'exploitation'? Bwahahaaaaaaa!!!!!!
Question stands.
But that goes back to how when malnutrition can stunt height does not
translate into how adequate nutrition will make everyone tall or smart
doesn't it? Say why can't you accept that a Down's syndrome or autistic
child can't achieve the same as a 'normal' child? Or that Indians can't
achieve the same as Japanese? What's so difficult about this question?
OK vis-a-vis MRA what does MRI has to show for? Last time RAK will ask.
Only answer RAK can give: it's desperately wanting!!
P. Rajah
Not at all. You _still_ fail to answer a very pertinent question. Will
you _ever_ answer it?
> Think how Pakistan nukes and annihilates India tomorrow then you can
> forget all about economic growth for India.
That's your secret wish, ain't it?
> But point remains: India liberalized since the early 1990s yet where are
> the results? And it is precisely at that point in time India and China's
> growth curves diverged.
Nonsense. You seem unable to understand what divergence means. Was the
growth track from 1978-1991 parallel? If so, I could understand your
view that it diverged. In point of fact, Chinese growth was on an upward
trajectory for reasons I have repeated ad nauseam(did I spell it right,
nitpicker?).
> http://tinyurl.com/qgmt2o
>
> http://i33.tinypic.com/ftivc1.jpg
>
>>
>>> 3. My numbers are 1950-2000, not 1975-2000. Of course you can point out
>>> 1990-2000 in Japan's lost decade, or maybe just focus in on a quarter
>>> (how come Q1 of all countries dropped in 2009 etc.)
>>
>> Odd how you mention that, but ignore the fact that you have
>> consistently focused on China's performance post 1975, and completely
>> ignored my request to explain China's lag before that. This is what I
>> meant when I said that you selectively use statistics.
>
>
> See above. China was throttled by ideology and yet India in spite of it
> being liberated still couldn't catch up!!
India liberalized internally, without American pure capitalists promises
of business. A key difference which you will never acknowledge, since it
invalidates your racist premise. As far as China being throttled by
ideology, what part of communist ideology throttles China today? China
is communist in name only- for the rest it is practically a fascist state.
> http://tinyurl.com/qgmt2o & http://i33.tinypic.com/ftivc1.jpg
>
> Shouldn't we equalize environment, i.e. shouldn't we focus exclusively
> on post 1990s when India liberalized its economy?
And why won't you look at post 1978 when China liberalised and India was
still stuck in socialist mode?
> Maybe Mr. Rajah's afraid of staring at disappointment?
>
>
>
>>
>>> and just extend the
>>> x-axis timeline infinity but the end result does not change: India is
>>> still slow economically however you slice and dice the data - as once
>>> again noted in your graph, and there is no obvious inflection point
>>> or a 'takeoff' in the early 1990s where economic liberalization took
>>> place.
>>
>> There certainly is, for those who have fairly decent eyesight, and are
>> not blinded by sheer racist hate. There is a clear upward trend after
>> 1992.
>>
>
> That's not what I said, again reflecting your innumeracy. Again, look:
>
> http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/images/ww_gdp_per_capita.jpg
>
> It has been going up ever-so-slowly even before 1990 and is *still*
> growing very slowly relative to China or Korea.
For reasons I have enumerated ad nauseam, but lately you've dragged
Korea into your camp because you realise that your China argument alone
doesn't cut it.
>>> India still falls behind. How come?
>>
>> I've explained ad nauseam(and India is not "falling behind", as anyone
>> but the most ignorant of bigots would acknowledge), but apparently you
>> are not intelligent enough nor unbiased enough to understand it.
>
> China has higher GDP than India. China's growth rate is also higher than
> India's. How can these two facts not point to India falling behind
> China more and more in absolute $$ terms? The absolute gap between the
> two will continue to grow doesn't Mr. Rajah think?
There was a period in time when the US GDP was far higher than China's,
and the US growth rate was higher than China's. Yet you now posit that
China will not only catch up to the US, but surpass it. How is that
possible, when according to your theory, China should have been falling
behind the US "more and more in absolute $$ terms"?
I'm tired of you holding up racists as experts.
Funny, but you seem to have completely overlooked my link that shows
Chinese with iodine deficient diets on the same IQ level as Indians with
iodine deficient diets(which is most Indians, since they didn't begin
iodination until 2006).
Thank your lucky stars that you aren't working at a Nike factory in
Guangdong instead of being a trust-fund kiddie.......
If ARAK had one-half of his brain free from racial prejudice, he might
have realized that there are no principalities or city-states
adminstratively comparable to HKSAR or Singapore in India.
> Mumbai's GDP PPP was a mere $6687 in 2005, while Delhi's was a mere
> $5812. Compare that to Hong Kong which was $33,516. Keep in mind this is
> the 'rate' rather than cumulative wealth. In a study released 2006, one
> city of Hong Kong of only 7 million people had a larger share of world
> wealth than the *entire* subcontinent of India with 1.1 billion
> people. Now, how can that be?
Playing tricks, aren't you? Are you referring to GDP, which would make
you absolutely wrong, or are you referring to ownership of assets
worldwide, which would make you merely questionable?
And can you explain why Hong Kong, with only one-half of one percent of
China's population has almost 10% of its GDP? Are the remaining Chinese
borderline retards?
>>> And this goes back to the role of human capital as I alluded to
>>> above. There is no overlap at all wrt the East Asian cluster and the
>>> South Asian cluster. In fact the gap is so large (20 points or so)
>>> that it's even larger than the black-white IQ difference in the US.
>>
>> Based on which studies? I've already shown that the Beijing results
>> have been exaggerated to represent general Chinese IQ, and that
>> provincial Chinese IQ is comparable to Indian rural IQ. You have
>> failed to explain that.
>>
>
>
> And hmmmm. I'd like to know aside from common sense which studies show
> Indians in India have 3-digit IQs. Where are they? Certainly not in the
> link you yourself provided.
Side-stepping the issue again, aren't you? Fyi, Lynn did not do _any_
studies on Chinese IQ, despite what one might think based on your
over-reliance on his conclusions.
> And don't forget, even though Tibetans are dumber than Chinese, they're
> still smarter than Indians - their gap with the Han Chinese is ~ 12
> points or so. Understood figures are not etched in stone, but at least
> it is consistent with gene clines and demic diffusion.
>
> And like I said before, look at the state of Indian education:
>
> "Fact is, in a large study done in 2005, amongst grade 4 students (and
> cf to Korea's performance on the TIMSS at the grade 4 level), 3.2% reads
> nothing, 8.9% has letter recognition, 18.7% can read a word, 31.7% can
> read a paragraph at the grade 1 (!) level, and 37.6% can read a
> paragraph at the grade 2 level. Similarly, at the grade 4 level, 7.5% of
> Indian kids can do nothing, 24.6% can recognize numbers, 37.4% can
> subtract, while only 30.6% can divide."
>
> "If a student is one-grade behind that's slow. But when a student is two
> grades behind that is borderline retarded."
And you got that from the ever-reliable message boards at vdare?
> And also don't forget also even at the very top, i.e. international
> olympiads, Indian students still fall behind their Chinese or Korean
> counterparts.
>
> Whatever the cause, Indians still are, as all the evidence points for
> all practical purposes, borderline retarded.
Must be why they are one of the fastest-growing economies in the world.
>>> >>>> 2. How come India's growth rate is still so slow vis-a-vis
>>> China's and diverged since Q1?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Because it didn't throw hundreds of billions of dollars to prop
>>> up the "growth" rate. Take the stimulus out of the equation, and what
>>> would the growth rate be?
>>> >>
>>> >> Are you now suggesting that China's CCP is doing something *for* its
>>> >> country while Indian's government isn't? That somehow economic
>>> growth is *not* important for India? Hmmmm we all know
>>> http://tinyurl.com/2v5ufg
>>> >> Let's hope the UK is not slanting or biased....
>>> >
>>> > http://extras.sltrib.com/china/
>>> >
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/31/AR2006073101399_pf.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Doesn't answer the question about the China stimulus question does it?
>>> What stimulus package did India dish out, what size, what amount etc.
>>> And how come it has been India that has been so very muted in North
>>> America after the economic collapse. It's always China China China ad
>>> nauseum.
^^^^^^^^^
Didn't catch this before, but is this an example of your spectacular
Chinese cognitive ability?
>> > Somehow India just miraculously dropped out of the picture!
>> Can you illustrate how India has "dropped out of the picture"? China's
>> exports of low-cost goods to the US has gone up many-fold over the
>> past 10 years, and consequently when there has been a drop in consumer
>> demand, for whatever reasons, this has led to a lot of talk about
>> China. India's growth has not been driven by such a rapid growth in
>> exports, and it doesn't have a large footprint on the economies of
>> other countries, and consequently there has not been a great focus on
>> India's situation with the global demand decline.
>>
>
> You're saying India didn't leave a global footprint; that's actually
> understandable and probably true.
It is true. India hasn't become the low-wage factory and recycling dump
of the world.
> Still, just a few years ago there were so many articles India vs China.
> Just tune into any business news in whatever channel today. All the
> happy talk we hear about India few years ago evaporated - what
> "should" or "could" happen or what "may" happen to China didn't quite
> materialize; if India cannot overtake China in some equalizing economic
> crisis, what makes you think India can overtake China in the future
> *especially* when India has a much lower IQ collectively to begin with?
What makes you think that the economic crisis was an equalizing factor?
Only a complete idiot would say so. Did the crisis equalize America as
well? Why not? Did the crisis result in a shortage of goods that India
could supplement? Your tiresome arguments smack of one thing through and
through: sheer bloody racism, and no intelligence worth a flying f**k!
>>> No, to most, India is at best an ornament, seriously. And it takes
>>> tough times to flush out sheer poseurs from the real thing. :)
>>
>> So that's how were you flushed out? China's economic problems in the
>> face of the disappearing American consumer?
>>
>
> India's flushed out by process of omission.
So the fisherman who couldn't supply chicken eggs must be a loser,
right? Did China take advantage of the economic crisis to elbow India
out of the IT services field?
>>> http://www.businessinsider.com/china-wants-to-stop-making-so-much-stuff-2009-9
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Don't want to admit that China's 3rd quarter "growth rate" has
>>> resulted
>>> > in excessive inventory lying around, that villages in China are
>>> filled
>>> > with washing machines and appliances for which they have no water
>>> or power?
>>> >
>>> > http://www.aei.org/outlook/100061
>>>
>>> One of the advantages of being from a so-called UHNWI family is you look
>>> at things differently from the middle class (though admitted there is
>>> something in common with upper middle class individuals which I still
>>> consider as pillars of society). The details sometimes don't come first,
>>> you almost acquire a second instinct to look at the overall and bigger
>>> picture. Afterall, if all these investment bankers or advisors are
>>> really so great, how come most of them are not even millionaires? What
>>> do they slave at their 9-5 jobs day in day out making sometimes not even
>>> 6-digit figures forecasting and predicting?
>>
>> Because they don't own the companies they work for. There are
>> thousands of Ph.D.s working everywhere who are not even close to being
>> millionaires. Would you club them in the "low IQ" category, because
>> they haven't been able to transform their academic achievements into
>> financial windfalls? Perhaps the basketball player with the $100
>> million contract is much smarter?
>
> The greatest ideas are still the greatest events.
Dumb answer. Your premise was that high IQ = high income, and low IQ =
low income. Yet you fail to explain why high IQ scientists make far less
than lower IQ business owners, and why they make far less than ball
players who are not known for high IQ. The simple answer is because it
destroys your basic premise.
>>> The point I'm making is you can just myopically focus in on
>>> imperfections or temporary fluctuations (as your GDP topic above) but
>>> you're missing the forest for the trees.
>>
>> And yet that is precisely what you have done each and every time when
>> I ask you to explain China's non-performance prior to 1978.
>
> Answered, see above.
Nope, you side-stepped it again, as you've always done, because to
directly address it would mean annihilating your own argument.
>>> What "is" always come before
>>> the what "should". And more importantly it's the zeitgeist that's
>>> missed. Alan Greenspan understood this principle when he once said how
>>> satisfied or happy the people are is the best predictor of a country's
>>> direction far outstripping any other predictor in economics. In a way
>>> this is no rocket science - people like wealth and are happy when they
>>> have them and thus he's saying the best predictor of wealth is wealth
>>> itself. But it's interesting how it can even be, perchance, captured by
>>> numbers. In a Pew Global survey released last year, 86% of Chinese are
>>> satisfied with their own country's direction, compared to India's mere
>>> 41%. A larger than 2-fold difference. And in the long run in the broader
>>> picture it is this which irons out whatever piecemeal imperfections or
>>> inconvenient bumps along the way.
>>
>> http://www.happyplanetindex.org/news/archive/news-2.html
>> http://www.happiness.org/Resources/Happiness_Studies/Happiest_Countries.aspx
>>
>>
>> Doesn't exactly jive with your "happy" proposition, does it?
>
> Actually it does, you just conceded RAK's point: China scores higher in
> *your* index: China 6.4, India 5.5; once again demonstrating my point
> how India falls behind.
Actually, it doesn't, because many countries that you scorned, such as
the Central and South American countries, and some Caribbean countries,
actually score well above China. So China must be falling behind them, eh?
>> As for the Pew report, you seem to have a problem with numeracy when
>> it comes to India:
>> http://pewresearch.org/pubs/867/global-economic-gloom
>>
>
> And aren't you the illiterate one? Wrong survey. RAK specifically said
> "Satisfied with their own country's direction".
> http://www.greenlaw.org.cn/enblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/pew31.jpg
>
> * * Taken the above 2 together, you have confirmed and solidified again
> what RAK has been saying all along - how India continues to fall behind
> China * *
Selectively chose a statistic, didn't you? Nevertheless, the link you
provided shows India considerably ahead of Britain, the US, Japan and
South Korea which, to use your own reasoning, must show that India is
surging ahead of these countries. With each passing day, you show
yourself to be an empty-headed racist.
My conclusion is that your IQ is lower than that of peasants in
Guangdong. Must be all that fluorine in the SoCal water.
>>> >> Just look at your first paragraph and take the overall view and
>>> it sounds like you're against. Correct RAK if he's wrong. :)
>>> >
>>> > As always, you are wrong. My first paragraph was an indictment of the
>>> > anti-American pro-pure capitalism of Kissinger and associates.
>>> Despite
>>> > repeated clarification regarding your conflation of K&A with
>>> "America",
>>> > you continue to do so in keeping with your agenda of truth by
>>> repetition.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Way way back though President Calvin Coolidge once famously said the
>>> business of America is business.
>>>
>>> Sounds like *both* China and America (capitalism, biz etc.) aren't
>>> exactly riding high on your scale of approval.
>>
>> If China is capitalist, why do they restrict the free flow of goods,
>> people, services and ideas?
>>
>> I am pro-capitalism, but not the dog-eat-dog capitalism that has
>> decimated America's manufacturing base, and led to the decline of the
>> quality of life of the average American. There is something profound
>> about responsibility to one's society, which pure capitalists simply
>> don't get.
>>
>
> There's an unmentionably good reason why atomistic capitalism thrives in
> the US more than Sweden or Japan.
Atomistic capitalism is a concept. It doesn't actually exist.
>>> (Hey are you planning to be one of those 'no justice no peace'
>>> activists at the next WTO?)
>>
>> Are you going to make the placards?
>
> Only if you drive your BMW.
I prefer American-made cars, like the Vette. Personally, I drive a
Chrysler 300C.
>>> >> As for IQ, why is it that China/Indian trajectories *diverge*
>>> after the early 1990s as I've said so many times?
>>> >>
>>> >> http://tinyurl.com/qgmt2o
>>> >>
>>> >> http://i33.tinypic.com/ftivc1.jpg
>>> >
>>> > You ask a question on IQ based on references that have nothing to do
>>> > with IQ? Smart, real smart!
>>> >
>>> > Japanese GDP growth rate in the period 1992-2009 was blown away by
>>> > India's growth rate. Perhaps you would be so kind as to shine the
>>> light
>>> > of your IQ hypothesis on that fact, and proclaim the Indians to be of
>>> > much higher IQ than the Japanese?
