Question about India's future

Hi,

I read a Stratfor summary that said that India is gonna be a big winner in the vastly changed international landscape. I like Stratfor's predictions but they've had some big misses in the past.

Do you think India's future looks bright? (And I mean, of course, in a non-nukular way. --Have you noticed that mispronunciation seems to be spreading?--)

What do you think of India's future prospects?

Thanks in advance for any replies.

Best,

- Boyd

India.

Had a few friends from India engineers and finance people. Great people.

Just think of every skilled person that exist in the US then double it. That's the labor pool potential available in India.

Think of every researcher here in US and double it. Think of every potential pro football player in the US then double it.

But the yang of that is think of all the poor people here in the states then double it.

India's problem is they need about 4 middle class families to support a livable life for one poor person. The middle class has to get more productive by moving away from all those "cushy" government jobs and instead support business growth.


Free courses to master profitable copywriting

> What do you think of India's future
> prospects?

In a nutshell... not very good.

While potential can be seen if it is focused on... there is too much "stuff" dragging them back. Stuff which would not exist if it weren't for the "do gooders" and "greed mongers".

To get ahead... in any area... first thing is to STOP going backward. (First thing to do to get yourself out of a financial hole is to stop digging. Trying to climb faster while you continue to dig won't work.)

The first thing to do to stop children dieing because of lack of food is to stop having children! NOT giving them medicine to keep them alive. (Some thirty years ago India's population was large around 300 million, it is now over one billion - on the same small amount of land.)

To help the people become more independent you must first stop providing everything for them. With truck loads of food always available, why should the farmers farm?

With such a large population and the huge demand for food, vast areas of forest are cut down all the time for use as fuel. This "clearing" has, in fact, created a shortage of wood fuel. Cattle dung is burnt instead. But that dung used to be left to help re-fertilize the soil. But now that it is burnt, the soil becomes less fertile, which means lower yield. More land is thus needed to get the same volume of food. In comes the slash and burn clearing. Round and round it goes.

Instead of giving them fertilizer for their nutrient-leeched soil - which does not really solve the tree burning process - provide an electricity system with appropriate cooking devices.

But first stop giving the huge volumes of food. It removes their will to be self supported. And to combat the growing population, stop having kids.

It never ceases to amaze me how after all these years of giving food to those without food - Aid For Africa, etc. - every time you see new footage, you see children!? What kind of parent has a child knowing there is NO FOOD to feed it!?

How else can we Hurt India...

Allow the class structure to continue on as it does. This gives "control" to those often least able to handle it. A "brain" of a lower class person might be able to run business much better than the "business class" person who has become entrenched and lost business management skills because their position has been protected, and they haven't had to adapt as they otherwise would have to do under a more capitalist equality system.

Let leaders inexperienced in handling large sums of money etc., rule the country. All third world countries suffer from the same fate... as they enter the world of the West and money starts flowing into their country due to investment, etc., they "enjoy" the money because they have never learnt to deal with so much. They are like the lotto winner - spend spend spend and then it is all gone.

Solution is to introduce money management skills first.

We can let them owe us for everything - buy now pay later. This "credit" is the same thing which gets loads of Westerners into trouble. The debt load is BIG. Too big to handle even when given according to set 30% of gross income formula guidelines. Slow and steady... operating from and within your own means... creates a strong entity (person, family, country). Too much debt creates a situation where the money can never be paid back in full - always chasing the tail.

The Motley Fools and every other investment information of worth recommends to be free of personal debt BEFORE attempting to grow. And to grow only within a Positive Cash Flow situation.

Same rules apply to third world countries trying to emerge.

Sure the road is longer - BUT - it does not create the vast array of problems you now see. Problems which will only get worse. Bandaid solutions do not stop the bleeding.

How else can we hurt India...

Agree to pay Slave Wages. You would NOT ever let a person in your country work for $1 a day, and yet this is precisely what happens when buying products from India.

Granted, the $1 per day in India might have the same buying power as $100 a day in your western country. But that's not the point. You are knowingly taking advantage of a situation to turn a buck.

If the correct pay for a certain job in your country is $100, and you want to save a few bucks, pay the Indian person $50. You save and they get rich. Their increase in wealth will spread throughout the economy as it is spent and the whole country will benefit.

How else can we hurt India?

Every answer you give will reveal a practice that exists right now. And now that you see how to Hurt India, the best way to Help India live up to its potential becomes clear.

Unless we stop hurting India, their prospects do not look good at all.

