.. is that they are a fairly small part of the total population and thus have a social call to show their relative wealth compared to the "poor people" and thus there is a lot of spending on flash things and a lot less savings.
(Note that this is an outside view so may be distorted, but based on talking with quite many people from India over the years)
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Monday April 19, 2021 @03:42PM (#61291472)
No, you're not wrong, this is the Indian problem in general, they're a nation that favours appearance over reality.
Back in the early 00s the term BRICS was coined, for Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. This were the rapidly growing economies that were going to take over the world by now, yet only one of them actually has - China. Brazil has failed at finding competent political leadership for 20 years, Russia has decided to continue trying to fight the world arrogantly believing it's exceptional and should rule it, rather than joining it as an equal, South Africa has failed to find the economic growth it should in principle be capable of, and that leaves China and India.
China is the only one that's genuinely lived up to the BRICS promise of the early 00s, and it did this by converting itself from a largely agrarian society, through to a supercharged industrial revolution, and now joining the West in the technology revolution at high speed.
India was largely demographically similar, it was largely a fairly agrarian society, and it could largely have pursued the exact same path as China, it chose not to however because it felt that it was too good for industry, and so it tried to jump straight to the technology revolution by offering IT services to the West. Unfortunately as we know this has been a failed project; India just couldn't provide a sufficient number of sufficiently competent technical staff, their promises of call centres full of graduates may have come true but the reality of an Indian graduate was rapidly realised in that India just doesn't have sufficient educational capacity and capability to deliver graduates of the quality and calibre the West expects, as such India's attempt at outsourcing for the world has largely failed with countless businesses moving back on shore. Mumbai went rapidly from being a top 5 financial centre to now being somewhere like 35th because it just couldn't provide the financial skills, and so on, and so forth.
Because China went all the way; fast tracking from agrarian to industrial society, they were forced to build all the infrastructure that entails; the roads, the buildings, the electrical and telecoms infrastructure, the educational institutes and so on and because India arrogantly tried to skip this step, preferring to try and give the appearance of a modern nation, rather than the practice.
So here we are, 20 years later, with China rapidly reaching technical parity with the West, with universities that can play against those in the West and churn out sufficient research to help them grow, with road, telecoms, and electricity networks required to power a modern state. Meanwhile India limps along, fruitlessly trying to maintain the facade everyone has now seen through, it's best university is about number 352 in the global rankings.
You're absolutely right; Indians are a proud people, but they've let their pride cripple their prospects due to lacking in the kind of pragmatism that's made China the only actual transformational success story of the BRICS nations over the last 20 years. This is also why Bollywood never really took off as much as they hoped in the West, but why it's so successful to the Indian audiences; it's really just about lots of loud pomp, ceremony, colours, and noise, and fuck all actual story substance.
That makes no sense - you're saying is that dictatorships are superior at looking after their people, because China, as a dictatorship, has done a better job of lifting it's people out of poverty and improving their education.
Of course, we know that's not true because we have the US as a counterpoint.
It doesn't matter if India is a democracy or not, that despite their systems of ruling, India has failed at delivering the kind of progress for it's people that countries like China have. Russia is also a dicta
Algol-60 surely must be regarded as the most important programming language
yet developed. -- T. Cheatham
The problem with the middle class in India.. (Score:3)
.. is that they are a fairly small part of the total population and thus have a social call to show their relative wealth compared to the "poor people" and thus there is a lot of spending on flash things and a lot less savings.
(Note that this is an outside view so may be distorted, but based on talking with quite many people from India over the years)
Re:The problem with the middle class in India.. (Score:0)
No, you're not wrong, this is the Indian problem in general, they're a nation that favours appearance over reality.
Back in the early 00s the term BRICS was coined, for Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. This were the rapidly growing economies that were going to take over the world by now, yet only one of them actually has - China. Brazil has failed at finding competent political leadership for 20 years, Russia has decided to continue trying to fight the world arrogantly believing it's exceptional and should rule it, rather than joining it as an equal, South Africa has failed to find the economic growth it should in principle be capable of, and that leaves China and India.
China is the only one that's genuinely lived up to the BRICS promise of the early 00s, and it did this by converting itself from a largely agrarian society, through to a supercharged industrial revolution, and now joining the West in the technology revolution at high speed.
India was largely demographically similar, it was largely a fairly agrarian society, and it could largely have pursued the exact same path as China, it chose not to however because it felt that it was too good for industry, and so it tried to jump straight to the technology revolution by offering IT services to the West. Unfortunately as we know this has been a failed project; India just couldn't provide a sufficient number of sufficiently competent technical staff, their promises of call centres full of graduates may have come true but the reality of an Indian graduate was rapidly realised in that India just doesn't have sufficient educational capacity and capability to deliver graduates of the quality and calibre the West expects, as such India's attempt at outsourcing for the world has largely failed with countless businesses moving back on shore. Mumbai went rapidly from being a top 5 financial centre to now being somewhere like 35th because it just couldn't provide the financial skills, and so on, and so forth.
Because China went all the way; fast tracking from agrarian to industrial society, they were forced to build all the infrastructure that entails; the roads, the buildings, the electrical and telecoms infrastructure, the educational institutes and so on and because India arrogantly tried to skip this step, preferring to try and give the appearance of a modern nation, rather than the practice.
So here we are, 20 years later, with China rapidly reaching technical parity with the West, with universities that can play against those in the West and churn out sufficient research to help them grow, with road, telecoms, and electricity networks required to power a modern state. Meanwhile India limps along, fruitlessly trying to maintain the facade everyone has now seen through, it's best university is about number 352 in the global rankings.
You're absolutely right; Indians are a proud people, but they've let their pride cripple their prospects due to lacking in the kind of pragmatism that's made China the only actual transformational success story of the BRICS nations over the last 20 years. This is also why Bollywood never really took off as much as they hoped in the West, but why it's so successful to the Indian audiences; it's really just about lots of loud pomp, ceremony, colours, and noise, and fuck all actual story substance.
Re: (Score:0)
China is a freakin dictatorship and doesnt deserve comparison with democracies like India and others.
Let that not slip your brainwashed mind.
Re: (Score:0)
That makes no sense - you're saying is that dictatorships are superior at looking after their people, because China, as a dictatorship, has done a better job of lifting it's people out of poverty and improving their education.
Of course, we know that's not true because we have the US as a counterpoint.
It doesn't matter if India is a democracy or not, that despite their systems of ruling, India has failed at delivering the kind of progress for it's people that countries like China have. Russia is also a dicta