Re: Development Race: China and India - RichAsianKid replies

On May 10, 10:12 pm, israeliteknight <israelitekni...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>
> > > I have an Indian friend who disagrees: he says that India will
"beat"
> > > China by 2050.
>
> > > When I asked him how that could be, economically, or legislatively,
or=

> > > militarily--he said "population, of course".  To an Indian, nothing
> > > but population counts--which is why almost a trillion of them are
> > > lucky to earn $200 per month each.  There certainly are races and
> > > nations of the world who're going backwards so fast they don't even
> > > know which way is forward, and in spite of all the "technological
> > > advancement" hoopla, India is one.
>
> > > Your chart on iq and gdp shows only 7 nations with iq's less than
70,
> > > but just in Africa [and only in Africa] are more than two dozen
> > > nations with iq's lower than 70 and incomes to match.  The reason
> > > that's significant is that these are the ancestors of many American
> > > blacks who now want us to do something for them that their own
> > > ancestors couldn't do for them in ten thousand years or a hundred
> > > thousands years, and won't in the next ten or hundred thousand years
> > > [see below].
>
> > > Your chart on innovation is interesting--I'm surprised that we,
having=

> > > scored dead last in 17 of 34 TIMSS subjects, were ranked only third
> > > behind Japan, and ahead of Germany, Denmark, and Netherlands.  With
> > > all the products coming from Japan [and companies in China owned by
> > > Japan], it's surprising that Japan produces only 3-4 times as many
> > > patents per capita as us. This must be just leftovers from the era
> > > when we used to teach calculus, because now we can't even find time
to=