Michael Ross

Hi Boyd,

I used to subscribe to Stratfor - interesting stuff! (I'm not a current subscriber though....)

Economically, I think there are many positives about India, but many negatives too (like others have said). The positives are that many Indians speak English, and there is a lot of talent there. English helps because it makes it easier to trade with the USA, UK, and many other countries. So, for example, many call centers are in India, and many programmers are nowadays from India.

On the negative side, only 52% of India's population is literate. I think this is India's biggest problem. It's much harder for illiterate people to contribute to the national economy, than those who can read and write.

I personally don't think a big population is a problem in itself (from an economic viewpoint). A big, well-educated population can be very productive, and a big economic benefit to the country. Indian programmers who sell their programming skills overseas through eLance is an example of this.

- Dien

> I personally don't think a big population is
> a problem in itself (from an economic
> viewpoint). A big, well-educated population
> can be very productive, and a big economic
> benefit to the country. Indian programmers
> who sell their programming skills overseas
> through eLance is an example of this.

India's population IS a problem...

1: They have overgrown the capacity of their land to feed them. They NEED to import food. That is a problem.

2: The overly large population leads to disease situations. The infrastructure cannot keep up with the demand being placed on it. That is a problem.

3: The large population is breeding faster than resources can be utilised to accomodate them. That is a problem.

IF the population grows at a rate equal to or less than the available resources and technology and infrastructure, then the only problem a large population has to face is the capacity of the land to feed them.

Left to Mother Nature, all the overcrowded populations would go through a natural die off and balance would be obtained.

Cruel for sure. That's natures way.

As I think of the difference between the western world and the third world countries trying to "modernise" I realize the west got civilized/modern while populations were small, and then the populations grew at a balancing rate with the technology and infrstructure.

The the system(s) of those countries changed at the same time, in unison.

Giving "our" technology to the third world creates an unbalanced system.

If, way back before WE were civilized/modern, we were to have a family we would breed 7 offspring. We knew that 5 would die due to conditions of the time - no hygien, bad sewer, etc.

As the industrial revolution hit and we moved into cities away from the land, and as medicines were created and specialization took place, we naturally bred less (we were getting ahead in life and working) and needed to breed less because the offspring were living.

In India, much of the old ways still exist. People still have 7 kids. But now 5 live instead of the previous 2. Medicine has caught up with them but NOT lifestyle.

The poor uneducated breed FASTER than the better off educated. (It's the same in every country - even modern countries.)

As long as this keeps up in India - and there is no sign anything is changing soon - then India is fighting a losing battle. No matter how many skilled programers they have.

This will lead to a humanitarian catastrophe of untold proportions.

DRASTIC CHANGES need to take place to avoid it.

Michael Ross

Hi Michael,

> India's population IS a problem...

> 1: They have overgrown the capacity of their
> land to feed them. They NEED to import food.
> That is a problem.

Japan needs to import food too. They seem to do alright. Singapore as well. Singapore even has to import its fresh water (it imports it from neighboring Malaysia).

If you have money coming in, you can use it to buy food. I've read that there's enough food produced in the world to more than feed everybody. When there are famines, it's usually due to political situations (like civil wars) or economic situations (can't afford to import food). As long as you don't have civil war-type problems, and you have the income to import food, I don't see it as a problem, at least not with the current population.

And I think we still have more capacity to grow food, if we want to. The shallow waters of the oceans are practically untapped for farming. However, these areas can be used to farm edible seaweeds, for fish farms, lobster farms, etc. This already happens now, though on a very small scale.

I'm sure there's a limit. Thomas Malthus in the 19th century predicted that the world would be undergoing huge famine by at least a few decades ago, since he thought the growing population would run out of food. The reason it hasn't happened is that he didn't count on technology. New technology has allowed us to grow food more and more efficiently.

Yes, there is probably a limit - but we clearly haven't reached it yet. (And I don't think we're even close, when you take into account the untapped potential of ocean farming.)

> 2: The overly large population leads to
> disease situations. The infrastructure
> cannot keep up with the demand being placed
> on it. That is a problem.

Japan has some of the most densely packed populations in the world, but don't seem to have a big problem with spreading disease. Yes, it is something that needs to be managed. Again, the problem is more the economy - if you have enough income, you can solve the problem through technology.

> 3: The large population is breeding faster
> than resources can be utilised to accomodate
> them. That is a problem.

On the other side of the equation, new technology allows us to use our resources more and more efficiently. And new technology even "creates" new resources for us to use. For example, our ocean coastal areas are practically unused. A new technology like ocean farming allows this area to be used for food production. (As I said, this is already happening, though right now it's on a very small scale. I predict this industry will grow over the next few decades.)