>>>
>>> But as your graph you yourself posted (you presumably approved) has
>>> shown us:
>>>
>>> http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/images/ww_gdp_per_capita.jpg
>>>
>>> Japan certainly didn't grow as slow as India now when it was at India's
>>> stage of development in 1945 did it?
>>
>> Japan was not at "India's stage of development" at that time. It had
>> been bombed out, and was under Allied occupation, but the basics for
>> economic revival were still in place. One of the factors attributed to
>> Japan's rapid recovery was the fact that it was prohibited from
>> spending on defense. Japan, prior to WW2, was in fact an economic
>> powerhouse, like Germany, so it was not in the same boat as China.
>
> Wait!? In spite of military (and political) defeat Japan rose from
> the ashes?
It did, because it still had the technical knowledge from before the
war, and because it benefited from the Korean war:
"During the four years of the Korean War, the Japanese economy saw a
substantially larger infusion of cash than had any of the Marshall Plan
nations."
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Marshall_Plan?t=13.
> What about India.
>
> Was it a loser or a winner or I don't know what fits your fancy!
India contributed tremendously to the British war effort, including
having to endure a famine which killed millions while the grain went to
Europe, and got nothing after the war. No Marshall Plan, no war
equipment orders, nothing but a troublesome new neighbour carved out of
its own territory and being armed to the teeth by the West.
>>> And note the converging curves, on a log scale no less, between
>>> China/Korea and America, while India just languishes without any
>>> semblance of closing the gap.
>>
>> As you have noted, it is a log scale, and India is certainly on an
>> upward trajectory. It is certainly not "languishing", which is simply
>> a figment of your feverish racist imagination.
>>
>
> See above, forever languishing relative to China.
>
>>
>>> You yourself have provided all posters here with an answer and confirmed
>>> what RAK has been saying all along!!!
>>>
>>> Thank you again.
>>
>> I have shown you to be a race-obsessed bigot, impervious to evidence
>> that damages your viewpoint, and you thank me! You are very welcome!
>
> And your real blindspot is the UN 1948-imposed -- and "declaration" no
> less -- declaration!!!! -- of "universal human rights". Implying not
> just de jure but de facto equality.
>
> Now that is really childish.
What is childish is your prancing, like the birthday child with a new
toy, claiming that China's recent Kissinger-abetted rise is "evidence of
genetic superiority". Balderdash! Human rights are very distinct from
your version of "equality", and actually have no bearing on that
whatsoever.
> Think harder Mr. Rajah.
>
> You talk so much about long ranging view etc etc, why don't you look at
> human history itself?
Why don't _you_? History is all about ups and downs, something you seem
blissfully unaware of.
I don't get your insistence that India is failing "spectacularly". In
spite of the odds, it is one of the fastest-growing economies in the
world. If that is your definition of "failing spectacularly", I can only
say that you are a spectacular idiot.
Odd that when you Chinese blame the Japs for their invasion, the Brits
for the opium wars, etc., it is "justification", but when Indians point
out that India was economically exploited("spectacularly" exploited, I
might add), it is a "blame-game". Rank nonsense emanating from a
spectacular racist.
> example just when Indians want a foot when they get an inch, a yard
> when they have a foot, and a mile when you have a yard. Come on, is this
> double-faced Indian ingratitude posters let alone British posters should
> expect?
>
> And recall the numbers:
>
> "Mumbai's GDP PPP was a mere $6687 in 2005, while Delhi's was a mere
> $5812. Compare that to Hong Kong which was $33,516. Keep in mind this is
> the 'rate' rather than cumulative wealth. In another study released in
> 2006, the city of Hong Kong of only 7 million people had a larger share
> of world wealth than the *entire* subcontinent of India with 1.1 billion
> people. Amazing isn't it when you think of it...."
>
> Hmmmm!
Even more amazing is the fact that a mere 7 million people of a
city-state so spectacularly out-performed a billion and a half of their
own race.
Hmmmmm!!
>>> In fact, Hong Kong now has a higher GDP PPP per
>>> capita than the UK and this happened since its return to China in 1997.
>>> (Singapore, being independent for a longer period of time, has achieved
>>> even higher economic success.) Yet no no no no no, India continues to
>>> languish behind some ravaged communist country in spite of its
>>> pedigree, in spite of its headstart.
>>>
>>> Tsk tsk.
>>>
>>> This just ain't a picture of high IQ to me....
>>
>> Actually, all of your arguments, and your consistent ignorance of the
>> facts, point up the fact that you actually lack intelligence, mired as
>> you are in the slime of your bigotry.
>
> But we're still looking for evidence of an aggregate 3-digit collective
> Indian IQ.....
I'm still looking for evidence that the average IQ of the Chinese is
100, let alone 105 or 110.
>>> >> And now you're saying also in spite of the English language
>>> education
>>> >> system India still falls behind (??), and now blames America also
>>> (which is why I wrote above - you now seem to want to fight the G2 -
>>> China AND
>>> >> America) Wow!!!!
>>> >
>>> > G2?? That's a laugh! Thanks for the joke, ARAK!
>>>
>>> Ask Zbigniew Brzezinski.
>>>
>>> Even G4 will not include India, btw. So sorry!! :)
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> > But I sadly note that you still appear unable to shake off your
>>> > propensity for the tactic of truth by repetition, and keep saying
>>> that I
>>> > blame America, that I am against America, etc., completely
>>> ignoring my
>>> > distinction between America and pure-capitalists who happen to be
>>> > American, and European as well. Kissinger himself was not born in
>>> America.
>>>
>>> One thing for certain: you can blame America for a lot of things, you
>>> can't blame America for India's low IQ. :)
>>
>> So who do your blame for yours? When someone refuses to even
>> acknowledge the systemic factors that lead to different sets of
>> results, one can only conclude that that someone lacks intelligence.
[repetitive trash deleted]
RichAsianKid
Thank you again.
>>>> 2. Your graph clearly shows how slow India is - not only wrt China but
>>>> also to Korea (ravaged by the Korean War) on a log scale. Your data
>>>> confirms India is slow.
>>>
>>> Once again, you utterly fail to explain why China lagged India prior
>>> to 1975.
>>>
>>
>> Changing the subject now are we?
>
> Not at all. You _still_ fail to answer a very pertinent question. Will
> you _ever_ answer it?
>
RAK asked Mr. Rajah simply why India is still so slow compared to China
and Korea which he himself posted for us to see - even after the 1990s:
http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/images/ww_gdp_per_capita.jpg
Mr. Rajah now apparently prefers not to talk about it.
So why are we focusing on post-1990s for India anyway? It's a matter of
software (the system) vs hardware (the people). North Korea is much
poorer than South Korea; China is much poorer than Japan. Yet their IQs
are somehow remarkably similar.
But!!
India has had its software (its system) already more or less optimized -
in fact its hardware controls its software via a feedback process called
democracy -- unlike China whose CCP is supposed to whip and enslave a
billion chasing every last one of those innocents down and then beating
the shit out of them! And *yet* - yet - India still fails relative to
China in spite of all its advantages -- or if one prefers, including
India's economic headstart as Mr. Rajah continues to remind us.
How come?
**That's** the real and big difference we're talking about here and Mr.
Rajah failed and continues to fail to face.
Now focusing more narrowly China before 1975? Again, software and
hardware. A system can indeed throttle its own people. See above re: N
Korea vs S Korea. And again, malnutrition can indeed stunt
height. Baby Einstein can indeed be starved to death. But when we
progressively equalize environment, the share of inherent or innate
potential will increasingly come to fore. If genes + environment =
outcome, and when environment is equalized, outcome will become more and
more proportionately and *increasingly* due to genes or innate factors
or nature. That's a very simple mathematical fact.
India has less and less to blame and is rapidly running out of excuses.....
>
>> Think how Pakistan nukes and annihilates India tomorrow then you can
>> forget all about economic growth for India.
>
> That's your secret wish, ain't it?
In that playbook on the audacity of hope, *anything* is possibility...
>
>> But point remains: India liberalized since the early 1990s yet where
>> are the results? And it is precisely at that point in time India and
>> China's growth curves diverged.
>
> Nonsense. You seem unable to understand what divergence means. Was the
> growth track from 1978-1991 parallel? If so, I could understand your
> view that it diverged. In point of fact, Chinese growth was on an upward
> trajectory for reasons I have repeated ad nauseam(did I spell it right,
> nitpicker?).
But RAK was talking since early 1990s when India liberalized its market
- please re-read. And data is here:
http://i33.tinypic.com/ftivc1.jpg
Gap between India and China is growing, no?
>
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/qgmt2o
>>
>> http://i33.tinypic.com/ftivc1.jpg
>>
>>>
>>>> 3. My numbers are 1950-2000, not 1975-2000. Of course you can point out
>>>> 1990-2000 in Japan's lost decade, or maybe just focus in on a quarter
>>>> (how come Q1 of all countries dropped in 2009 etc.)
>>>
>>> Odd how you mention that, but ignore the fact that you have
>>> consistently focused on China's performance post 1975, and completely
>>> ignored my request to explain China's lag before that. This is what I
>>> meant when I said that you selectively use statistics.
>>
>>
>> See above. China was throttled by ideology and yet India in spite of
>> it being liberated still couldn't catch up!!
>
> India liberalized internally, without American pure capitalists promises
> of business. A key difference which you will never acknowledge, since it
> invalidates your racist premise. As far as China being throttled by
> ideology, what part of communist ideology throttles China today? China
> is communist in name only- for the rest it is practically a fascist state.
You acknowledge China is not communist now. Interesting! What, Chinese
Capitalist Party?? Isn't that kudos for the Chinese, a party capable of
change and adaptation?
And that in terms of end result i.e. economic growth, China is *still*
more, rather than less, effective than India, whatever name you call the
government.
Is that what our Mr. Rajah is telling us?
>
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/qgmt2o & http://i33.tinypic.com/ftivc1.jpg
>>
>> Shouldn't we equalize environment, i.e. shouldn't we focus exclusively
>> on post 1990s when India liberalized its economy?
>
> And why won't you look at post 1978 when China liberalised and India was
> still stuck in socialist mode?
>
Whether post 1978 or post 1990 China still trounced and continues to
trounce India....
>
>> Maybe Mr. Rajah's afraid of staring at disappointment?
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> and just extend the
>>>> x-axis timeline infinity but the end result does not change: India is
>>>> still slow economically however you slice and dice the data - as
>>>> once again noted in your graph, and there is no obvious inflection
>>>> point or a 'takeoff' in the early 1990s where economic
>>>> liberalization took place.
>>>
>>> There certainly is, for those who have fairly decent eyesight, and
>>> are not blinded by sheer racist hate. There is a clear upward trend
>>> after 1992.
>>>
>>
>> That's not what I said, again reflecting your innumeracy. Again, look:
>>
>> http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/images/ww_gdp_per_capita.jpg
>>
>> It has been going up ever-so-slowly even before 1990 and is *still*
>> growing very slowly relative to China or Korea.
>
> For reasons I have enumerated ad nauseam, but lately you've dragged
> Korea into your camp because you realise that your China argument alone
> doesn't cut it.
OK, then forget China vs India. What about Sri Lanka or Bangladesh vs
say Taiwan or Japan (roughly equal population countries)?
>
>
>>>> India still falls behind. How come?
>>>
>>> I've explained ad nauseam(and India is not "falling behind", as
>>> anyone but the most ignorant of bigots would acknowledge), but
>>> apparently you are not intelligent enough nor unbiased enough to
>>> understand it.
>>
>> China has higher GDP than India. China's growth rate is also higher than
>> India's. How can these two facts not point to India falling behind
>> China more and more in absolute $$ terms? The absolute gap between the
>> two will continue to grow doesn't Mr. Rajah think?
>
> There was a period in time when the US GDP was far higher than China's,
> and the US growth rate was higher than China's. Yet you now posit that
> China will not only catch up to the US, but surpass it. How is that
> possible, when according to your theory, China should have been falling
> behind the US "more and more in absolute $$ terms"?
Will China catch up to the US and surpass it you ask? WEll, if IQ were
destiny (RAK will never say that but merely said it's a factor albeit a
non-negligible factor, i.e. hardware of the people...) the US is now
uncontrollably flooded with low IQ hispanics and thus its aggregate IQ
will continue to fall. And last time RAK checked, European whites still
have much higher IQs than browns, whether Hispanics or Indians (on
average) (I don't know if body odor correlates with intelligence, but
the former probably smells less than the latter...)
From your fav site: http://www.vdare.com/rushton/070926_indians.htm
Isn't that consistent with the hypothesis?
Nature and truth is 'racist'. Why? Men are not made equal; neither are
peoples; some populations smarter, some denser. India happens to be the
latter. On average.
Again, malnutrition can stunt height; but it's total "non-sequitor"
(note spelling and note homage RAK pays to Mr. Rajah again) somehow
adequate nutrition will render everyone equally tall or 7 feet tall.
Besides remember this MO: the more reasons India is weak, the stronger
Mr. Rajah's case. List us 50 reasons (to be modest) where India still
sucks and maybe we'll then believe why India can be strong one day. The
British oppressed India? Check mark. American snub? Check mark. Pakistan
threat? Check mark. Tell us another 47 ways (say) how India is weak.
BWAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!! Maybe soon you'll tell us English facility,
democracy, British systems are India's bane also.
In practical life, yeah, it's often better to be lucky than good. When
it comes to India however, India is both unlucky (as you imply on
historical circumstances, and also wrong software) and bad (low IQ, poor
cognitive capital, i.e. screwed up hardware). What a double-whammy!
IOW you're suggesting India failed without even any semblance of a
pocket of hope.
>
>> Mumbai's GDP PPP was a mere $6687 in 2005, while Delhi's was a mere
>> $5812. Compare that to Hong Kong which was $33,516. Keep in mind this is
>> the 'rate' rather than cumulative wealth. In a study released 2006,
>> one city of Hong Kong of only 7 million people had a larger share of
>> world wealth than the *entire* subcontinent of India with 1.1 billion
>> people. Now, how can that be?
>
> Playing tricks, aren't you? Are you referring to GDP, which would make
> you absolutely wrong, or are you referring to ownership of assets
> worldwide, which would make you merely questionable?
>
> And can you explain why Hong Kong, with only one-half of one percent of
> China's population has almost 10% of its GDP? Are the remaining Chinese
> borderline retards?
Again, software. And after the Brits left, Hong Kong has a higher GDP
PPP per capita than the UK. And an average Hong Kong'er (ranked #2 in
the world, after Japan being #1) is worth more than an average Brit.
India, on the other hand languishes in the cesspool. Recall the above
GDP PPP per capita of Mumbai, Delhi etc.
And Mr. Rajah shows his illiteracy again? First, GDP and wealth are two
different things. Please please please reread what RAK posted. (Even if
you don't recognize it there's reason why one's 2005 data while the
other is 2006. It's not a typo.)
>
>
>>>> And this goes back to the role of human capital as I alluded to
>>>> above. There is no overlap at all wrt the East Asian cluster and the
>>>> South Asian cluster. In fact the gap is so large (20 points or so)
>>>> that it's even larger than the black-white IQ difference in the US.
>>>
>>> Based on which studies? I've already shown that the Beijing results
>>> have been exaggerated to represent general Chinese IQ, and that
>>> provincial Chinese IQ is comparable to Indian rural IQ. You have
>>> failed to explain that.
>>>
>>
>>
>> And hmmmm. I'd like to know aside from common sense which studies show
>> Indians in India have 3-digit IQs. Where are they? Certainly not in
>> the link you yourself provided.
>
> Side-stepping the issue again, aren't you? Fyi, Lynn did not do _any_
> studies on Chinese IQ, despite what one might think based on your
> over-reliance on his conclusions.
Detailed review of Lynn: http://tinyurl.com/yfqfksr
But why does that matter? Had Lynn done the studies you would have said
the results are even MORE biased anyway (re: Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong
studies). If Lynn did not do any of the studies, that would add
credence to the higher IQ of China.
Here's another example:
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2007/9270/tab3.jpg
This one from environmental health perspective. It has nothing to do
with Lynn. China with a sample size of 37,288 has an IQ of 103.5 +/-
17.7, the Control group (n=196) has IQ of 104.8 +/-14.7, And in Shanxi
province the sample size was 1274 and IQ was amazingly 108 +/-14. It is
only when there is high flouride and high/medium exposure to Arsenic
that IQ drops to 100 and 95.