> > > teach our students algebra.  With all the vitally im****tant
> > > sensitivity and multiculturalism cl***** that come first, current
> > > graduates would be lucky to even flip hamburgers, much less make
> > > shoes.
>
> > >   fc.. Burundi - 70*
>
> > >   fd.. Cameroon - 70*
>
> > >   fe.. Rwanda - 70*
>
> > >   ff.. Angola - 69*
>
> > >   fg.. Benin - 69*
>
> > >   fh.. Togo - 69*
>
> > >   fi.. Central African Rep. - 68*
>
> > >   fj.. Djibouti - 68*
>
> > >   fk.. Eritrea - 68*
>
> > >   fl.. Mali - 68*
>
> > >   fm.. Somalia - 68*
>
> > >   fn.. Niger - 67*
>
> > >   fo.. Nigeria - 67
>
> > >   fp.. Burkina Faso - 66*
>
> > >   fq.. Gabon - 66*
>
> > >   fr.. Zimbabwe - 66
>
> > >   fs.. Congo (Zaire) - 65
>
> > >   ft.. Gambia - 64*
>
> > >   fu.. Liberia - 64*
>
> > >   fv.. Senegal - 64*
>
> > >   fw.. Sierra Leone - 64
>
> > >   fx.. Ethiopia - 63
>
> > >   fy.. Guinea - 63
>
> > >   fz.. Guinea-Bissau - 63*
>
> > >   ga.. Sao Tome/Principe - 59*
>
> > >   gb.. Equatorial Guinea - 59
>
> > Thank you for this great reply. A few points:
>
> > (1) Education. Here's what we know in America:
>
> > Fifty Years of Math 1950s - 2000s
>
> > Teaching Math In 1950s: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100.
> > His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?
>
> > Teaching Math In 1960s
> > A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His production cost is
> > 4/5 of the price or $80. What is his profit?
>
> > Teaching Math In 1970s
> > A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production
> > is $80. Did he make a profit?
>
> > Teaching Math In 1980s
> > A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production
> > is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number
> > 20.
>
> > Teaching Math In 1990s
> > A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and
> > inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the
> > preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of
> > $20. What do you think of this way of making a living?
> > Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did
> > the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? There
> > are no wrong answers.
>
> > Teaching Math In 2000s
> > Un hachero vende una carretada de madera para $100. El costo de
> > produccion es $80. Cuanto dinero ha hecho?
>
> > (2) India vs China (again)
>
> > Just to be brief here, here's yet another forecast:
>
> >    http://i31.tinypic.com/95zfqp.jpg
>
> > Of course, this is size-dependent, so the US still leads. But look at
> > China vs India.
>
> > In fact another article I read says that by 2025 China will outstrip
> > the GDP (PPP) of the US, while even at 2050 India will merely be at
> > 90% the GDP (PPP) of the US!!
>
> > My point is not to say that China is rich as posters no doubt know.
> > The point here is that no matter how you slice and dice the data,
> > China comes out ahead of India.
>
> > (3) Darwinian reproduction
>
> > Note that I don't necessarily fault the Indians for reproducing like
> > crazy. The non-mainland Chinese have now controlled themselves (check
> > out total fertiliy rates
herehttps://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th=
e-world-factbook/rankorder...
> > and see that the LOWEST nations of the world [223 of them] are
> > actually not in Europe or North America - but in East Asia - Hong
> > Kong, Macau, Singa****e, Taiwan, and Japan and S Korea not far behind)
> > but really is this strength or weakness in the long run in a Darwinian
> > struggle? You just have to look at which countries are at the top. It
> > is true that African countries are poor, uneducated, and just plain
> > retarded  (do you know that in the US black kids who come from parents
> > who make over $100K score LOWER than white kids who come from parents
> > who make less than $10K???). But they're good at one thing:
> > reproduction. And in America they get paid to reproduce in the form of
> > welfare! Now how sweet a deal is that? So no, in a way, it is merely a
> > survival strategy (no pun intended) I think, from a Darwinian
> > perspective. And there are many who just don't see the whole picture.
>
> > (4) The innovation index - a speculation
>
> > If you look at page 10 of the EIU re****t posted earlier, it highlights
> > how Japan and Taiwan are very efficient innovators: They produce a lot
> > of innovations for a low level of inputs. Cross-reference that to page
> > 28 and you'll see that in terms of innovation 'enablers' Taiwan ranks
> > 14, 16, 16 in Direct input, innovation environment, and aggregate
> > innovation enablers index, while it's output is ranked much higher at
> > 8th. Japan's low levels of 11,23,14 inputs are likewise matched by its
> > high output that is ranked 1st. It may be im****tant to control for
> > input as well. It goes back to the illustration of black children -
> > how is it possible that black kids whose parents make over $100K
> > actually do worse off than white kids whose parents make less than
> > $10K?
>
> > I think environment can only do so much. People and groups are
> > different. But of course, that's one heresy and taboo we can never
> > acknowledge.   ;)
>
> Very good points.
>
> I LOVE the way you represent the change of "education" in the US.
> People who don't believe SAT scores are down 30-60 points just can't
> be thinking about this change in the way we "teach" children today.
>
> Focusing just on GDP and ignoring Personal Savings misrepresents the
> power of Japan--who now has OFFICIALLY 95% of the world's Personal
> Savings, mostly in Postal Savings Accounts for which there are no
> accountability and re****ting requirements.  It wasn't that long ago
> that we were one of the 5 creditor nations, but now we're the biggest
> debtor nation in human history with no end in sight, while the
> creditor nations laugh all the way to the bank.
>
> The fertility rates are very revealing.  When you put that into
> perspective with the UN population estimates and forecasts, they are
> shocking.
>
> http://christianparty.net/population.htm
>
> Between 1950 and 2000, a period of 50 years, the world population more
> than doubled, from 2.56 billion to 5.77 billion, an annual growth rate
> of 1.5%.  Most of that growth was in the less developed countries
> where the population grew from 1.7 to 4.9 billion.  The population of
> India increased 3.5 fold (2.5% per year) and of China 2.5 fold (1.7%/
> year), adding another 1.4 billion people to the world, the equivalent
> of 5 TIMES the total US population and 6 TIMES the US White
> population.
>
> The slowest growing countries were in Eastern Europe where growth was
> either flat or less than 10%.  The population of Russia actually
> decreased during some of those years.  Even Belgium, Italy, the UK,
> ****tugal, Austria, and Denmark experienced growth  of less than 20%
> over this half century. The 1.75 fold increase in the US population
> (1.1% per year) was quite a bit higher than the 25% growth in Western
> Europe, but just the increase in the number of people in China and
> India was five times larger than our total population.
>
> Many of the fastest growing countries during this time were Arab and
> African countries.   The population of the United Arab Emirates
> increased 84 fold (8.1%/year), of Qatar 29 fold (6.5%/year), and of
> Kuwait 24 fold (5.8%/year).  The populations of Namibia, Benin,
> Nigeria, Liberia, Sudan, Senegal, Swaziland, Cote d'Ivoire, Togo, and
> French Guiana increased more than seven fold, or more than 4% per
> year.
>
> Many of the countries with the fastest growing populations are also
> the ones with the shortest life expectancies, and vice versa.  The
> life expectancy of men in Rwanda is only 33 years, but their
> population increased almost five fold, whereas the life expectancy for
> men in Japan is 80 years, but their population increased only 50%.
>
> Just in half a century, the INCREASE in the number of blacks in Africa
> was two TIMES the entire population of the US, and in the next half a
> century, even WITH AIDS, it will increase another THREE TIMES the US
> population  [by 900 million, CONSERVATIVELY].
>
> > I think environment can only do so much. People and groups are
> > different. But of course, that's one heresy and taboo we can never
> > acknowledge.   ;)
>
> American blacks expect us to do for them what their ancestors and
> cousins and relatives could NEVER do, not in 10-100,000 years: achieve
> "racial equality" with Whites and Asians.
>
> It's hopeless.  We BLEW TEN TRILLION DOLLARS just on increased
> education expenditures JUST for blacks and got exactly WHAT?
>
> ZERO.
>
> All we got is their red hot HATRED, just like "pastor" Wright and
> obamabanana ADMIT on national TV@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Big deal.  I can get blacks to HATE us even more, and not spend a
> NICKEL doing it.