Yes, there's a limit - but I don't think we're there yet.

Anyhow, better educated populations tend to reduce their birth rates naturally. With further education, you would expect the same would happen with India.

> IF the population grows at a rate equal to
> or less than the available resources and
> technology and infrastructure, then the only
> problem a large population has to face is
> the capacity of the land to feed them.

> Left to Mother Nature, all the overcrowded
> populations would go through a natural die
> off and balance would be obtained.

> Cruel for sure. That's natures way.

That's the Malthusian argument. As I said, he predicted that widespread famines would happen decades ago, based on the same argument you're making. They didn't happen, because he didn't take into account the effect of new technology.

> As I think of the difference between the
> western world and the third world countries
> trying to "modernise" I realize
> the west got civilized/modern while
> populations were small, and then the
> populations grew at a balancing rate with
> the technology and infrstructure.

What about Japan? It's progress after WWII was incredibly rapid.

I think China - the country with the world's largest population - is rapidly modernizing. It's expected by many people to be the next "economic superpower".

I hear from those I know in university that overseas students from mainland China are being taught in increasing numbers in Australian universities. That means that (1) these students (or the Chinese government, for those on scholarships) have the money to pay for this expensive education, and (2) many will bring this knowhow back to China, which will contribute further to China's economic growth.

For India, I think the answer lies in education, especially in getting the literacy rate up. When people can read, then they can start to educate themselves. New technology helps to solve the problem too. It helps to solve the problem of spreading disease, and helps to solve the problem of food creation. And once people become educated, experience shows that the birth rate goes down. So I think that education is the solution.

It's summarized in that old saying,

"Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day.
Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a life time."

A well-educated population brings in more than it uses. So, in some cases, a big population can be a plus. It's due to this that China is often predicted to become the next "economic superpower". A big population means more ideas, more inventions, more new technology. However, you need education to tap this potential.

(Economists call this "human capital". When you have an educated population, it has "human capital" - that is, it becomes a resource, just like any other "natural resource". This is how resource-poor countries, like Japan and Singapore, can become quite wealthy countries - since they've built their "human capital" through education, and encouraging the development of technology.)

- Dien Rice

Michael: "They have overgrown the capacity of their land to feed them. They NEED to import food. That is a problem."

Dien:" Japan needs to import food too. They seem to do alright. Singapore as well. Singapore even has to import its fresh water (it imports it from neighboring Malaysia)."

What on earth does that have to do with India. India is a third world nation with over ONE BILLION people. Most of them are poor.

Japan is a modern country with about 80 or 90 millions people. Less than 10% of India's population.

Singapore, also a modern country, has even fewer people.

Dien: If you have money coming in, you can use it to buy food. I've read that there's enough food produced in the world to more than feed everybody. When there are famines, it's usually due to political situations (like civil wars) or economic situations (can't afford to import food). As long as you don't have civil war-type problems, and you have the income to import food, I don't see it as a problem, at least not with the current population."

You might as well say, as long as you are a modern advanced democratic nation there is no problem.

But India is NOT that kind of nation. So there is a problem.

Dien: "And I think we still have more capacity to grow food, if we want to. The shallow waters of the oceans are practically untapped for farming. However, these areas can be used to farm edible seaweeds, for fish farms, lobster farms, etc. This already happens now, though on a very small scale."

What has this got to do with India as it currently is right now?

Michael: "The overly large population leads to disease situations. The infrastructure cannot keep up with the demand being placed on it. That is a problem."

Dien: "Japan has some of the most densely packed populations in the world, but don't seem to have a big problem with spreading disease. Yes, it is something that needs to be managed. Again, the problem is more the economy - if you have enough income, you can solve the problem through technology."

Again with Japan. You cannot compare a modern 21st century advanced country with a third world country like India. The resources and technology are not present in India. Their large population is disease prone because it is too large for the available infrastructure.

Put 100,000 people in a tent city with only a tiny stream for water and the same disease condition will appear.

Michael: "The large population is breeding faster than resources can be utilised to accomodate them. That is a problem."

Dien: "On the other side of the equation, new technology allows us to use our resources more and more efficiently. And new technology even "creates" new resources for us to use. For example, our ocean coastal areas are practically unused. A new technology like ocean farming allows this area to be used for food production. (As I said, this is already happening, though right now it's on a very small scale. I predict this industry will grow over the next few decades.)"