But most importantly, look the IQ >130 column. 5.0% of Chinese children
have higher than a gifted IQ of 130, which is more than double the
expected 2.3% of the population based on +2SD which is MENSA criteria.
Maybe that's part of the reason why China succeeds in the recent
international olympiads while India in spite of a similar population
size does so much more poorly - compared even to tiny Korea or Taiwan.
>
>
>> And don't forget, even though Tibetans are dumber than Chinese, they're
>> still smarter than Indians - their gap with the Han Chinese is ~ 12
>> points or so. Understood figures are not etched in stone, but at least
>> it is consistent with gene clines and demic diffusion.
>>
>> And like I said before, look at the state of Indian education:
>>
>> "Fact is, in a large study done in 2005, amongst grade 4 students (and
>> cf to Korea's performance on the TIMSS at the grade 4 level), 3.2% reads
>> nothing, 8.9% has letter recognition, 18.7% can read a word, 31.7% can
>> read a paragraph at the grade 1 (!) level, and 37.6% can read a
>> paragraph at the grade 2 level. Similarly, at the grade 4 level, 7.5% of
>> Indian kids can do nothing, 24.6% can recognize numbers, 37.4% can
>> subtract, while only 30.6% can divide."
>>
>> "If a student is one-grade behind that's slow. But when a student is two
>> grades behind that is borderline retarded."
>
> And you got that from the ever-reliable message boards at vdare?
>
If true, racist racist virulently racist VDARE notices Koreans are high
IQ Koreans but Indians are low IQ.
Repost: http://www.vdare.com/rushton/070926_indians.htm
>
>> And also don't forget also even at the very top, i.e. international
>> olympiads, Indian students still fall behind their Chinese or Korean
>> counterparts.
>>
>> Whatever the cause, Indians still are, as all the evidence points for
>> all practical purposes, borderline retarded.
>
> Must be why they are one of the fastest-growing economies in the world.
Still slow compared to China!
>
>
>>>> >>>> 2. How come India's growth rate is still so slow vis-a-vis
>>>> China's and diverged since Q1?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Because it didn't throw hundreds of billions of dollars to prop
>>>> up the "growth" rate. Take the stimulus out of the equation, and
>>>> what would the growth rate be?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Are you now suggesting that China's CCP is doing something *for*
>>>> its
>>>> >> country while Indian's government isn't? That somehow economic
>>>> growth is *not* important for India? Hmmmm we all know
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2v5ufg
>>>> >> Let's hope the UK is not slanting or biased....
>>>> >
>>>> > http://extras.sltrib.com/china/
>>>> >
>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/31/AR2006073101399_pf.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't answer the question about the China stimulus question does it?
>>>> What stimulus package did India dish out, what size, what amount etc.
>>>> And how come it has been India that has been so very muted in North
>>>> America after the economic collapse. It's always China China China ad
>>>> nauseum.
> ^^^^^^^^^
>
> Didn't catch this before, but is this an example of your spectacular
> Chinese cognitive ability?
Growth's not India's priority?
>
>>> > Somehow India just miraculously dropped out of the picture!
>>> Can you illustrate how India has "dropped out of the picture"?
>>> China's exports of low-cost goods to the US has gone up many-fold
>>> over the past 10 years, and consequently when there has been a drop
>>> in consumer demand, for whatever reasons, this has led to a lot of
>>> talk about China. India's growth has not been driven by such a rapid
>>> growth in exports, and it doesn't have a large footprint on the
>>> economies of other countries, and consequently there has not been a
>>> great focus on India's situation with the global demand decline.
>>>
>>
>> You're saying India didn't leave a global footprint; that's actually
>> understandable and probably true.
>
> It is true. India hasn't become the low-wage factory and recycling dump
> of the world.
India's fighting the world (the flood of trade, globalization,
capitalism etc) ?
>
>
>> Still, just a few years ago there were so many articles India vs
>> China. Just tune into any business news in whatever channel today. All
>> the happy talk we hear about India few years ago evaporated - what
>> "should" or "could" happen or what "may" happen to China didn't quite
>> materialize; if India cannot overtake China in some equalizing
>> economic crisis, what makes you think India can overtake China in the
>> future *especially* when India has a much lower IQ collectively to
>> begin with?
>
> What makes you think that the economic crisis was an equalizing factor?
> Only a complete idiot would say so. Did the crisis equalize America as
> well? Why not? Did the crisis result in a shortage of goods that India
> could supplement? Your tiresome arguments smack of one thing through and
> through: sheer bloody racism, and no intelligence worth a flying f**k!
>
Simple. Goes back to the point malnutrition can stunt height but does
not translate into adequate or surplus of nutrition means everyone will
be equally or 7 feet tall. A meteor strike at earth tomorrow and all
humans can be equally dead; or as RAK said at the beginning if Pakistan
nuclear strikes India and India retaliates maybe every Indian and Paki
will be equally dead. It does not translate that without a meteorite
striking everyone will somehow thrive and be prosperous let alone
equally successful.
Same with India vs China. It's a question when software constraints are
lifted China seems to be surging ahead in spite of its constraints;
India is languishing relative to China in spite of so much going for it.
>
>>>> No, to most, India is at best an ornament, seriously. And it takes
>>>> tough times to flush out sheer poseurs from the real thing. :)
>>>
>>> So that's how were you flushed out? China's economic problems in the
>>> face of the disappearing American consumer?
>>>
>>
>> India's flushed out by process of omission.
>
> So the fisherman who couldn't supply chicken eggs must be a loser,
> right? Did China take advantage of the economic crisis to elbow India
> out of the IT services field?
If adaptability is not India's strong suit that may go with India's low IQ.
Nietzsche's aphorism still resonates. Action speaks louder than words.
Doing is more important than starry-eyed masturbation.
Translation: China vs India.
>
>>>> The point I'm making is you can just myopically focus in on
>>>> imperfections or temporary fluctuations (as your GDP topic above) but
>>>> you're missing the forest for the trees.
>>>
>>> And yet that is precisely what you have done each and every time when
>>> I ask you to explain China's non-performance prior to 1978.
>>
>> Answered, see above.
>
> Nope, you side-stepped it again, as you've always done, because to
> directly address it would mean annihilating your own argument.
>
See above, China *had* a software problem; India *has* a hardware problem.
>
>>>> What "is" always come before
>>>> the what "should". And more importantly it's the zeitgeist that's
>>>> missed. Alan Greenspan understood this principle when he once said how
>>>> satisfied or happy the people are is the best predictor of a country's
>>>> direction far outstripping any other predictor in economics. In a way
>>>> this is no rocket science - people like wealth and are happy when they
>>>> have them and thus he's saying the best predictor of wealth is wealth
>>>> itself. But it's interesting how it can even be, perchance, captured by
>>>> numbers. In a Pew Global survey released last year, 86% of Chinese are
>>>> satisfied with their own country's direction, compared to India's mere
>>>> 41%. A larger than 2-fold difference. And in the long run in the
>>>> broader
>>>> picture it is this which irons out whatever piecemeal imperfections or
>>>> inconvenient bumps along the way.
>>>
>>> http://www.happyplanetindex.org/news/archive/news-2.html
>>> http://www.happiness.org/Resources/Happiness_Studies/Happiest_Countries.aspx
>>>
>>>
>>> Doesn't exactly jive with your "happy" proposition, does it?
>>
>> Actually it does, you just conceded RAK's point: China scores higher in
>> *your* index: China 6.4, India 5.5; once again demonstrating my point
>> how India falls behind.
>
> Actually, it doesn't, because many countries that you scorned, such as
> the Central and South American countries, and some Caribbean countries,
> actually score well above China. So China must be falling behind them, eh?
>
Well they're not growing that fast are they? Recall Mexico and Brazil at
one point in time had higher GDPs than many parts of East Asia. Today
they are still where they were while Korea and Taiwan had overtaken
them. Once again it's a matter of human capital. South Americans
typically score below average and sometimes way below average on
international tests and on IQ tests. Which is why I think Brazil or
South American countries are a much better (read: realistic) model to
follow than China.
>
>>> As for the Pew report, you seem to have a problem with numeracy when
>>> it comes to India:
>>> http://pewresearch.org/pubs/867/global-economic-gloom
>>>
>>
>> And aren't you the illiterate one? Wrong survey. RAK specifically said
>> "Satisfied with their own country's direction".
>> http://www.greenlaw.org.cn/enblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/pew31.jpg
>>
>> * * Taken the above 2 together, you have confirmed and solidified again
>> what RAK has been saying all along - how India continues to fall behind
>> China * *
>
> Selectively chose a statistic, didn't you? Nevertheless, the link you
> provided shows India considerably ahead of Britain, the US, Japan and
> South Korea which, to use your own reasoning, must show that India is
> surging ahead of these countries. With each passing day, you show
> yourself to be an empty-headed racist.
And still behind China. Focus, Mr. Rajah, focus!
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2007/9270/tab3.jpg
Explanations and interpretation see above.
>
>
>>>> >> Just look at your first paragraph and take the overall view and
>>>> it sounds like you're against. Correct RAK if he's wrong. :)
>>>> >
>>>> > As always, you are wrong. My first paragraph was an indictment of
>>>> the
>>>> > anti-American pro-pure capitalism of Kissinger and associates.
>>>> Despite
>>>> > repeated clarification regarding your conflation of K&A with
>>>> "America",
>>>> > you continue to do so in keeping with your agenda of truth by
>>>> repetition.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Way way back though President Calvin Coolidge once famously said the
>>>> business of America is business.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like *both* China and America (capitalism, biz etc.) aren't
>>>> exactly riding high on your scale of approval.
>>>
>>> If China is capitalist, why do they restrict the free flow of goods,
>>> people, services and ideas?
>>>
>>> I am pro-capitalism, but not the dog-eat-dog capitalism that has
>>> decimated America's manufacturing base, and led to the decline of the
>>> quality of life of the average American. There is something profound
>>> about responsibility to one's society, which pure capitalists simply
>>> don't get.
>>>
>>
>> There's an unmentionably good reason why atomistic capitalism thrives
>> in the US more than Sweden or Japan.
>
> Atomistic capitalism is a concept. It doesn't actually exist.
Much like "human rights" and fabricated equality ideals.
>
>
>>>> (Hey are you planning to be one of those 'no justice no peace'
>>>> activists at the next WTO?)
>>>
>>> Are you going to make the placards?
>>
>> Only if you drive your BMW.
>
> I prefer American-made cars, like the Vette. Personally, I drive a
> Chrysler 300C.
>
Is Mr. Rajah serious??? What an honor to talk to Mr. Rajah!! We should
all bow and genuflect before Mr. Rajah!!! For practical purposes he must
be GOD!!! Mr. Rajah can even afford a bankrupt American company's car???
Mr. Rajah, more than anything else you opened up RichASianKid's eyes!!
And his radiant economic prowess is just blinding!!!!!
And argues even more for what's now known so odiously as "imperialism".
When when imperialism failed it still wins. Hmmmm. That's why there is
no practical endpoint playing weak & playing socialist catering to your
weakest poorest most illiterate link.
>
>
>> What about India.
>>
>> Was it a loser or a winner or I don't know what fits your fancy!
>
> India contributed tremendously to the British war effort, including
> having to endure a famine which killed millions while the grain went to
> Europe, and got nothing after the war. No Marshall Plan, no war
> equipment orders, nothing but a troublesome new neighbour carved out of
> its own territory and being armed to the teeth by the West.
Then see immediately above. If what you said is true, look where it got
India. (Which is still a loser regardless of cause.)
>
>
>>>> And note the converging curves, on a log scale no less, between
>>>> China/Korea and America, while India just languishes without any
>>>> semblance of closing the gap.
>>>
>>> As you have noted, it is a log scale, and India is certainly on an
>>> upward trajectory. It is certainly not "languishing", which is simply
>>> a figment of your feverish racist imagination.
>>>
>>
>> See above, forever languishing relative to China.
>>
>>>
>>>> You yourself have provided all posters here with an answer and
>>>> confirmed
>>>> what RAK has been saying all along!!!
>>>>
>>>> Thank you again.
>>>
>>> I have shown you to be a race-obsessed bigot, impervious to evidence
>>> that damages your viewpoint, and you thank me! You are very welcome!
>>
>> And your real blindspot is the UN 1948-imposed -- and "declaration" no
>> less -- declaration!!!! -- of "universal human rights". Implying not
>> just de jure but de facto equality.
>>
>> Now that is really childish.
>
> What is childish is your prancing, like the birthday child with a new
> toy, claiming that China's recent Kissinger-abetted rise is "evidence of
> genetic superiority". Balderdash! Human rights are very distinct from
> your version of "equality", and actually have no bearing on that
> whatsoever.
>
See above. Human rights are just adult make-believe. There never was
"rights".
>
>> Think harder Mr. Rajah.
>>
>> You talk so much about long ranging view etc etc, why don't you look at
>> human history itself?
>
> Why don't _you_? History is all about ups and downs, something you seem
> blissfully unaware of.
And where is Egypt today?
All such happy talk about the past is precisely that: it's history.
Time only flows in one direction.
Let's cut India some slack: at least it's doing better than Zimbabwe.
Happy now?
I said it before, I think one of the strongest points of the Japanese
(unlike their German counterpart) is they have kept up their national
pride and not 'consigned to the stool of eternal repentance'. And yes,
it is petty for Chinese or otherwise to blame the Japanese.
But the case is less convincing for India. After Britain gave so much
for India I didn't sense even an iota of gratitude here.
>
>> example just when Indians want a foot when they get an inch, a yard
>> when they have a foot, and a mile when you have a yard. Come on, is this
>> double-faced Indian ingratitude posters let alone British posters should
>> expect?
>>
>> And recall the numbers:
>>
>> "Mumbai's GDP PPP was a mere $6687 in 2005, while Delhi's was a mere
>> $5812. Compare that to Hong Kong which was $33,516. Keep in mind this is
>> the 'rate' rather than cumulative wealth. In another study released in
>> 2006, the city of Hong Kong of only 7 million people had a larger share
>> of world wealth than the *entire* subcontinent of India with 1.1 billion
>> people. Amazing isn't it when you think of it...."
>>
>> Hmmmm!
>
> Even more amazing is the fact that a mere 7 million people of a
> city-state so spectacularly out-performed a billion and a half of their
> own race.
>
> Hmmmmm!!
>
See above again. See how India now continues to underachieve?
>
>>>> In fact, Hong Kong now has a higher GDP PPP per
>>>> capita than the UK and this happened since its return to China in 1997.
>>>> (Singapore, being independent for a longer period of time, has achieved
>>>> even higher economic success.) Yet no no no no no, India continues
>>>> to languish behind some ravaged communist country in spite of its
>>>> pedigree, in spite of its headstart.
>>>>
>>>> Tsk tsk.
>>>>
>>>> This just ain't a picture of high IQ to me....
>>>
>>> Actually, all of your arguments, and your consistent ignorance of the
>>> facts, point up the fact that you actually lack intelligence, mired
>>> as you are in the slime of your bigotry.
>>
>> But we're still looking for evidence of an aggregate 3-digit collective
>> Indian IQ.....
>
> I'm still looking for evidence that the average IQ of the Chinese is
> 100, let alone 105 or 110.
>
From (yes) Lynn:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:National_IQ_Lynn_Vanhanen_2006_IQ_and_Global_Inequality.png
See above review: http://tinyurl.com/yfqfksr
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2007/9270/tab3.jpg
This one gives 103.5 as detailed above, with other groups higher (see table)
P. Rajah
I have repeatedly asked you- and you have repeatedly ignored and failed
to answer- why China lagged India prior to 1992. After 14 years of high
growth, while India endured some years of even negative growth, China
ony surpassed India in 1992. You utterly, utterly failed to explain
that, since doing so would spectacularly destroy your argument of
Chinese intelligence being higher than anyone else, as applicable to
your simplistic higher intelligence = higher growth thesis.
> So why are we focusing on post-1990s for India anyway? It's a matter of
> software (the system) vs hardware (the people). North Korea is much
> poorer than South Korea; China is much poorer than Japan. Yet their IQs
> are somehow remarkably similar.
