经济学家解释为什么印度永远无法像中国那样增长
正文翻译
Economist explains why India can never grow like China
经济学家解释为什么印度永远无法像中国那样增长
经济学家解释为什么印度永远无法像中国那样增长
评论翻译
Excerpts from the video:
China had a better level of basic education among its workers in the late 1970s compared to India. This enabled China to attract more foreign factories that required workers to follow simple instructions, and also allowed Chinese workers to later start their own companies.
China followed an "investment-led growth model", aggressively investing in infrastructure and productive assets. India also liberalized and increased investment, but not to the same miraculous degree as China.
China was much more successful in attracting foreign direct investment (FDI) to supercharge local knowledge and obtain crucial imports. India failed to attract anywhere close to the same amount of FDI as China.
The key difference is how well the local governments in China and India function. China's local governments had the right incentives to stimulate local investment and FDI, while India's local governments often cater to local interests rather than the public good.
视频内容梗概：
1. 20 世纪 70 年代末，中国工人的基础教育水平高于印度。这使中国能够吸引更多需要工人听从简单指令的外国工厂，也使中国工人后来能够创办自己的公司。
2. 中国遵循“投资主导型增长模式”，积极投资于基础设施和生产性资产。印度也实行了自由化并增加了投资，但没有达到与中国相同的奇迹般的程度。
3. 中国在吸引外国直接投资以增强本地知识和获得关键进口产品方面要成功得多。印度未能吸引到与中国相近数量的外国直接投资。
4. 关键的区别在于中国和印度的地方政府运作如何。中国的地方政府有正确的激励机制来刺激地方投资和外国直接投资，而印度的地方政府往往迎合地方利益而非公共利益。
China had a better level of basic education among its workers in the late 1970s compared to India. This enabled China to attract more foreign factories that required workers to follow simple instructions, and also allowed Chinese workers to later start their own companies.
China followed an "investment-led growth model", aggressively investing in infrastructure and productive assets. India also liberalized and increased investment, but not to the same miraculous degree as China.
China was much more successful in attracting foreign direct investment (FDI) to supercharge local knowledge and obtain crucial imports. India failed to attract anywhere close to the same amount of FDI as China.
The key difference is how well the local governments in China and India function. China's local governments had the right incentives to stimulate local investment and FDI, while India's local governments often cater to local interests rather than the public good.
视频内容梗概：
1. 20 世纪 70 年代末，中国工人的基础教育水平高于印度。这使中国能够吸引更多需要工人听从简单指令的外国工厂，也使中国工人后来能够创办自己的公司。
2. 中国遵循“投资主导型增长模式”，积极投资于基础设施和生产性资产。印度也实行了自由化并增加了投资，但没有达到与中国相同的奇迹般的程度。
3. 中国在吸引外国直接投资以增强本地知识和获得关键进口产品方面要成功得多。印度未能吸引到与中国相近数量的外国直接投资。
4. 关键的区别在于中国和印度的地方政府运作如何。中国的地方政府有正确的激励机制来刺激地方投资和外国直接投资，而印度的地方政府往往迎合地方利益而非公共利益。
Mission-Simple-5040
To one has to lose something to gain something....
To attain growth, India and its people have to give up on some perks, and nobody is ready for that .... Any political party bringing mass reforms will definitely be out of business for the next 50 years....
Being a democracy, the focus of politicians is to please the vote bank and not development. Add up the caste equation along with religion and you'll have a hot mess like India...
有所失就会有所得....
为了实现增长，印度和印度人民必须放弃一些福利，而没有人愿意这样....任何带来大规模改革的政党都将在未来50年内被淘汰出局....。
作为一个民主国家，政客们关注的重点是取悦选票库，而不是发展。再加上种姓制度和宗教信仰，就会出现像印度这样的混乱局面......
To one has to lose something to gain something....
To attain growth, India and its people have to give up on some perks, and nobody is ready for that .... Any political party bringing mass reforms will definitely be out of business for the next 50 years....