This may be true - BUT - it is little consolation for India in its present condition.

It does not matter what technology can bring IF. The point is India's condition right now. And right now, they use very little technology where it matters. And their people breed faster than the infrastructure can be created to handle them.

Just look at how they get around on trains - packed in like sardines and even riding on the roof. If there were more lines and more services this would not happen. But the population is breeding faster than new lines and services can be added.

Dien: "Anyhow, better educated populations tend to reduce their birth rates naturally. With further education, you would expect the same would happen with India."

This is what I was alluding to in my post. It's not just education. It has got to be lifestyle. A better educated farmer in the middle of nowhere will still slash and burn if he needs land because his crops are not producing the yield they once did.

Michael: "Left to Mother Nature, all the overcrowded populations would go through a natural die off and balance would be obtained."

Dien: "That's the Malthusian argument. As I said, he predicted that widespread famines would happen decades ago, based on the same argument you're making. They didn't happen, because he didn't take into account the effect of new technology."

It's not any arguement unless you change the condition. It IS mother nature. It is a natural thing. ALL animal species go through it.

I am saying "if left to mother nature" and you are comparing that to a situation that is NOT left to mother nature.

Those two different situations cannot be compared as if they are the same thing.

Michael: "As I think of the difference between the western world and the third world countries trying to "modernise" I realize the west got civilized/modern while populations were small, and then the populations grew at a balancing rate with the technology and infrastructure."

Dien: "What about Japan? It's progress after WWII was incredibly rapid."

Japan does not have one billion people. And the size of its population NOW is not anywhere near what it was in 1945. You also seem to forget the Marshal Plan

Dien "I think China - the country with the world's largest population - is rapidly modernizing. It's expected by many people to be the next "economic superpower".

I hear from those I know in university that overseas students from mainland China are being taught in increasing numbers in Australian universities. That means that (1) these students (or the Chinese government, for those on scholarships) have the money to pay for this expensive education, and (2) many will bring this knowhow back to China, which will contribute further to China's economic growth."

China may be modernizing. India is modernizing too. But that is irrelevant to the point I made... which was...

"As I think of the difference between the western world and the third world countries trying to "modernise" I realize the west got civilized/modern while populations were small, and then the populations grew at a balancing rate with the technology and infrastructure.

See the highlighted text... Trying To Modernize. Meaning, they are not modernized yet. They have a LONG way to go.

China may be sending truckloads of students over to the west to get educated. But that doesn't mean that hundreds of millions of their people are not in abject poverty and on the brink of starvation.

Dien: "For India, I think the answer lies in education, especially in getting the literacy rate up. When people can read, then they can start to educate themselves. New technology helps to solve the problem too. It helps to solve the problem of spreading disease, and helps to solve the problem of food creation. And once people become educated, experience shows that the birth rate goes down. So I think that education is the solution."

Education by itself never solved anything. It does not reduce the birthrate by itself. It does not make a country forge ahead by itself. It does not reduce/remove disease.

A WHOLE lifestyle change needs to take place. Lifestyle is what reduces the birth rate, not schooling.

Look in our modern worlds... the welfare crowd breed faster than the "doers." Our civilization is an inverted pyramid... the masses and majority supported by the minority.

Our public education system has not stemmed the birth rate of the masses. They can read, write, work computers, and do loads of stuff a poor person in India only dreams of. And yet, they still breed like rabbits.

Change their lifestyle though. A lifestyle with the good old fashioned work ethic and striving for better in life, and education and less breeding is a by-product of that.

But that just ain't gonna happen in India because of their firm class structure.

As I said... they need to undergo DRASTIC changes to join the modern world. And these changes have to be across the board... not a bit here and a bit there.

Dien: "A well-educated population brings in more than it uses. So, in some cases, a big population can be a plus. It's due to this that China is often predicted to become the next "economic superpower". A big population means more ideas, more inventions, more new technology. However, you need education to tap this potential.

(Economists call this "human capital". When you have an educated population, it has "human capital" - that is, it becomes a resource, just like any other "natural resource". This is how resource-poor countries, like Japan and Singapore, can become quite wealthy countries - since they've built their "human capital" through education, and encouraging the development of technology.)"

You seem to forget the vast amounts of money spent on these countries to bring them up to scratch. You cannot compare a post war Japan or Singapore with India or China.

Relying on "education" as the savior of all the country's woes is fool hardy. Specially when history so often shows it is the uneducated who are responsible for the world we have today...