So explain why the Japanese, despite not having a significantly higher
IQ than the Chinese and certainly far fewer natural resources,
_annihilated_ the Chinese in growth.
> But!!
But nothing!!! The Japs hung your precious high IQ Chinese out to dry!!!
> India has had its software (its system) already more or less optimized -
Says who? Your racist friends at vdare? Wtf is "optimized"?
> in fact its hardware controls its software via a feedback process called
> democracy -- unlike China whose CCP is supposed to whip and enslave a
> billion chasing every last one of those innocents down and then beating
> the shit out of them! And *yet* - yet - India still fails relative to
> China in spite of all its advantages -- or if one prefers, including
> India's economic headstart as Mr. Rajah continues to remind us.
>
> How come?
>
> **That's** the real and big difference we're talking about here and Mr.
> Rajah failed and continues to fail to face.
As I've told you time and time again, India does not have a
fascist/communist regime. It cannot evict 10 million people off their
homes and lands like the Chinese do. Moreover, after over 30 years of
high growth rates, hundreds of millions- let me say that again,
_hundreds of millions_ of Chinese are still dirt poor. Why is that?
Surely a generation of the "Great Leader" and his progressive policies
should have eliminated poverty in high IQ China?
> Now focusing more narrowly China before 1975?
But aren't you focusing narrowly on a time period between 1992 and now?
Simply because it serves _you_ doesn't mean we should ignore that
realities of the past. Formosa was the poorest province of China, but
Kai-Shek turned it into an economic powerhouse, while PRC _declined_
relative to even "low IQ" India during that time period. As you often
say, Wow!!!
> Again, software and
> hardware. A system can indeed throttle its own people. See above re: N
> Korea vs S Korea. And again, malnutrition can indeed stunt
> height. Baby Einstein can indeed be starved to death. But when we
> progressively equalize environment, the share of inherent or innate
> potential will increasingly come to fore. If genes + environment =
> outcome, and when environment is equalized, outcome will become more and
> more proportionately and *increasingly* due to genes or innate factors
> or nature. That's a very simple mathematical fact.
>
> India has less and less to blame and is rapidly running out of excuses.....
It doesn't need excuses, as it is doing very well against the odds. It
would certainly help India if China vacated the part of India it stole
in 1962, and stopped funding and materially supporting various terrorist
groups in India, and stopped funding and materially supporting Pakistan
as that country wages a proxy war against India.
>>> Think how Pakistan nukes and annihilates India tomorrow then you can
>>> forget all about economic growth for India.
>>
>> That's your secret wish, ain't it?
>
> In that playbook on the audacity of hope, *anything* is possibility...
Yes, and your Beijing overlords are doing everything they can to make
that possible, even having passed on nuclear and military technology to
Pakistan.
>>> But point remains: India liberalized since the early 1990s yet where
>>> are the results? And it is precisely at that point in time India and
>>> China's growth curves diverged.
>>
>> Nonsense. You seem unable to understand what divergence means. Was the
>> growth track from 1978-1991 parallel? If so, I could understand your
>> view that it diverged. In point of fact, Chinese growth was on an
>> upward trajectory for reasons I have repeated ad nauseam(did I spell
>> it right, nitpicker?).
>
> But RAK was talking since early 1990s when India liberalized its market
Because you are a moron, and cannot explain the spectacular Chinese
non-performance prior to the 1990s. India is growing at what the _world_
sees as a very acceptable rate of growth indeed, and you ask, like a
simpleton, "where are the results"? Look at this table, China isn't even
in the top 10:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28real%29_growth_rate
Low IQ Bhutan is blowing away China!!!
> - please re-read. And data is here:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/qgmt2o
>
> http://i33.tinypic.com/ftivc1.jpg
>
> Gap between India and China is growing, no?
And the gap between India and China grew between 1949 and 1975 too. Like
I said, you spectacularly fail to address that aspect.
>>> http://tinyurl.com/qgmt2o
>>>
>>> http://i33.tinypic.com/ftivc1.jpg
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 3. My numbers are 1950-2000, not 1975-2000. Of course you can point
>>>>> out
>>>>> 1990-2000 in Japan's lost decade, or maybe just focus in on a quarter
>>>>> (how come Q1 of all countries dropped in 2009 etc.)
>>>>
>>>> Odd how you mention that, but ignore the fact that you have
>>>> consistently focused on China's performance post 1975, and
>>>> completely ignored my request to explain China's lag before that.
>>>> This is what I meant when I said that you selectively use statistics.
>>>
>>>
>>> See above. China was throttled by ideology and yet India in spite of
>>> it being liberated still couldn't catch up!!
>>
>> India liberalized internally, without American pure capitalists
>> promises of business. A key difference which you will never
>> acknowledge, since it invalidates your racist premise. As far as China
>> being throttled by ideology, what part of communist ideology throttles
>> China today? China is communist in name only- for the rest it is
>> practically a fascist state.
>
> You acknowledge China is not communist now. Interesting! What, Chinese
> Capitalist Party?? Isn't that kudos for the Chinese, a party capable of
> change and adaptation?
And India hasn't changed and adapted since 1992? You are a complete bozo!
> And that in terms of end result i.e. economic growth, China is *still*
> more, rather than less, effective than India, whatever name you call the
> government.
>
> Is that what our Mr. Rajah is telling us?
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/qgmt2o & http://i33.tinypic.com/ftivc1.jpg
>>>
>>> Shouldn't we equalize environment, i.e. shouldn't we focus
>>> exclusively on post 1990s when India liberalized its economy?
>>
>> And why won't you look at post 1978 when China liberalised and India
>> was still stuck in socialist mode?
>>
>
> Whether post 1978 or post 1990 China still trounced and continues to
> trounce India....
In the 1978-1992 period, *after* China had introduced reforms and India
still had not, China still lagged India in per capita GDP, a fact you
fail to address, because you cannot explain why "high IQ" China was
_ever_ behind "low IQ" India.
>>> Maybe Mr. Rajah's afraid of staring at disappointment?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> and just extend the
>>>>> x-axis timeline infinity but the end result does not change: India is
>>>>> still slow economically however you slice and dice the data - as
>>>>> once again noted in your graph, and there is no obvious inflection
>>>>> point or a 'takeoff' in the early 1990s where economic
>>>>> liberalization took place.
>>>>
>>>> There certainly is, for those who have fairly decent eyesight, and
>>>> are not blinded by sheer racist hate. There is a clear upward trend
>>>> after 1992.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's not what I said, again reflecting your innumeracy. Again, look:
>>>
>>> http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/images/ww_gdp_per_capita.jpg
>>>
>>> It has been going up ever-so-slowly even before 1990 and is *still*
>>> growing very slowly relative to China or Korea.
>>
>> For reasons I have enumerated ad nauseam, but lately you've dragged
>> Korea into your camp because you realise that your China argument
>> alone doesn't cut it.
>
> OK, then forget China vs India. What about Sri Lanka or Bangladesh vs
> say Taiwan or Japan (roughly equal population countries)?
Sri Lanka also introduced reforms in 1977 or 1978, but then got bogged
down in internal strife and civil war, which only ended this year.
Bangladesh too had turmoil and other issues, besides being an Islamic
country. But let's compare, say, North Korea and Sri Lanka, which have
roughly equal populations. Why has "high IQ" North Korea lagged war-torn
Sri Lanka?
>>>>> India still falls behind. How come?
>>>>
>>>> I've explained ad nauseam(and India is not "falling behind", as
>>>> anyone but the most ignorant of bigots would acknowledge), but
>>>> apparently you are not intelligent enough nor unbiased enough to
>>>> understand it.
>>>
>>> China has higher GDP than India. China's growth rate is also higher than
>>> India's. How can these two facts not point to India falling behind
>>> China more and more in absolute $$ terms? The absolute gap between the
>>> two will continue to grow doesn't Mr. Rajah think?
>>
>> There was a period in time when the US GDP was far higher than
>> China's, and the US growth rate was higher than China's. Yet you now
>> posit that China will not only catch up to the US, but surpass it. How
>> is that possible, when according to your theory, China should have
>> been falling behind the US "more and more in absolute $$ terms"?
>
> Will China catch up to the US and surpass it you ask? WEll, if IQ were
> destiny (RAK will never say that but merely said it's a factor albeit a
> non-negligible factor, i.e. hardware of the people...) the US is now
> uncontrollably flooded with low IQ hispanics and thus its aggregate IQ
> will continue to fall. And last time RAK checked, European whites still
> have much higher IQs than browns, whether Hispanics or Indians (on
> average) (I don't know if body odor correlates with intelligence, but
> the former probably smells less than the latter...)
And why do the Chinese have so many traditional remedies for body odour?
Surely not because BO is not a problem?
> From your fav site: http://www.vdare.com/rushton/070926_indians.htm
That's _your_ favourite site, and you seem to rely solely on it for your
"statistics" and faux "commentaries".
> Isn't that consistent with the hypothesis?
No. vdare is not an academic source.
Why are you an apparent exception to Chinese "high IQ"?
As I explained before, if poor nutrition limits one group of people to a
height of 5 feet, and another to 4 feet, it would follow that better
nutrition would affect them proportionally. But if it limits both to the
the same degree, it follows that adequate nutrition would affect them
both to the same degree. If iodination lifted the IQ levels of Chinese
groups from the *same* level as non-iodinated Indian groups, it follows
that iodination would do the same for the Indian groups, since
iodination is the only changed factor.
> Besides remember this MO: the more reasons India is weak, the stronger
> Mr. Rajah's case. List us 50 reasons (to be modest) where India still
> sucks and maybe we'll then believe why India can be strong one day. The
> British oppressed India? Check mark. American snub? Check mark. Pakistan
> threat? Check mark. Tell us another 47 ways (say) how India is weak.
> BWAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!! Maybe soon you'll tell us English facility,
> democracy, British systems are India's bane also.
British systems are not automatically the best, and how you derive that
is a mystery. No system is perfect, since conditions change. India was
hobbled by various factors, and as these factors are addressed, it will
see corresponding positive effects.
It must really suck for you to wake up every day and see India getting
_any_ kind of positive press, right?
IOW, I'm suggesting that you are a congenital idiot, because you
apparently cannot grasp even rudimentary facts.
>>> Mumbai's GDP PPP was a mere $6687 in 2005, while Delhi's was a mere
>>> $5812. Compare that to Hong Kong which was $33,516. Keep in mind this is
>>> the 'rate' rather than cumulative wealth. In a study released 2006,
>>> one city of Hong Kong of only 7 million people had a larger share of
>>> world wealth than the *entire* subcontinent of India with 1.1 billion
>>> people. Now, how can that be?
>>
>> Playing tricks, aren't you? Are you referring to GDP, which would make
>> you absolutely wrong, or are you referring to ownership of assets
>> worldwide, which would make you merely questionable?
>>
>> And can you explain why Hong Kong, with only one-half of one percent
>> of China's population has almost 10% of its GDP? Are the remaining
>> Chinese borderline retards?
>
> Again, software. And after the Brits left, Hong Kong has a higher GDP
> PPP per capita than the UK. And an average Hong Kong'er (ranked #2 in
> the world, after Japan being #1) is worth more than an average Brit.
Hong Kong is prosperous _because_ of the British. Of course, HK would
see even higher growth in GDP as it became the financial hub for Chinese
industrial financing. Nobody but a congenital idiot would suggest that
HK grew *because* the British left.
> India, on the other hand languishes in the cesspool. Recall the above
> GDP PPP per capita of Mumbai, Delhi etc.
Apples and oranges. What is the migrancy rate to Hong Kong from the
Chinese hinterland?
> And Mr. Rajah shows his illiteracy again? First, GDP and wealth are two
> different things.
Which is the question I put to you, to determine the basis for your
statement. And once more, you fail to address an uncomfortable anomaly
because it would destroy your racist hypothesis: why does HK, with
one-half of one percent of China's population, produce almost 10% of
China's GDP? Is it because the people of HK are so much smarter than the
retards of the Chinese mainland?
> Please please please reread what RAK posted. (Even if
> you don't recognize it there's reason why one's 2005 data while the
> other is 2006. It's not a typo.)
>>
>>
>>>>> And this goes back to the role of human capital as I alluded to
>>>>> above. There is no overlap at all wrt the East Asian cluster and
>>>>> the South Asian cluster. In fact the gap is so large (20 points or
>>>>> so) that it's even larger than the black-white IQ difference in the
>>>>> US.
>>>>
>>>> Based on which studies? I've already shown that the Beijing results
>>>> have been exaggerated to represent general Chinese IQ, and that
>>>> provincial Chinese IQ is comparable to Indian rural IQ. You have
>>>> failed to explain that.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And hmmmm. I'd like to know aside from common sense which studies
>>> show Indians in India have 3-digit IQs. Where are they? Certainly not
>>> in the link you yourself provided.
>>
>> Side-stepping the issue again, aren't you? Fyi, Lynn did not do _any_
>> studies on Chinese IQ, despite what one might think based on your
>> over-reliance on his conclusions.
>
> Detailed review of Lynn: http://tinyurl.com/yfqfksr
>
> But why does that matter? Had Lynn done the studies you would have said
> the results are even MORE biased anyway (re: Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong
> studies). If Lynn did not do any of the studies, that would add
> credence to the higher IQ of China.
You really have no argument, do you?
Here's something more for you to gnash your teeth over:
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/03/legal-immigrants-hints-of-iq-scores.html
> Here's another example:
>
> http://www.ehponline.org/members/2007/9270/tab3.jpg
>
> This one from environmental health perspective. It has nothing to do
> with Lynn. China with a sample size of 37,288 has an IQ of 103.5 +/-
> 17.7, the Control group (n=196) has IQ of 104.8 +/-14.7, And in Shanxi
> province the sample size was 1274 and IQ was amazingly 108 +/-14. It is
> only when there is high flouride and high/medium exposure to Arsenic
> that IQ drops to 100 and 95.
>
> But most importantly, look the IQ >130 column. 5.0% of Chinese children
> have higher than a gifted IQ of 130, which is more than double the
> expected 2.3% of the population based on +2SD which is MENSA criteria.
>
> Maybe that's part of the reason why China succeeds in the recent
> international olympiads while India in spite of a similar population
> size does so much more poorly - compared even to tiny Korea or Taiwan.
How many medals did PRC win in the 1976 Olympics, again? Could you break
that down into gold, silver and bronze, and compare it to the USSR and
the GDR, both also communist countries?
>>> And don't forget, even though Tibetans are dumber than Chinese, they're
>>> still smarter than Indians - their gap with the Han Chinese is ~ 12
>>> points or so. Understood figures are not etched in stone, but at least
>>> it is consistent with gene clines and demic diffusion.
>>>
>>> And like I said before, look at the state of Indian education:
>>>
>>> "Fact is, in a large study done in 2005, amongst grade 4 students (and
>>> cf to Korea's performance on the TIMSS at the grade 4 level), 3.2% reads
>>> nothing, 8.9% has letter recognition, 18.7% can read a word, 31.7% can
>>> read a paragraph at the grade 1 (!) level, and 37.6% can read a
>>> paragraph at the grade 2 level. Similarly, at the grade 4 level, 7.5% of
>>> Indian kids can do nothing, 24.6% can recognize numbers, 37.4% can
>>> subtract, while only 30.6% can divide."
>>>
>>> "If a student is one-grade behind that's slow. But when a student is two
>>> grades behind that is borderline retarded."
>>
>> And you got that from the ever-reliable message boards at vdare?
>>
>
> If true, racist racist virulently racist VDARE notices Koreans are high
> IQ Koreans but Indians are low IQ.
>
> Repost: http://www.vdare.com/rushton/070926_indians.htm
Do you read much else besides vdare?
>>> And also don't forget also even at the very top, i.e. international
>>> olympiads, Indian students still fall behind their Chinese or Korean
>>> counterparts.
>>>
>>> Whatever the cause, Indians still are, as all the evidence points for
>>> all practical purposes, borderline retarded.
>>
>> Must be why they are one of the fastest-growing economies in the world.
>
> Still slow compared to China!
And China is a tortoise compared to Bhutan.
>>>>> >>>> 2. How come India's growth rate is still so slow vis-a-vis
>>>>> China's and diverged since Q1?