Regarding Japanese wealth, in yet another UN-WIDER study that's very
well publicized late 2006, in terms of personal net worth in US
exchange rates in US dollars (which partly reflects savings) the
Japanese rank at the top. Hong Kong ranked #2, and the US ranked
fifth.

     http://i17.tinypic.com/42vv8ev.jpg

The study further highlights that if you cut off the bottom 99% of the
world population (which actually, believe it or not, translates to
*only* a net worth of $500K US but that's a detail), a whopping 27% of
these individuals are Japanese, even if the Japanese themselves are
~2% of the world population. That number itself is staggering.
Japanese are as humble as always, but it is probably very difficult
not to feel some visceral sense of superiority towards the mainland
Chinese, let alone Indians.

As for population growth, here's another future projection:
http://www.buchanan.org/blog/?p=3D985
  Also as noted elsewhere by
Buchanan, feminism often translates into lower fertility rates as
women defer child-bearing and pursue higher careers, and on a societal
level this leads to a demographic implosion, which in turn often
necessitates the im****ting poor and failed peoples, the "wretched
refuse", from all around the globe and who are utterly unlike the host
population (if these people were successful to begin with in their own
country they probably wouldn't have migrated in the first place). That
is, civilization crumbles.

Last, about Africa and blacks, there is in fact strong evidence that
spending per student does not increase student performance as you no
doubt know.

    http://i5.tinypic.com/5xfyi55.jpg

As side point there's an interesting study   http://tinyurl.com/5obn8y
that points to how wealth negatively correates with crime across
European and East Asian countries (not surprising), but is
**positively** correlated with crime in African countries.

Quote: "These data speak to one of the most im****tant issues facing
the field
of criminology in showing there are significant differences in murder,
rape,
and serious assaults in East Asian, European, and African countries
that
parallel those found within Britain, Canada, and the United States.
Moreover,
the crime differences cannot simply be attributed to =93poverty=94 for
such an explanation does not fit the finer-grained analyses found
within
African countries where violent crime increased with GDP. This could
be
because only wealthier nations have the infrastructure to gather and
re****t
crime statistics comparable to those for East Asia and Europe. It is
also
possible that there are some gene-culture interactions when
op****tunities
become available for engaging in behavior not otherwise affordable. In
Africa, for example, there is a link between wealth and AIDS:
wealthier males turn their resources into ***ual partners (Rushton &
Bogaert, 1989)."

And in the US, in spite of affirmative action and in spite of all the
handouts, black behavior has gotten much more pathological (by white
standards) over the decades. It may not be unreasonable to speculate
that newfound resources liberated the true 'inner nature' of the
blacks when they're freed from constraints -- and this is in
contradistinction to other population groups.


The authors found it perplexing why it is that in AFrican countries
there is a link between wealth and AIDS - and they quoted wealthier
males turn their resources into ***ual partners. .