The Wright brothers were not aircraft engineers. The irony is that they would not be allowed near a plan today - even though they accomplished the first powered flight. Not bad for a couple of push bike repair guys.

Henry Ford wouldn't make Mail Boy at Ford because he doesn't have a degree.

And so on.

There are plenty of highly trained unemployed people. And everytime they do a course they become more trained... but remain unemployed.

Too much time is spent focusing on education. I'm not saying some education is not necessary. Of course it is in this modern world. But to function, get by and even succeed and become a millionaire can all be achieved with some basic reading, writing and math functions. I don't need to know logs and trig and differentiation to become rich or to help people or to get ahead. Read. Write. Operate a calculator. That's all that's needed to know. The rest... the real world stuff... is not taught in school and can/is picked up along the way.

What good is an education if never given the chance to use it. What good is it to someone who just wants to have sex and breed. There's an awful lot of people even in the modern world who seem to be (are) pre-occupied with sex. Sex and booze. They are like animals... they live to satify their animal instincts. Their ability to read - and even drive a car - has not driven them out of them.

This is the problem faced by India. (I've always wondered how people like that can feel like having sex when they haven't eaten in three days.)

If the population stops increasing so fast, then everything else can catch up. Simple.

Michael Ross

Michael,

I think I see where we're probably disagreeing. You're talking about India now - it has problems now, and will have problems if things don't change.

I'm talking about a possible future, if things DO change in a certain way. That is, a large population is not a problem, IF certain things can occur. I think that's the real source of our difference on this topic....

If things don't change with India, then I agree, it's a big problem. However, there is the potential to change (as with any person or country) - though of course, those changes may not occur.

I'm also using "education" in a broader sense than school/university education. For example, "education" in the way I mean could also mean learning the harm of slash and burn farming. That's a type of "education" - since it's learning some new knowledge.

Finally, is any part of China really on the brink of starvation?

- Dien

> I think I see where we're probably
> disagreeing. You're talking about India now
> - it has problems now, and will have
> problems if things don't change.

Well yeah. That's why I keep saying DRASTIC changes.

> I'm talking about a possible future, if
> things DO change in a certain way. That is,
> a large population is not a problem, IF
> certain things can occur. I think that's the
> real source of our difference on this
> topic....

Certain thing. Is the difference.

I am saying it's population and their class structure. Cease the rampant breeding and remmove the class structure and the country can start getting its act together, slowly.

You see the population as no problem and think somehow the overstrectched resources can be magically made to fit the rapidly growing population, and that "education" will solve the day.

Your "solution" is already being tried and it just ain't working.

That's why I said to ask, "How can we hurt India?" and take each thing as far as you can.

Trying to give them technology - even if their huge debts are just wiped clean - does not help them overcome their "population is breeding faster than the available resources can handle" problem.

I know you don't want to admit it, for some reason. So think of it in these two ways...

1: Country A goes to war and millions of its citizens flee for a neighboring country not at war. The war-free country is overwhelmed. Their infrastructure cannot handle this new bunch of people and so they (the war free country) call for help.

This is the same as an exploding population in India. The infrastructure cannot handle the population growth.

2: Imagine Australia suddenly undergoing a population explosion. Where everyone who is able suddenly gets pregnant. In nine months time we will have maybe an extra million people in the country out of nowhere.

The hospitals cannot cope. The women who were working will have to leave the work force if even only briefly.

See the strain this creates?

You may say, Australia can plan for it. And maybe Australia can. But India is under these strained conditions now. How do they plan for even worse conditions?

The answer is, they can't.

> If things don't change with India, then I
> agree, it's a big problem. However, there is
> the potential to change (as with any person
> or country) - though of course, those
> changes may not occur.

Of course there is a potential to change. But in India's case... it is DRASTIC change that needs to take place. Their entire society is currently not conducive to such change.

> I'm also using "education" in a
> broader sense than school/university
> education. For example,
> "education" in the way I mean
> could also mean learning the harm of slash
> and burn farming. That's a type of
> "education" - since it's learning
> some new knowledge.

That is nice in theory. And it is the same reasoning which has been always used under these conditions.

Fact is... tradition rules with these people. They farm how their parents farmed, and their grand parents farms.

This is the basis of the stories of broken down tractors sitting and rusting in the fields. The cow doesn't break down or need to be refueled all the time.

Trying to mix new world technology with old world thinking doesn't go. And trying to change their thinking with "education" has shown not to work. So why keep doing it?

> Finally, is any part of China really on the
> brink of starvation?

Yes.

Michael Ross.