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Because it didn't throw hundreds of billions of dollars to
>>>>> prop up the "growth" rate. Take the stimulus out of the equation,
>>>>> and what would the growth rate be?
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Are you now suggesting that China's CCP is doing something
>>>>> *for* its
>>>>> >> country while Indian's government isn't? That somehow economic
>>>>> growth is *not* important for India? Hmmmm we all know
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2v5ufg
>>>>> >> Let's hope the UK is not slanting or biased....
>>>>> >
>>>>> > http://extras.sltrib.com/china/
>>>>> >
>>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/31/AR2006073101399_pf.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't answer the question about the China stimulus question does it?
>>>>> What stimulus package did India dish out, what size, what amount etc.
>>>>> And how come it has been India that has been so very muted in North
>>>>> America after the economic collapse. It's always China China China ad
>>>>> nauseum.
>> ^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> Didn't catch this before, but is this an example of your spectacular
>> Chinese cognitive ability?
>
> Growth's not India's priority?
You keep repeating your racist nonsense "ad nauseum". I was asking if
you were an example of Chinese cognitive ability, since you derided me
for mis-spelling non-sequitur. You seem not to be concerned by the fact
that you mis-spelled ad nauseam.
>>>> > Somehow India just miraculously dropped out of the picture!
>>>> Can you illustrate how India has "dropped out of the picture"?
>>>> China's exports of low-cost goods to the US has gone up many-fold
>>>> over the past 10 years, and consequently when there has been a drop
>>>> in consumer demand, for whatever reasons, this has led to a lot of
>>>> talk about China. India's growth has not been driven by such a rapid
>>>> growth in exports, and it doesn't have a large footprint on the
>>>> economies of other countries, and consequently there has not been a
>>>> great focus on India's situation with the global demand decline.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're saying India didn't leave a global footprint; that's actually
>>> understandable and probably true.
>>
>> It is true. India hasn't become the low-wage factory and recycling
>> dump of the world.
>
> India's fighting the world (the flood of trade, globalization,
> capitalism etc) ?
I'm beginning to get the feeling that you are actually a raving idiot.
>>> Still, just a few years ago there were so many articles India vs
>>> China. Just tune into any business news in whatever channel today.
>>> All the happy talk we hear about India few years ago evaporated - what
>>> "should" or "could" happen or what "may" happen to China didn't quite
>>> materialize; if India cannot overtake China in some equalizing
>>> economic crisis, what makes you think India can overtake China in the
>>> future *especially* when India has a much lower IQ collectively to
>>> begin with?
>>
>> What makes you think that the economic crisis was an equalizing
>> factor? Only a complete idiot would say so. Did the crisis equalize
>> America as well? Why not? Did the crisis result in a shortage of goods
>> that India could supplement? Your tiresome arguments smack of one
>> thing through and through: sheer bloody racism, and no intelligence
>> worth a flying f**k!
>>
>
> Simple. Goes back to the point malnutrition can stunt height but does
> not translate into adequate or surplus of nutrition means everyone will
> be equally or 7 feet tall.
Go back to where I tried to get into your head the fact that is
malnutrition affects two groups of people *identically*, then logically
proper nutrition will also affect them *identically*. That is, if
application of a single factor affects two sets of subjects to the same
degree, then removing that factor also should affect them to the same
degree. I totally understand your failure to comprehend that: racists
are notorious for their wooden heads.
> A meteor strike at earth tomorrow and all
> humans can be equally dead; or as RAK said at the beginning if Pakistan
> nuclear strikes India and India retaliates maybe every Indian and Paki
> will be equally dead. It does not translate that without a meteorite
> striking everyone will somehow thrive and be prosperous let alone
> equally successful.
>
> Same with India vs China. It's a question when software constraints are
> lifted China seems to be surging ahead in spite of its constraints;
> India is languishing relative to China in spite of so much going for it.
Really? In your view, the "so much going for it" is:
a) 2% of English-speaking people
b) Fractious multi-party, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual democracy
c) Legacy British legal system, cobbled together for the above-mentioned
multi-party, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual democracy.
None of these are "so much". And to pre-empt your automatic response,
here's what I _would_ consider an improvement:
a) At least 50% English-capable population
b) Changes to the political system to provide greater stability of the
central government, which would then provide for better implementation
of long-term strategy
c) Changes to the legal system to reflect global best practices
>>>>> No, to most, India is at best an ornament, seriously. And it takes
>>>>> tough times to flush out sheer poseurs from the real thing. :)
>>>>
>>>> So that's how were you flushed out? China's economic problems in the
>>>> face of the disappearing American consumer?
>>>>
>>>
>>> India's flushed out by process of omission.
>>
>> So the fisherman who couldn't supply chicken eggs must be a loser,
>> right? Did China take advantage of the economic crisis to elbow India
>> out of the IT services field?
>
> If adaptability is not India's strong suit that may go with India's low IQ.
You side-step my question *again*. Why was China unable to take
advantage of the global economic crisis to annihilate India's IT
business? Is it because of low Chinese IQ, perhaps? Once more, answering
that honestly would demolish your one and only talking point.
You'd be a starry-eyed masturbator if you were that Nike employee
earning $2 a day.
> Translation: China vs India.
>
>
>>
>>>>> The point I'm making is you can just myopically focus in on
>>>>> imperfections or temporary fluctuations (as your GDP topic above) but
>>>>> you're missing the forest for the trees.
>>>>
>>>> And yet that is precisely what you have done each and every time
>>>> when I ask you to explain China's non-performance prior to 1978.
>>>
>>> Answered, see above.
>>
>> Nope, you side-stepped it again, as you've always done, because to
>> directly address it would mean annihilating your own argument.
>>
>
> See above, China *had* a software problem; India *has* a hardware problem.
Funny how you choose to see it that way, and not acknowledge the fact
that India has far from perfect political "software". China doesn't
either, and its economic growth comes at a long-term price that will
come due.
Let me refresh your memory, which seems to suffer from a serious
short-term problem: you claimed that China's ranking in the happiness
index demonstrated your point that how happy the people are is the best
predictor of a country's economic direction. The happiness index
actually comprehensively demolishes that argument, and yet you have the
absolute gall to claim that it actually *proves* your point!
> Recall Mexico and Brazil at
> one point in time had higher GDPs than many parts of East Asia.
Why so? According to you, having always had superior IQ, East Asia
should _never_ have fallen behind, since their superior intelligence
should have led them always to have superior economies.
> Today
> they are still where they were while Korea and Taiwan had overtaken
> them. Once again it's a matter of human capital. South Americans
> typically score below average and sometimes way below average on
> international tests and on IQ tests. Which is why I think Brazil or
> South American countries are a much better (read: realistic) model to
> follow than China.
I don't think even you know what you are saying.
>>>> As for the Pew report, you seem to have a problem with numeracy when
>>>> it comes to India:
>>>> http://pewresearch.org/pubs/867/global-economic-gloom
>>>>
>>>
>>> And aren't you the illiterate one? Wrong survey. RAK specifically said
>>> "Satisfied with their own country's direction".
>>>
>>> http://www.greenlaw.org.cn/enblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/pew31.jpg
>>>
>>> * * Taken the above 2 together, you have confirmed and solidified again
>>> what RAK has been saying all along - how India continues to fall behind
>>> China * *
>>
>> Selectively chose a statistic, didn't you? Nevertheless, the link you
>> provided shows India considerably ahead of Britain, the US, Japan and
>> South Korea which, to use your own reasoning, must show that India is
>> surging ahead of these countries. With each passing day, you show
>> yourself to be an empty-headed racist.
>
> And still behind China. Focus, Mr. Rajah, focus!
Once more, your claim that this was yet another indicator of economic
prowess was comprehensively demolished by the very link that *you*
provided. Lack of focus, my dear Aspiring-to-be-Rich-Asian-Kid, is very
clearly _your_ problem!
Does Chrysler give away their cars for free? Bankruptcy has nothing to
do with the product. Various well-known European manufacturers have been
to bankruptcy and back as well. Ferrari, for example, faced bankruptcy
in 1968, and was bailed out by Fiat. Was that because Ferraris were
poorly engineered cars? The 300C is an excellent automobile, it keeps
getting good reviews, and it does everything I need it to do.
> Mr. Rajah, more than anything else you opened up RichASianKid's eyes!!
> And his radiant economic prowess is just blinding!!!!!
Thank you! But if you find it blinding, it is only because you have
lived in the dark for so long.............
Funny coming from you, because that's what China was doing from 1949, or
at least claimed to be doing.
And now China seems to be "playing socialist catering to your weakest
poorest most illiterate":
http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2009/10/12/is-more-social-spending-enough-to-right-china%E2%80%99s-imbalances/
>>> What about India.
>>>
>>> Was it a loser or a winner or I don't know what fits your fancy!
>>
>> India contributed tremendously to the British war effort, including
>> having to endure a famine which killed millions while the grain went
>> to Europe, and got nothing after the war. No Marshall Plan, no war
>> equipment orders, nothing but a troublesome new neighbour carved out
>> of its own territory and being armed to the teeth by the West.
>
> Then see immediately above. If what you said is true, look where it got
> India. (Which is still a loser regardless of cause.)
You are rambling with nothing but one talking point. India contributed
to the British war effort not voluntarily, but because the British took
what they wished. You can't understand that, can you?
>>>>> And note the converging curves, on a log scale no less, between
>>>>> China/Korea and America, while India just languishes without any
>>>>> semblance of closing the gap.
>>>>
>>>> As you have noted, it is a log scale, and India is certainly on an
>>>> upward trajectory. It is certainly not "languishing", which is
>>>> simply a figment of your feverish racist imagination.
>>>>
>>>
>>> See above, forever languishing relative to China.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You yourself have provided all posters here with an answer and
>>>>> confirmed
>>>>> what RAK has been saying all along!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you again.
>>>>
>>>> I have shown you to be a race-obsessed bigot, impervious to evidence
>>>> that damages your viewpoint, and you thank me! You are very welcome!
>>>
>>> And your real blindspot is the UN 1948-imposed -- and "declaration"
>>> no less -- declaration!!!! -- of "universal human rights". Implying
>>> not just de jure but de facto equality.
>>>
>>> Now that is really childish.
>>
>> What is childish is your prancing, like the birthday child with a new
>> toy, claiming that China's recent Kissinger-abetted rise is "evidence
>> of genetic superiority". Balderdash! Human rights are very distinct
>> from your version of "equality", and actually have no bearing on that
>> whatsoever.
>>
>
> See above. Human rights are just adult make-believe. There never was
> "rights".
Then there are no property rights either. Property rights are also just
adult make-believe, correct?
>>> Think harder Mr. Rajah.
>>>
>>> You talk so much about long ranging view etc etc, why don't you look at
>>> human history itself?
>>
>> Why don't _you_? History is all about ups and downs, something you
>> seem blissfully unaware of.
>
> And where is Egypt today?
Precisely. So also Greece, Rome, etc.
> All such happy talk about the past is precisely that: it's history.
And one learns from it.
> Time only flows in one direction.
So profound! So meaningless to my point about history's ups and downs!
Well, since China's growth rate lags low-IQ Bhutan, pick your own "feel
good" comparison. Oh, you did already.......
Perhaps you could point out what the British "gave" India that was not
limited to their administrative and colonial needs? Did they allow
industries in India that competed with British industry? India was used
as a source of raw material for British industry, and as a market for
British finished goods. Read about the salt ban. Even such a simple
thing as salt was forced on India as an industrial product.
>>> example just when Indians want a foot when they get an inch, a yard
>>> when they have a foot, and a mile when you have a yard. Come on, is this
>>> double-faced Indian ingratitude posters let alone British posters should
>>> expect?
>>>
>>> And recall the numbers:
>>>
>>> "Mumbai's GDP PPP was a mere $6687 in 2005, while Delhi's was a mere
>>> $5812. Compare that to Hong Kong which was $33,516. Keep in mind this is
>>> the 'rate' rather than cumulative wealth. In another study released in
>>> 2006, the city of Hong Kong of only 7 million people had a larger share
>>> of world wealth than the *entire* subcontinent of India with 1.1 billion
>>> people. Amazing isn't it when you think of it...."
>>>
>>> Hmmmm!
>>
>> Even more amazing is the fact that a mere 7 million people of a
>> city-state so spectacularly out-performed a billion and a half of
>> their own race.
>>
>> Hmmmmm!!
>>
>
> See above again. See how India now continues to underachieve?
And why do you continue to ignore my point, that fewer than 7 million
people outperformed a billion and a half of their own race? Because to
do so would spectacularly demolish your one and only talking point.
>>>>> In fact, Hong Kong now has a higher GDP PPP per
>>>>> capita than the UK and this happened since its return to China in
>>>>> 1997.
>>>>> (Singapore, being independent for a longer period of time, has
>>>>> achieved
>>>>> even higher economic success.) Yet no no no no no, India continues
>>>>> to languish behind some ravaged communist country in spite of its
>>>>> pedigree, in spite of its headstart.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tsk tsk.
>>>>>
>>>>> This just ain't a picture of high IQ to me....
>>>>
>>>> Actually, all of your arguments, and your consistent ignorance of
>>>> the facts, point up the fact that you actually lack intelligence,
>>>> mired as you are in the slime of your bigotry.
>>>
>>> But we're still looking for evidence of an aggregate 3-digit collective
>>> Indian IQ.....
>>
>> I'm still looking for evidence that the average IQ of the Chinese is
>> 100, let alone 105 or 110.
>>
>
> From (yes) Lynn:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:National_IQ_Lynn_Vanhanen_2006_IQ_and_Global_Inequality.png
Lynn did not do his own IQ studies. The ones he relied on are not strong
enough.
> See above review: http://tinyurl.com/yfqfksr
From that review:
"I put Southeast Asians in the 'least convincing' category for reasons
discussed above, and Middle Easterners and South Asians (as well as
Southeast Europeans) partly for some studies I have not mentioned here.
But another important reason is that Lynn is chronocentric. The Middle
East and India are relatively underdeveloped today, but have been ahead
of Europe in the past; the Middle East relatively recently even. While
it's possible that both these groups changed through time, this still
seems to contradict Lynn who pushes the differences back deep in
evolutionary time. According to Lynn, the Middle East and India never
had high IQs (i.e. 100), because they were never exposed to the business
end of ice age winters. But how to explain the times in semi-recent
history when Islamic civilization, science and scholarship, was at a
more advanced stage than Christian Europe?"
RichAsianKid
Dear Mr. Rajah:
Getting agitated will not at all change reality! In fact it only makes
you look silly!
RAK answered your questions btw and I urge you to think rather than
emote and read the replies carefully without cutting off paragraphs
(what, soon you'll be cutting off sentences and words a la Frankfurt
school?) software vs hardware issue, height and nutrition example
(malnutrition can stunt height but that does not translate into adequate
nutrition will render everyone equally or 7 feet tall), or take another
example, North vs South Korea.
But most importantly you should look at your own innumeracy which even a
high school student understands: the r between growth rate and national
IQ is NOT 1.0, and most certainly it's not 0.0. It is 0.7. See my
previous replies. If you can't understand this, may RAK suggest that Mr.
Rajah take a remedial high school statistics course?
Back on topic: how then does India fail to convert its apparent
'headstart' into an advantage over China?
http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/images/ww_gdp_per_capita.jpg
And most importantly there is still all the "epiphenomena" that need
explaining as you have problems accepting India's billion as a whole
just ain't exactly gifted. That is, how is India being the world's
largest reservoir of poor people in a single nation, its poor school
achievement (you want some studies? Just ask. Careful what you wish
for!), its poor international olympiad results, *vis-a-vis* China,
commensurate with a high IQ?
Can you please tell us?
>
>> So why are we focusing on post-1990s for India anyway? It's a matter of
>> software (the system) vs hardware (the people). North Korea is much
>> poorer than South Korea; China is much poorer than Japan. Yet their IQs
>> are somehow remarkably similar.
>
> So explain why the Japanese, despite not having a significantly
higher IQ than the Chinese and certainly far fewer natural resources,
_annihilated_ the Chinese in growth.
>
(1) IQs - a reminder here (shouting "racist!!" won't get you
anywhere....) BOTH Japan and China have much higher IQs than India.
