Re: Development Race: China and India

On May 6, 2:39 am, pg <pen...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 5, 10:34 pm,RichAsianKid<richasian...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> Hehehe ... among the links from you, there's something I like you to
> re-read ---www.vdare.com/sailer/india.htm
>
> Scroll down to where it mention the "meritocratic elite" ... and let
> me quote from the article ...
>
> " The top  Indian colleges are by now probably the most selective in
> the world. And because they teach in English, their graduates are more
> of a competitive threat to American journalists and their spouses and
> friends than are the Chinese, who are merely hammering  blue collar
> Americans. And who cares about them?"
>
> .... and ....
>
> "At the elite end of the journalism racket, I have more than a few
> Indian readers who could step in and write this column for me (Peter,
> please forget I said that!). But fewer Chinese readers could do the
> same. The language barrier is a big factor. But Indians also seem more
> interested in the human biodiversity topics that I specialize in.
> Further, Indians tend to be of a more speculative and discursive turn
> of mind than the hard-headed,  practical-minded Chinese."
>
> Proving my point, isn't it??
>
> As I said in an earlier message .. the smart Indians are WAY WAY
> SMARTER than the smart Chinese. Perhaps they are few and far in
> between, but we gotta understand that the progress of a nation doesn't
> really depends on the stupid m*****. It's the _ELITES_ that chart the
> course.

But again, as I've shown above, that does not seem to show up on the
international math olympiad, or the international physics olympiad,
and looking at the results of the international chemistry olympiad
(where East Asian countries and NOT South Asian countries dominate)
you wouldn't have begun to notice that, right?

Besides, the same author also wrote this article:

     http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/060423_lynn.htm

Quote: "Bennett had started a discussion of the im****tant topic of the
differences between China and India (which I discussed in VDARE.com
in  "Interesting India, Competitive China"). Both economies have been
growing fast, going back to China freeing up its economy in 1978 and
India in 1991.

Bennett's view is that India is a better bet in the 21st Century
because it will benefit from institutional advantages over China. As a
former British colony, it is part of the Anglosphere, and thus enjoys
common law, representative government, and other benefits of the Anglo
tradition.

I'm sympathetic to this view. (Although, to be realistic, when it
comes to honesty and efficiency, today's Indian state isn't exactly
Her Majesty's Government under Gladstone).

Still, there's the brute fact that, despite its regime's many
shortcomings, China has been growing faster than India=97and for much
longer.

The simplest explanation: the Chinese people make up for the failures
of the Beijing oligarchy."

* * *
Now you might say, a country depends more than its people, and depends
on the leader****p. Fair enough, and I think a bad system or a bad
leader can ruin a people. BUT it does not therefore follow that a good
leader or a good system will have retards bustling with innovation or
churning out professionals or the staunch pillars of society
(physicians and engineers or accountants or dentists etc -- things
which is the human capital infrastructure of the country.) Take an
example - for every 3 Asians in the US with an above average IQ (IQ >
110), there is only 1 Asian with a below average IQ (IQ < 90). And yet
for every 3 blacks in the US with an above average IQ (IQ > 110),
there will be no fewer than 36 blacks with a below average IQ (IQ <
90). As you can see, a black community will founder as it collapes
under its own weight. Again, I'm NOT saying there are no bright
blacks; it's just that there are very few of them -- too few of them
to bear the burden of the rest.

And Indians aren't that intelligent as a whole.

     http://www.vdare.com/rushton/070926_indians.htm