(a) http://vdare.com/images/042306_ss_pic2.jpg
(b) http://vdare.com/images/042306_ss_pic1.jpg
(2) You're confusing growth and GDP here. In fact, Japan has a lower
growth rate than China, but it has a much higher GDP. You seem easily
confused between the two. (Which in retrospect might explain why Mr.
Rajah can't grasp the simple concept of correlations! I hope Mr. Rajah
is not a poster-boy for Indian innumeracy or illiteracy, but hey you
never know....) Don't forget, you quoted this yourself:
http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/images/ww_gdp_per_capita.jpg
The gap between China (and Korea) vs Japan in fact have converged; the
gap between India, vs US, and Japan continue to remain and in fact
slopes are very similar and the trajectories are parallel. The gap
between India vs China (and Korea) is clearly widening.
Yes sir, China still trounces India.
>
>> But!!
>
> But nothing!!! The Japs hung your precious high IQ Chinese out to dry!!!
>
>
>> India has had its software (its system) already more or less optimized -
>
> Says who? Your racist friends at vdare? Wtf is "optimized"?
Then tell us in detail India's weaknesses and what prevents it from
forging ahead. You know the more weakness you can list, the stronger is
your case? War is Peace, Freedom is slavery etc etc.
What's hidden up India's sleeves? Is India the hidden dragon (I meant
cow, oooooops I mean bull...) waiting to lunge at us?
Can you list categorize India's weaknesses for us? Like I said, the more
you can list, the stronger your case for India's future.
>
>> in fact its hardware controls its software via a feedback process called
>> democracy -- unlike China whose CCP is supposed to whip and enslave a
>> billion chasing every last one of those innocents down and then
beating the shit out of them! And *yet* - yet - India still fails
relative to China in spite of all its advantages -- or if one prefers,
including India's economic headstart as Mr. Rajah continues to remind us.
>>
>> How come?
>>
>> **That's** the real and big difference we're talking about here and
Mr. Rajah failed and continues to fail to face.
>
> As I've told you time and time again, India does not have a
fascist/communist regime. It cannot evict 10 million people off their
homes and lands like the Chinese do. Moreover, after over 30 years of
high growth rates, hundreds of millions- let me say that again,
_hundreds of millions_ of Chinese are still dirt poor. Why is that?
Surely a generation of the "Great Leader" and his progressive policies
should have eliminated poverty in high IQ China?
Is Mr. Rajah tangentially suggesting China's fascist/communist regime is
more efficient at achieving outcome than India, while simultaneously
saying China's fascist/communist regime is *not* efficient enough? Hey,
people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.....
Besides, on the subject of India and China, why is it that India has
44.2% of its population living under $1 per day, while China's only 18.8%?
Or this:
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/10/13/india-hungry-for-global-power-or-just-plain-hungry/
"Contrast that with China, where a centralized totalitarian government
has effectively dealt with hunger. In 2001, both countries committed to
halve the number of their malnourished citizens by 2015. China has
reached its target, but India, at its current rate of progress, won't
achieve this goal before 2043."
Mr. Rajah sounds very confused here!
>
>
>> Now focusing more narrowly China before 1975?
>
> But aren't you focusing narrowly on a time period between 1992 and
now? Simply because it serves _you_ doesn't mean we should ignore that
realities of the past. Formosa was the poorest province of China, but
Kai-Shek turned it into an economic powerhouse, while PRC _declined_
relative to even "low IQ" India during that time period. As you often
say, Wow!!!
You can't focus? This was about to answer your question pre-1975. Rather
than act like an ADHD child not able to sit still for 10 minutes, can
you read through a paragraph and write intelligently Mr. Rajah? Or is
this beyond the capabilities of this Indian?
And guess what, Taiwan still has a 3-digit IQ, unlike India.
Patient sigh. As mentioned before I suggest you use a South American
country as a model rather than China or Taiwan. If you follow China
you'll end up with chronic disappointment. At least a South American
model (e.g. Brazil or Argentina) is more achievable for a more
modestly-endowed India.
>
>> Again, software and hardware. A system can indeed throttle its own
people. See above re: N Korea vs S Korea. And again, malnutrition can
indeed stunt
>> height. Baby Einstein can indeed be starved to death. But when we
>> progressively equalize environment, the share of inherent or innate
>> potential will increasingly come to fore. If genes + environment =
>> outcome, and when environment is equalized, outcome will become more and
>> more proportionately and *increasingly* due to genes or innate factors
>> or nature. That's a very simple mathematical fact.
>>
>> India has less and less to blame and is rapidly running out of
excuses.....
>
> It doesn't need excuses, as it is doing very well against the odds.
It would certainly help India if China vacated the part of India it
stole in 1962, and stopped funding and materially supporting various
terrorist groups in India, and stopped funding and materially supporting
Pakistan as that country wages a proxy war against India.
And I'd suppose it'd help Germany or Japan if they didn't lose the war.
Yet they're both major economic powers today, both doing better than India.
>
>
>>>> Think how Pakistan nukes and annihilates India tomorrow then you
can forget all about economic growth for India.
>>>
>>> That's your secret wish, ain't it?
>>
>> In that playbook on the audacity of hope, *anything* is possibility...
>
> Yes, and your Beijing overlords are doing everything they can to make
that possible, even having passed on nuclear and military technology to
Pakistan.
Honestly that'd be more Mr. Rajah's concern than RAK's....
>
>
>>>> But point remains: India liberalized since the early 1990s yet
where are the results? And it is precisely at that point in time India and
>>>> China's growth curves diverged.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. You seem unable to understand what divergence means. Was
the growth track from 1978-1991 parallel? If so, I could understand your
view that it diverged. In point of fact, Chinese growth was on an upward
trajectory for reasons I have repeated ad nauseam(did I spell it right,
nitpicker?).
>>
>> But RAK was talking since early 1990s when India liberalized its market
>
> Because you are a moron, and cannot explain the spectacular Chinese
non-performance prior to the 1990s. India is growing at what the _world_
sees as a very acceptable rate of growth indeed, and you ask, like a
simpleton, "where are the results"? Look at this table, China isn't even
in the top 10:
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28real%29_growth_rate
>
> Low IQ Bhutan is blowing away China!!!
China is still growing faster than India.....
Besides what about the plateauing effect? Most first world nations have
lower growth understandably, yet India in spite of being so behind of
China should have higher growth rate than China. The fact is that now as
of 2009 India's GDP and growth rate -- BOTH are behind China -- isn't
that very sobering?
>
>> - please re-read. And data is here:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/qgmt2o
>>
>> http://i33.tinypic.com/ftivc1.jpg
>>
>> Gap between India and China is growing, no?
>
>
> And the gap between India and China grew between 1949 and 1975 too.
Like I said, you spectacularly fail to address that aspect.
Actually no. Extending the x-axis back to 1950 see:
http://i34.tinypic.com/1zou3k5.jpg
The gap between China and India actually closed between 1950 (no 1949
data) and 1975.
And as of now, they continue to diverge.
Notice how the South American countries plateau? (And note Brazil - one
of the "BRIC nations" - well, don't forget:
http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?at_code=412947 )
As for Germany it's an economic powerhouse of the EU, and it had
essentially the same GDP as Argentina after being decimated in WWII.
It's a "control group". Yet it pulled ahead of Argentina spectacularly
(don't forget the y-axis is log).
And Hong Kong now has overtaken Germany, Taiwan is approach fast and is
at the level of the EU (not shown).
BTW If you had thrown in the the trajectories of Sri Lanka, you'll
see the trajectories parallel between India and SL, but NOT to China or
the East Asian nations. Again, China vs India is only one more
datapoint; don't miss the forest for the trees.
>
>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/qgmt2o
>>>>
>>>> http://i33.tinypic.com/ftivc1.jpg
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. My numbers are 1950-2000, not 1975-2000. Of course you can
point out
>>>>>> 1990-2000 in Japan's lost decade, or maybe just focus in on a
quarter
>>>>>> (how come Q1 of all countries dropped in 2009 etc.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Odd how you mention that, but ignore the fact that you have
consistently focused on China's performance post 1975, and completely
ignored my request to explain China's lag before that. This is what I
meant when I said that you selectively use statistics.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> See above. China was throttled by ideology and yet India in spite
of it being liberated still couldn't catch up!!
>>>
>>> India liberalized internally, without American pure capitalists
promises of business. A key difference which you will never acknowledge,
since it invalidates your racist premise. As far as China being
throttled by ideology, what part of communist ideology throttles China
today? China is communist in name only- for the rest it is practically a
fascist state.
>>
>> You acknowledge China is not communist now. Interesting! What, Chinese
>> Capitalist Party?? Isn't that kudos for the Chinese, a party capable
of change and adaptation?
>
> And India hasn't changed and adapted since 1992? You are a complete bozo!
>
>
India is still falling further and further behind China.
As quoted before from the IMF: http://i33.tinypic.com/ftivc1.jpg
>> And that in terms of end result i.e. economic growth, China is
*still* more, rather than less, effective than India, whatever name you
call the government.
>>
>> Is that what our Mr. Rajah is telling us?
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/qgmt2o & http://i33.tinypic.com/ftivc1.jpg
>>>>
>>>> Shouldn't we equalize environment, i.e. shouldn't we focus
exclusively on post 1990s when India liberalized its economy?
>>>
>>> And why won't you look at post 1978 when China liberalised and
India was still stuck in socialist mode?
>>>
>>
>> Whether post 1978 or post 1990 China still trounced and continues to
trounce India....
>
> In the 1978-1992 period, *after* China had introduced reforms and
India still had not, China still lagged India in per capita GDP, a fact
you fail to address, because you cannot explain why "high IQ" China was
_ever_ behind "low IQ" India.
And after India liberalized its economy in the early 1990s, how come
it's so close yet so far away?
http://i33.tinypic.com/ftivc1.jpg
Again, who even thinks India can catch up with China the latter of which
has both a higher GDP AND a higher growth rate?
1. But as alluded to above SL's growth parallels India. How come India
doesn't grow faster than SL? What civil wars is India fighting?
2. NK vs SL - a government can indeed smite out and throttle. And just
imagine if that evil wicked CCP were to rule India. Wouldn't India's
growth be much much slower? *Yet* - and this is the point - China **in
spite of the CCP** is still growing fast compared to India?!!! It's
like someone with a handicap running faster than a normal person.
How come?
http://richasiankid.blogspot.com/2008/12/blacks-stinkwhile-asians-least-smelly.html
Even Filipinos know this.
(Too bad RAK didn't ask her about Indian stench...)
>
>
>> From your fav site: http://www.vdare.com/rushton/070926_indians.htm
>
> That's _your_ favourite site, and you seem to rely solely on it for
your "statistics" and faux "commentaries".
>
Here watch the video:
http://www.wntube.net/play.php?vid=1577
Start 10'27 and watch till 12'18 if you have no time
As someone once said "I don't care what someone says as long as it's not
true."
>
>> Isn't that consistent with the hypothesis?
>
> No. vdare is not an academic source.
And India's still dumb (on average). Period.
Mr. Rajah accepts Chinese "high IQ" afterall?!!
It does *not* follow better nutrition will affect them proportionally,
first because of non-linearity; second, even constraints are not equal
to begin with; third there's already fatal built-in assumption of
proposing that every population around the world will have identical IQs
in spite of all their differences, i.e. begging the question, so called
(if you're interested) "petitio principii".
And furthermore, even on the face of it are you suggesting somehow this
one variable of IQ will be identical across all populations in spite of
(a) how intelligence and brain size have undergone tremendous selection
during the course of hominid evolution and where (a2) ancestral
environments were drastically different which even cultural-determinists
acknowledge?
>
>
>> Besides remember this MO: the more reasons India is weak, the stronger
>> Mr. Rajah's case. List us 50 reasons (to be modest) where India still
>> sucks and maybe we'll then believe why India can be strong one day.
The British oppressed India? Check mark. American snub? Check mark.
Pakistan threat? Check mark. Tell us another 47 ways (say) how India is
weak.
>> BWAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!! Maybe soon you'll tell us English facility,
democracy, British systems are India's bane also.
>
> British systems are not automatically the best, and how you derive
that is a mystery. No system is perfect, since conditions change. India
was hobbled by various factors, and as these factors are addressed, it
will see corresponding positive effects.
>
Just to be clear on Mr. Rajah's position re: (a) British institutions
(b) Western-style democracy and (c) English facility. Are each of these
a net boon or a net bane for India?
It's actually entertainment for it's make-believe fiction and fantasy.
And there's still not a Hong Kong equivalent of India, however small..
>
>>>> Mumbai's GDP PPP was a mere $6687 in 2005, while Delhi's was a mere
>>>> $5812. Compare that to Hong Kong which was $33,516. Keep in mind
this is
>>>> the 'rate' rather than cumulative wealth. In a study released
2006, one city of Hong Kong of only 7 million people had a larger share
of world wealth than the *entire* subcontinent of India with 1.1 billion
>>>> people. Now, how can that be?
>>>
>>> Playing tricks, aren't you? Are you referring to GDP, which would
make you absolutely wrong, or are you referring to ownership of assets
worldwide, which would make you merely questionable?
>>>
>>> And can you explain why Hong Kong, with only one-half of one
percent of China's population has almost 10% of its GDP? Are the
remaining Chinese borderline retards?
>>
>> Again, software. And after the Brits left, Hong Kong has a higher
GDP PPP per capita than the UK. And an average Hong Kong'er (ranked #2
in the world, after Japan being #1) is worth more than an average Brit.
>
> Hong Kong is prosperous _because_ of the British. Of course, HK would
see even higher growth in GDP as it became the financial hub for Chinese
industrial financing. Nobody but a congenital idiot would suggest that
HK grew *because* the British left.
Yet India is still not prosperous *in spite of* the British **or** even
after the British left? If that's not an indictment of the Indian people
or India itself, what can possibly be?
>
>
>> India, on the other hand languishes in the cesspool. Recall the
above GDP PPP per capita of Mumbai, Delhi etc.
>
> Apples and oranges. What is the migrancy rate to Hong Kong from the
Chinese hinterland?
A couple years ago Indians were blaming Hong Kong of being
'discriminatory' for not letting more of them in. "You need the skills!"
etc were their justification. Sound familiar? Hong Kong did the right
thing back then if what these cry-baby Indian activists alleged were
true: Hong Kong recognized it has enough people, and it was bad enough
to have mainland Chinese traipsing across its borders. But it would be
infinitely worse with unassimilable alien 4th world browns.
>
>
>> And Mr. Rajah shows his illiteracy again? First, GDP and wealth are two
>> different things.
>
> Which is the question I put to you, to determine the basis for your
statement. And once more, you fail to address an uncomfortable anomaly
because it would destroy your racist hypothesis: why does HK, with
one-half of one percent of China's population, produce almost 10% of
China's GDP? Is it because the people of HK are so much smarter than the
retards of the Chinese mainland?
See above.
You yourself told us Indians in America are not representative of
Indians in India. You were right then, you're still right now. RAK
always gives credit when it's due.
BTW from the link here's an explanation:
http://www.vdare.com/rushton/070926_indians.htm
Quote: "However, as Steve Sailer noted in his April 23, 2006 VDARE.COM
essay on Richard Lynn�s book, the results regarding the IQ difference
between China and India are remarkably consistent across time.
"I suppose the answer to the apparent anomaly of so many well-known high
IQ Indians must be:
1. 0.5% of a population of 1.1 billion is a lot;
2. the variation in IQ scores in the Indian sub-continent may be
greater than elsewhere; and
3. a steep inflection in economic growth from a depressed level is
not incompatible with an ultimate inability to match western production
levels."
All great points above but note point (3) especially carefully.
Like RAK said long ago, the greatest ideas are still the greatest events.
Why ignore the elephant in the room?
>
>> Here's another example:
>>
>> http://www.ehponline.org/members/2007/9270/tab3.jpg
>>
>> This one from environmental health perspective. It has nothing to do
with Lynn. China with a sample size of 37,288 has an IQ of 103.5 � 17.7,
the Control group (n=196) has IQ of 104.8 �14.7, And in Shanxi province
the sample size was 1274 and IQ was amazingly 108 �14. It is only when
there is high flouride and high/medium exposure to Arsenic that IQ drops
to 100 and 95.
>>
>> But most importantly, look the IQ >130 column. 5.0% of Chinese
children have higher than a gifted IQ of 130, which is more than double
the expected 2.3% of the population based on +2SD which is MENSA criteria.
>>
>> Maybe that's part of the reason why China succeeds in the recent
international olympiads while India in spite of a similar population
size does so much more poorly - compared even to tiny Korea or Taiwan.
>
> How many medals did PRC win in the 1976 Olympics, again? Could you
break that down into gold, silver and bronze, and compare it to the USSR
and the GDR, both also communist countries?
How many medals did 1.1-billion people-weak (sic) India win in the 2008
Beijing Olympics?
And going old territory here on the elite mental front just look at how
China trounces India:
http://www.imo-official.org/results_country.aspx?column=awards&order=desc
>
>
>>>> And don't forget, even though Tibetans are dumber than Chinese,
they're
>>>> still smarter than Indians - their gap with the Han Chinese is ~ 12
>>>> points or so. Understood figures are not etched in stone, but at
least
>>>> it is consistent with gene clines and demic diffusion.
>>>>
>>>> And like I said before, look at the state of Indian education:
>>>>
>>>> "Fact is, in a large study done in 2005, amongst grade 4 students (and
>>>> cf to Korea's performance on the TIMSS at the grade 4 level), 3.2%
reads
>>>> nothing, 8.9% has letter recognition, 18.7% can read a word, 31.7% can
>>>> read a paragraph at the grade 1 (!) level, and 37.6% can read a
>>>> paragraph at the grade 2 level. Similarly, at the grade 4 level,
7.5% of
>>>> Indian kids can do nothing, 24.6% can recognize numbers, 37.4% can
>>>> subtract, while only 30.6% can divide."
>>>>
>>>> "If a student is one-grade behind that's slow. But when a student
is two
>>>> grades behind that is borderline retarded."
>>>
>>> And you got that from the ever-reliable message boards at vdare?
>>>
>>
>> If true, racist racist virulently racist VDARE notices Koreans are
high IQ Koreans but Indians are low IQ.
>>
>> Repost: http://www.vdare.com/rushton/070926_indians.htm
>
> Do you read much else besides vdare?
>
Koreans are still ahead Indians in social-valued outcomes. Do you agree
or disagree?
>
>>>> And also don't forget also even at the very top, i.e. international
>>>> olympiads, Indian students still fall behind their Chinese or Korean
>>>> counterparts.
>>>>
>>>> Whatever the cause, Indians still are, as all the evidence points
for all practical purposes, borderline retarded.
>>>
>>> Must be why they are one of the fastest-growing economies in the world.
>>
>> Still slow compared to China!
>
> And China is a tortoise compared to Bhutan.
>
India is a tortoise compared to China.
But RAK already told Mr. Rajah that India's low IQ is *independent* of
how Mr. Rajah himself misspelled "non-sequitor"! Quote: "I didn't say
that you're of low IQ; just said India as a whole as evidenced is
cognitively impoverished, which should be blindingly obvious to anyone
with two eyes."
BTW if spelling were such a big thing, those Indian kids who won
spelling bees would be geniuses and yet we know Indians in India are
still of low intelligence if not from their (biased! slanted!) IQ tests
then from their concrete achievements.
>
>
>>>>> > Somehow India just miraculously dropped out of the picture!
>>>>> Can you illustrate how India has "dropped out of the picture"?
China's exports of low-cost goods to the US has gone up many-fold over
the past 10 years, and consequently when there has been a drop in
consumer demand, for whatever reasons, this has led to a lot of talk
about China. India's growth has not been driven by such a rapid growth
in exports, and it doesn't have a large footprint on the economies of
other countries, and consequently there has not been a great focus on
India's situation with the global demand decline.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're saying India didn't leave a global footprint; that's
actually understandable and probably true.
>>>
>>> It is true. India hasn't become the low-wage factory and recycling
dump of the world.
>>
>> India's fighting the world (the flood of trade, globalization,
capitalism etc) ?
>
> I'm beginning to get the feeling that you are actually a raving idiot.
>
Hope it's not meant to be personification of India's not learning and
adapting...
>>>> Still, just a few years ago there were so many articles India vs
China. Just tune into any business news in whatever channel today. All
the happy talk we hear about India few years ago evaporated - what
>>>> "should" or "could" happen or what "may" happen to China didn't
quite materialize; if India cannot overtake China in some equalizing
economic crisis, what makes you think India can overtake China in the
future *especially* when India has a much lower IQ collectively to begin
with?
>>>
>>> What makes you think that the economic crisis was an equalizing
factor? Only a complete idiot would say so. Did the crisis equalize
America as well? Why not? Did the crisis result in a shortage of goods
that India could supplement? Your tiresome arguments smack of one thing
through and through: sheer bloody racism, and no intelligence worth a
flying f**k!
>>>
>>
>> Simple. Goes back to the point malnutrition can stunt height but does
>> not translate into adequate or surplus of nutrition means everyone will
>> be equally or 7 feet tall.
>
> Go back to where I tried to get into your head the fact that is
malnutrition affects two groups of people *identically*, then logically
proper nutrition will also affect them *identically*. That is, if
application of a single factor affects two sets of subjects to the same
degree, then removing that factor also should affect them to the same
degree. I totally understand your failure to comprehend that: racists
are notorious for their wooden heads.
Why is Mr. Rajah assuming every population group is equal or has equal
potential anyway? That's faith without evidence, in fact, faith in spite
of evidence. That is Mr. Rajah's blindspot.
As RAK wrote:
"It does *not* follow better nutrition will affect them proportionally,
first because of non-linearity; second, even constraints are not equal
to begin with; third there's already fatal built-in assumption of
proposing that every population around the world will have identical IQs
in spite of all their differences, i.e. begging the question, so called
(if you're interested) "petitio principii".
And furthermore, even on the face of it are you suggesting somehow this
one variable of IQ will be identical across all populations in spite of
(a) how intelligence and brain size have undergone tremendous selection
during the course of hominid evolution and where (a2) ancestral
environments were drastically different which even cultural-determinists
acknowledge? Are you implying when things are optimized then every
single population or nation in the world will have *identical*
intelligence and there will be no differences at all in spite of
differential ancestral environment and differential selection pressures
thru eons and eons of selection and evolution? And all that in spite of
all other phenotypic differences that we see every day?
(That is btw called "petitio principii" and in this case applies to how
people are just blinded by ideological equality. It's easy to spot it a
mile away)"
>
>> A meteor strike at earth tomorrow and all
>> humans can be equally dead; or as RAK said at the beginning if
Pakistan nuclear strikes India and India retaliates maybe every Indian
and Paki will be equally dead. It does not translate that without a
meteorite striking everyone will somehow thrive and be prosperous let
alone equally successful.
>>
>> Same with India vs China. It's a question when software constraints
are lifted China seems to be surging ahead in spite of its constraints;
>> India is languishing relative to China in spite of so much going for it.
>
> Really? In your view, the "so much going for it" is:
> a) 2% of English-speaking people
> b) Fractious multi-party, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual democracy
> c) Legacy British legal system, cobbled together for the
above-mentioned multi-party, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual democracy.
>
> None of these are "so much". And to pre-empt your automatic response,
here's what I _would_ consider an improvement:
> a) At least 50% English-capable population
> b) Changes to the political system to provide greater stability of
the central government, which would then provide for better
implementation of long-term strategy
> c) Changes to the legal system to reflect global best practices
>
1. The obvious question jumps out - with India's low IQ and cognitive
ability don't you think India should learn *any* language first let
alone another one? Read: what's India's literacy rates?
2. Change? Please don't follow China or Singapore. Better to rule in
hell than serve in heaven, remember?
3. Change again? Diversity when combined with democracy surely ain't not
the most loving ideological couple.....
>
>>>>>> No, to most, India is at best an ornament, seriously. And it
takes tough times to flush out sheer poseurs from the real thing. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> So that's how were you flushed out? China's economic problems in
the face of the disappearing American consumer?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> India's flushed out by process of omission.
>>>
>>> So the fisherman who couldn't supply chicken eggs must be a loser,
right? Did China take advantage of the economic crisis to elbow India
out of the IT services field?
>>
>> If adaptability is not India's strong suit that may go with India's
low IQ.
>
> You side-step my question *again*. Why was China unable to take
advantage of the global economic crisis to annihilate India's IT
business? Is it because of low Chinese IQ, perhaps? Once more, answering
that honestly would demolish your one and only talking point.
>
And more pertinently why is China still outgrowing India? Recall the end
result is still what matters. China has both a higher GDP and a higher
growth rate.
And equality would still be an infantile concept.
>
>> Translation: China vs India.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>> The point I'm making is you can just myopically focus in on
>>>>>> imperfections or temporary fluctuations (as your GDP topic
above) but
>>>>>> you're missing the forest for the trees.
>>>>>
>>>>> And yet that is precisely what you have done each and every time
when I ask you to explain China's non-performance prior to 1978.
>>>>
>>>> Answered, see above.
>>>
>>> Nope, you side-stepped it again, as you've always done, because to
directly address it would mean annihilating your own argument.
>>>
>>
>> See above, China *had* a software problem; India *has* a hardware
problem.
>
> Funny how you choose to see it that way, and not acknowledge the fact
that India has far from perfect political "software". China doesn't
either, and its economic growth comes at a long-term price that will
come due.
But in spite of China not having perfect political "software" India or
just about any country will still have to pay the piper with its low IQ
populace. Especially when its populace is now somehow to control the
political process, a.k.a. democracy.
And RAK's not even talking about 'cause' here, genetic or otherwise;
he's talking about end-result. Low IQ is low IQ regardless of origin. If
you're on a wheelchair who cares hether it's congenital or whether you
it's from some ski or boat accident. That person will still not run a
100 m race any time soon. Same with human capital or IQ of any country.
It's man that makes institutions, not institutions that make man.
Please please please Mr. Rajah don't embarrass yourself, do us a favor
and brush up on univariate vs multivariate analysis.
>
>> Recall Mexico and Brazil at one point in time had higher GDPs than
many parts of East Asia.
>
> Why so? According to you, having always had superior IQ, East Asia
should _never_ have fallen behind, since their superior intelligence
should have led them always to have superior economies.
A healthy athlete can die in some car-crash in his 30s; it does not
follow that a pediatric cancer patient even with best of treatment will
live till ripe old age or have equal population life-expectancy.
And it remains infinitely more difficult for inferior IQ people to rise
to great heights -- even if we see superior IQ people fail, fall, and
falter. Blacks still fail vis-a-vis Jews for example.
There are always more ways to fail than to succeed. Think nature -
analogous to the second law of thermodynamics in abstract.
>
>> Today they are still where they were while Korea and Taiwan had
overtaken them. Once again it's a matter of human capital. South
Americans typically score below average and sometimes way below average
on international tests and on IQ tests. Which is why I think Brazil or
South American countries are a much better (read: realistic) model to
follow than China.
>
> I don't think even you know what you are saying.
India has to be realistic rather than pine for false hopes.
South American countries are a viable alternative model which, while
perhaps wounding Indian pride, is still more practical.
>
>
>>>>> As for the Pew report, you seem to have a problem with numeracy
when it comes to India:
>>>>> http://pewresearch.org/pubs/867/global-economic-gloom
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And aren't you the illiterate one? Wrong survey. RAK specifically said
>>>> "Satisfied with their own country's direction".
>>>>
http://www.greenlaw.org.cn/enblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/pew31.jpg
>>>>
>>>> * * Taken the above 2 together, you have confirmed and solidified
again
>>>> what RAK has been saying all along - how India continues to fall
behind
>>>> China * *
>>>
>>> Selectively chose a statistic, didn't you? Nevertheless, the link
you provided shows India considerably ahead of Britain, the US, Japan
and South Korea which, to use your own reasoning, must show that India
is surging ahead of these countries. With each passing day, you show
yourself to be an empty-headed racist.
>>
>> And still behind China. Focus, Mr. Rajah, focus!
>
> Once more, your claim that this was yet another indicator of economic
prowess was comprehensively demolished by the very link that *you*
provided. Lack of focus, my dear Aspiring-to-be-Rich-Asian-Kid, is very
clearly _your_ problem!
Then tell us how come India is still behind China, Mr. Rajah?
(Question's boring now after so many iterations.....) Or is that just
too painful? :)
Bankrupt or not you as an Indian must be GOD to be able to afford any car!!!
>
>> Mr. Rajah, more than anything else you opened up RichASianKid's
eyes!! And his radiant economic prowess is just blinding!!!!!
>
> Thank you! But if you find it blinding, it is only because you have
lived in the dark for so long.............
No sense of honed-in humor RAK sees.
Hey btw tell us, what's your family's net worth (in US$) so you Mr.
Rajah can bask in full glory? It takes very little to satisfy the crowd. :)
And this admittedly blunt question is optional. You know how it is in
some circles - it's second instinct. And please don't reply with
irrelevances. Better yet do not reply unless you feel an urge to do so. :)
1. China shouldn't.
2. India vs China - which has higher GINI anyway?
>
>>>> What about India.
>>>>
>>>> Was it a loser or a winner or I don't know what fits your fancy!
>>>
>>> India contributed tremendously to the British war effort, including
having to endure a famine which killed millions while the grain went to
Europe, and got nothing after the war. No Marshall Plan, no war
equipment orders, nothing but a troublesome new neighbour carved out of
its own territory and being armed to the teeth by the West.
>>
>> Then see immediately above. If what you said is true, look where it got
>> India. (Which is still a loser regardless of cause.)
>
> You are rambling with nothing but one talking point. India
contributed to the British war effort not voluntarily, but because the
British took what they wished. You can't understand that, can you?
>
Mr. Rajah is still blaming the British?
Ultimately, i.e. from a military standpoint, yes. There are no 'property
rights'. Paper money goes down the drain in war. This whole idealistic
concept of 'rights' does not even begin to exist in nature. In nature
there are only winners and losers in our struggle for existence.
>
>
>>>> Think harder Mr. Rajah.
>>>>
>>>> You talk so much about long ranging view etc etc, why don't you
look at
>>>> human history itself?
>>>
>>> Why don't _you_? History is all about ups and downs, something you
seem blissfully unaware of.
>>
>> And where is Egypt today?
>
> Precisely. So also Greece, Rome, etc.
And India.
>
>
>> All such happy talk about the past is precisely that: it's history.
>
> And one learns from it.
>
Yes, and learn how dysgenesis and humanistic ideology of "equality" ruin.
>
>> Time only flows in one direction.
>
> So profound! So meaningless to my point about history's ups and downs!
>
The future trumps the past.
RAK's perfectly content not just on the subject of China vs India, but
also in world-affairs and life.
Question is why some are peeved.
Again, blame the Brits I see.
But even *if* what you said is true that the Brits were such evil wicked
people, isn't it amazing even after 60 years India still just can't pick
itself up?
So evil wicked rapacious exploitative Britain oppressed India (see your
point immediately above) but somehow lifted Hong Kong out of poverty?
Hmmmm, guess India's cursed.
>
>
>>>>>> In fact, Hong Kong now has a higher GDP PPP per
>>>>>> capita than the UK and this happened since its return to China
in 1997.
>>>>>> (Singapore, being independent for a longer period of time, has
achieved
>>>>>> even higher economic success.) Yet no no no no no, India
continues to languish behind some ravaged communist country in spite of
its pedigree, in spite of its headstart.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tsk tsk.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This just ain't a picture of high IQ to me....
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, all of your arguments, and your consistent ignorance of
the facts, point up the fact that you actually lack intelligence, mired
as you are in the slime of your bigotry.
>>>>
>>>> But we're still looking for evidence of an aggregate 3-digit
collective
>>>> Indian IQ.....
>>>
>>> I'm still looking for evidence that the average IQ of the Chinese
is 100, let alone 105 or 110.
>>>
>>
>> From (yes) Lynn:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:National_IQ_Lynn_Vanhanen_2006_IQ_and_Global_Inequality.png
>
>
> Lynn did not do his own IQ studies. The ones he relied on are not
strong enough.
But had Lynn done his own studies he'd be labelled as even more 'racist'
and thus the results would be even *less* credible.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
>
>
>> See above review: http://tinyurl.com/yfqfksr
>
> From that review:
> "I put Southeast Asians in the 'least convincing' category for
reasons discussed above, and Middle Easterners and South Asians (as well
as Southeast Europeans) partly for some studies I have not mentioned
here. But another important reason is that Lynn is chronocentric. The
Middle East and India are relatively underdeveloped today, but have been
ahead of Europe in the past; the Middle East relatively recently even.
While it's possible that both these groups changed through time, this
still seems to contradict Lynn who pushes the differences back deep in
evolutionary time. According to Lynn, the Middle East and India never
had high IQs (i.e. 100), because they were never exposed to the business
end of ice age winters. But how to explain the times in semi-recent
history when Islamic civilization, science and scholarship, was at a
more advanced stage than Christian Europe?"
Does not change the fact modern IQ scores are STILL today higher in East
Asia/China compared to South Asia/India, whatever the cause.
And if it's about demographic change, well, knowing the 1-child policy
of China (imperfect i.e. the rich can have loopholes sidling over to the
CCP) compared to India's 2 generations of wanton dysgenesis, **even if**
India were equal to China generations ago, it's still not China's equal now.
P. Rajah
spectacular non-performance of "high IQ" China prior to 1975, because it
would demolish his racist arguments, resorting instead to the same tired
repetitive racist arguments "ad nauseum"(nod to ARAK's superior Chinese
cognitive ability). For example, he was crowing about China's recent
performance in the Olympics, but is absolutely unable/unwilling to
answer why China won not a single medal in 1976. Instead, he resorted to
his classic evasive measures, talking about Chinese performance in a
math Olympiad as though that somehow explained Chinese non-performance
in the 1976 Olympics. Another example: he was crowing, once again, about
Chinese GDP growth rate, and how it was an indicator of superior
intelligence. When questioned about "low IQ" Bhutan's superior growth
rate, he comes back with a weak "China is still growing faster than
India....." rather than explain the uncomfortable(for him) anomaly.
There's only so much opportunity I'm willing to give a clodhead to stop
evading the questions, and only so much discredited racist nonsense I
can tolerate. As such, ARAK is no longer worthy(if ever he was) of
engaging in debate.
RichAsianKid
> ARAK is completely unwilling and unable to answer specifics about the
> spectacular non-performance of "high IQ" China prior to 1975, because it
> would demolish his racist arguments, resorting instead to the same tired
> repetitive racist arguments "ad nauseum"(nod to ARAK's superior Chinese
> cognitive ability). For example, he was crowing about China's recent
> performance in the Olympics, but is absolutely unable/unwilling to
> answer why China won not a single medal in 1976. Instead, he resorted to
> his classic evasive measures, talking about Chinese performance in a
> math Olympiad as though that somehow explained Chinese non-performance
> in the 1976 Olympics. Another example: he was crowing, once again, about
> Chinese GDP growth rate, and how it was an indicator of superior
> intelligence. When questioned about "low IQ" Bhutan's superior growth
> rate, he comes back with a weak "China is still growing faster than
> India....." rather than explain the uncomfortable(for him) anomaly.
> There's only so much opportunity I'm willing to give a clodhead to stop
> evading the questions, and only so much discredited racist nonsense I
> can tolerate. As such, ARAK is no longer worthy(if ever he was) of
> engaging in debate.
>
When Mr. Rajah replies huffing and puffing to a post *above* rather than
*below* as he previously did, it's yet another surefire sign of even
more agitation!! We all know truth hurts but perhaps Mr. Rajah should
show some restraint and not personify or caricature his psychological
state so vividly?
RAK responded and also raised a lot of points on this (may RAK gloat?)
very satisfying thread which Mr. Rajah did not have a single answer -
not one. RAK urges everyone here to re-read RAK's point-by-point
dissection. But let's re-orient ourselves to this whole thread once
again. This whole discussion came about because of the initial post from
VDARE: "If Indians are so superior, their country is such a dump". All
we hear from Mr. Rajah is....guess!!....."racist"!!!!!!. Name-calling.
Ad hominem.
And so RAK echoes: if India is really so smart or perhaps now (tada!)
superior (with new data input from Mr. Rajah of course): how is it that
China is pulling ahead of India so fast *in spite of* India's
spectacular headstart? If India couldn't stand on her own two feet in
spite of her then relatively recent proud proud British legacy, what
makes you think - what makes *anyone* think - especially when viewed in
the context of social-valued indices from infant mortality to
malnutrition rates, from high school illiteracy to embarrassing
performances in international Olympiads - aside from clinging on to
notion 'pigs can fly' of course - what makes anyone think India can
catch up with let alone surpass China?
Chanting "yes we can!"??
Oswald Spengler once quipped "optimism is cowardice". Now, RAK wouldn't
go that far.
But then again he might well be referring to modern Indians in India.
And in which case Spengler may well be right.
P. Rajah
quoting him extensively in support of his pig-headed racism. Here's a
quote from Lynn:
Newsday, November 9, 1994:
"What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the
population of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think
realistically in terms of _�phasing out'_ such peoples�Evolutionary
progress means the _extinction of the less competent_. To think
otherwise is mere sentimentality."
More details about Lynn, his methods and his madness:
http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/ukwise.htm
RichAsianKid
RAK sees now you're replying to yourself rather than replying to RAK.
Yet one more sign of desperation by changing your MO!!
Comment: this above is merely another classic ad hom. When you can't
refute the data, smear the authors. RAK's take? Thank you. It's a tacit
concession anyway. (See link below) Can you imagine if RAK were to say,
hey, those who spew forth nonsense of human equality are socialists and
communists anyway!!?? That's the equivalent of what's being said here.
Besides, there is no empiric data on human population equality. For that
to be true, it would require that all groups, however divided, to have
essentially identical intelligence and IQ. (So now the next tactic is
there is nothing called intelligence? We see!!! Then ask a chimpanzee or
a Down's child please whose genes we all share; we share 98.5% genes
with chimps, you know??) And there are countless human groups not just a
few races, and as you subdivide further and further to the individual
level, individuals clearly do NOT have identical IQs.
Or put it another way, if Lynn is so wrong, it would be very very easy
to disprove him. Reality is a TV channel you can't change, a court where
there's no appeal. Why all such decades of hysterical shrieks and
grotesque posturing of moral outrage if Lynn is wrong? (Few people get
upset about UFOs, for instance.)
Because egalitarians can't.
Again, it's not just India vs China or blacks vs China. Remember it's
not just races, but many many different ethnic groups. And the more data
points there are, at least hundreds if not thousands, and when you dig
down to the individual level (i.e. datapoints of a few billion) we know
individuals do NOT have equal intelligence. Afterall, is society
deliberately depriving an IQ 70 kid by placing him into special-ed
rather than a gifted program?
Or this: how can anyone seriously believe that a Mbuti Pygmy or an
Australian Aborigine is as intelligent as a Japanese in the aggregate?
Or for that matter our hominid cousins - why should anyone think a
modern gorilla or chimpanzee is as intelligent as a human?
Finally, in that quote of Lynn, the full quote below:
"But we do need to think realistically in terms of "phasing out" of such
peoples. If the world is to evolve more better humans, then obviously
someone has to make way for them otherwise we shall all be overcrowded.
After all, ninety-eight per cent of species known to zoologists are
extinct. Evolutionary progress means the extinction of the less
competent. To think otherwise is mere sentimentality. "
First, Lynn was writing that when he was reviewing Ray Cattell's book A
New Morality from Science: Beyondism.
Second, truer words couldn't be said! RAK admires Lynn even more for his
cold and clear-eyed view of our natural history.
90% of languages will be moribund or phased out by the 21st century,
like it or not. Look it up. And this evolutionary process is ongoing as
we speak. It's only "sentimentality" when you prefer not to see the
whole picture.
Besides, where are the Neanderthals? Do all humans now have blood on our
hands; are all of us eternally guilty?
RAK agrees with Lynn wholeheartedly and continues to subscribe to
reality rather than maudlin kumbaya fantasy. Mr. Rajah prefers the
latter. But once you grow up, once your eyes are opened as noted here
(another "racist" no doubt) you'll never go back.
RichAsianKid
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:34:43 -0500, RichAsianKid <RichAs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Or this: how can anyone seriously believe that a Mbuti Pygmy or an
>> Australian Aborigine is as intelligent as a Japanese in the aggregate?
>> Or for that matter our hominid cousins - why should anyone think a
>> modern gorilla or chimpanzee is as intelligent as a human?
>
> children at school. This person is piosoning the minds of the vunerable. This person
> is seriously in need of help. His massive inferiority complex propels him to place
> himself at the very top of the tree, above all others. Ask him. His words show
> exactly who he is.
>
And a picture is still worth a thousand words:
Will "Free Tibet" soon cry foul and followup by crying "speciesist!!"
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism )
PS - Free Tibet cross-posted to soc.culture.australian - hmmmm, is Free
Tibet thinking dumb white Australians are somehow their smart Australian
Aborigines favorite & intimate cousin anyway?
> ~~~
> This PGP signature only certifies the sender and date of the message.
> It implies no approval from the administrators of nym.mixmin.net.
> Date: Thu Nov 5 04:15:03 2009 GMT
> From: free...@nym.mixmin.net
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkryUUcACgkQViYZwngkfDthvwCfT0604cS4qDrO/AUVSSorBgX2
> A3gAoKvpuQt3t0M6cGWae+O4LOAS+LdB
> =JUOt
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
RichAsianKid
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>> Free Tibet wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:34:43 -0500, RichAsianKid <RichAs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Or this: how can anyone seriously believe that a Mbuti Pygmy or an
>>>> Australian Aborigine is as intelligent as a Japanese in the aggregate?
>>>> Or for that matter our hominid cousins - why should anyone think a
>>>> modern gorilla or chimpanzee is as intelligent as a human?
>>> There it is folks! Right out there for all to see. This person is teaching your
>>> children at school. This person is piosoning the minds of the vunerable. This person
>>> is seriously in need of help. His massive inferiority complex propels him to place
>>> himself at the very top of the tree, above all others. Ask him. His words show
>>> exactly who he is.
>
> mind has sunk. You're quite ill if you think this is 'normal.'
>> And a picture is still worth a thousand words:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/yjskev7
>>
>> Will "Free Tibet" soon cry foul and followup by crying "speciesist!!"
>>
>> ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism )
>
> intelligence noun (ABILITY)
> /?n?tel.?.d??nt s/ n
> [U] the ability to learn, understand and make judgments or have opinions that are
> based on reason
>
What makes you think an Australian Aborigine is as smart as a modern
average (white) Australian? Tell us please why you think a gorilla is as
smart as a human?
> Something RAK is very short on.
>> PS - Free Tibet cross-posted to soc.culture.australian - hmmmm, is Free
>> Tibet thinking dumb white Australians are somehow their smart Australian
>> Aborigines favorite & intimate cousin anyway?
>
> I thought my Aboriginal friends would find your sickening, baseless philosophy of
> interest, especially the doctors and lawyers amongst them.
http://vdare.com/images/042306_ss_pic1.jpg
Sure.
>
> ~~~
> This PGP signature only certifies the sender and date of the message.
> It implies no approval from the administrators of nym.mixmin.net.
> Date: Fri Nov 6 03:21:42 2009 GMT
> From: free...@nym.mixmin.net
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkrzlkYACgkQViYZwngkfDuYMACfebpZKtWjfkTUeBF+yP5OPphe
> nQ0AnA5wTRNJhoGooKTn5GbKk5Dxiu8N
> =Z3Ko
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
RichAsianKid
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
Again: http://tinyurl.com/yjskev7
It would indeed be a stretch to imagine chimps are as smart as humans.
Most people no matter how idealistic and deluded do not have problems
appreciating that fact. And for the same reason, it would indeed be a
stretch to imagine all human groups (not just races, but ethnic and
religious groups as well), based on phylogeny, based on different
ancestral conditions and selection pressures, to have evolved identical
intelligence - intelligence being one (out of many) traits selected for
in hominid history.
The question you need to ask is NOT why are people unequal, but rather
why they are.
PS - all replies are voluntary. RAK does so out of courtesy. And
besides, it's not RAK whom you're 'fighting' - it's reality. Just look
around the world today, or go to any history museum on evolutionary
history. Are the brains of Neanderthals or H. Habilis the same as Homo
Sapiens Sapiens say? It's sometimes tough and it's easy to get angry
when you've lived your whole life as another lie, viewing it through a
distorting filtered lens. But once you appreciate the perspective of
depth - the 3-D vertical dimension of ancestry if you will - analogous
to the 3-D aspect of renaissance paintings vs the 2-D medieval ones or
Baroque polyphonic harmony vs Middle Age monophony in music, you'll
never go back.
>>> Something RAK is very short on.
>>>> PS - Free Tibet cross-posted to soc.culture.australian - hmmmm, is Free
>>>> Tibet thinking dumb white Australians are somehow their smart Australian
>>>> Aborigines favorite & intimate cousin anyway?
>>> I thought my Aboriginal friends would find your sickening, baseless philosophy of
>>> interest, especially the doctors and lawyers amongst them.
>> http://vdare.com/images/042306_ss_pic1.jpg
>>
>> Sure.
>>
>>> ~~~
>>> This PGP signature only certifies the sender and date of the message.
>>> It implies no approval from the administrators of nym.mixmin.net.
>>> Date: Fri Nov 6 03:21:42 2009 GMT
>>> From: free...@nym.mixmin.net
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>>>
>>> iEYEARECAAYFAkrzlkYACgkQViYZwngkfDuYMACfebpZKtWjfkTUeBF+yP5OPphe
>>> nQ0AnA5wTRNJhoGooKTn5GbKk5Dxiu8N
>>> =Z3Ko
>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>
>
> ~~~
> This PGP signature only certifies the sender and date of the message.
> It implies no approval from the administrators of nym.mixmin.net.
> Date: Fri Nov 6 09:05:58 2009 GMT
> From: free...@nym.mixmin.net
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkrz5vYACgkQViYZwngkfDsfBQCbBCYgSiw7sxaJI87tyLkt8b3a
> S7kAnR+N2PRiBTKRbkfVb6Pm/OWUHI43
> =Jfp6
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
RichAsianKid
My reply for your reference is here.
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.china/msg/644b0cec4141bffd?hl=en&
Free Tibet wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:38:19 -0500, RichAsianKid <RichAs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Free Tibet wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:34:43 -0500, RichAsianKid <RichAs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Or this: how can anyone seriously believe that a Mbuti Pygmy or an
>>>> Australian Aborigine is as intelligent as a Japanese in the aggregate?
>>>> Or for that matter our hominid cousins - why should anyone think a
>>>> modern gorilla or chimpanzee is as intelligent as a human?
>>> There it is folks! Right out there for all to see. This person is teaching your
>>> children at school. This person is piosoning the minds of the vunerable. This person
>>> is seriously in need of help. His massive inferiority complex propels him to place
>>> himself at the very top of the tree, above all others. Ask him. His words show
>>> exactly who he is.
>
> Equating Pygmies and Aborigines with gorillas and chimpanzees shows just how low your
> mind has sunk. You're quite ill if you think this is 'normal.'
>> And a picture is still worth a thousand words:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/yjskev7
>>
>> Will "Free Tibet" soon cry foul and followup by crying "speciesist!!"
>>
>> ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism )
>
> intelligence noun (ABILITY)
> /?n?tel.?.d??nt s/ n
> [U] the ability to learn, understand and make judgments or have opinions that are
> based on reason
>
> Something RAK is very short on.
>> PS - Free Tibet cross-posted to soc.culture.australian - hmmmm, is Free
>> Tibet thinking dumb white Australians are somehow their smart Australian
>> Aborigines favorite & intimate cousin anyway?
>
> I thought my Aboriginal friends would find your sickening, baseless philosophy of
> interest, especially the doctors and lawyers amongst them.
>
> ~~~
> This PGP signature only certifies the sender and date of the message.
> It implies no approval from the administrators of nym.mixmin.net.
> Date: Fri Nov 6 05:17:22 2009 GMT
> From: free...@nym.mixmin.net
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkrzsWIACgkQViYZwngkfDvIIgCeNblLnYYzTfLMiZL42hZN+kOa
> hKsAn0jKqFn/YTVsOFoVIx6uhNqMl3DL
> =1YpP
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>