Being a democracy, the focus of politicians is to please the vote bank and not development. Add up the caste equation along with religion and you'll have a hot mess like India...
有所失就会有所得....
为了实现增长，印度和印度人民必须放弃一些福利，而没有人愿意这样....任何带来大规模改革的政党都将在未来50年内被淘汰出局....。
作为一个民主国家，政客们关注的重点是取悦选票库，而不是发展。再加上种姓制度和宗教信仰，就会出现像印度这样的混乱局面......
kaiveg
As mentioned in the video, plenty of democracies managed to do that. So democracy is not the thing that prevents growth, the issue is not being able to get the different levels of goverment to commit to the plan.
正如视频中提到的，很多民主国家都能做到这一点。因此，民主并不是阻碍经济增长的原因，问题在于无法让各级政府对计划做出承诺。
As mentioned in the video, plenty of democracies managed to do that. So democracy is not the thing that prevents growth, the issue is not being able to get the different levels of goverment to commit to the plan.
正如视频中提到的，很多民主国家都能做到这一点。因此，民主并不是阻碍经济增长的原因，问题在于无法让各级政府对计划做出承诺。
Savings_Surround1237
I'll also like to blame the population of this country.
Fool can only be made of fools. And our politicians are experts in doing that. It's extremely futile to wait for politicians to do something for country, since they'll make all efforts in their range for us to stay in continuous loop of religious and caste politics, and maybe be in future we break through it, but definitely not now.
我还想责怪这个国家的民众。
傻瓜只能由傻瓜组成。而我们的政客就是这方面的专家。等待政客们为国家做些什么是徒劳无益的，因为他们会竭尽所能让我们继续陷入宗教和种姓政治的怪圈，也许将来我们会冲破这个怪圈，但绝对不是现在。
I'll also like to blame the population of this country.
Fool can only be made of fools. And our politicians are experts in doing that. It's extremely futile to wait for politicians to do something for country, since they'll make all efforts in their range for us to stay in continuous loop of religious and caste politics, and maybe be in future we break through it, but definitely not now.
我还想责怪这个国家的民众。
傻瓜只能由傻瓜组成。而我们的政客就是这方面的专家。等待政客们为国家做些什么是徒劳无益的，因为他们会竭尽所能让我们继续陷入宗教和种姓政治的怪圈，也许将来我们会冲破这个怪圈，但绝对不是现在。
ZealousidealPast5382
Also i think it is due to corruption and scammers which are at every nook and cranny of this country. Even if you follow all rules common man can not do a single thing without paying bribes. Also the money sent by govt is pocketed by them and them as it moves down each person takes their cut.
我认为这也是腐败和骗子造成的，他们遍布这个国家的每一个角落。即使你遵守所有规则，普通人也无法在不行贿的情况下做任何事。此外，政府寄来的钱也被他们收入囊中，随着钱款的层层下拨，每个人都会从中分得一杯羹。
Also i think it is due to corruption and scammers which are at every nook and cranny of this country. Even if you follow all rules common man can not do a single thing without paying bribes. Also the money sent by govt is pocketed by them and them as it moves down each person takes their cut.
我认为这也是腐败和骗子造成的，他们遍布这个国家的每一个角落。即使你遵守所有规则，普通人也无法在不行贿的情况下做任何事。此外，政府寄来的钱也被他们收入囊中，随着钱款的层层下拨，每个人都会从中分得一杯羹。
oileripi
If it was not a democracy the different levels of government would be forced to commit
如果不是民主国家，各级政府就会被迫作出承诺
If it was not a democracy the different levels of government would be forced to commit
如果不是民主国家，各级政府就会被迫作出承诺
kaiveg
That really depends on the structure. There are plenty of dictatorial, one party, or autrocratic systems where parts of the goverment and administration drag their feet.
这真的取决于具体的体制结构。在很多独裁、一党制或专制体制下，部分政府和行政部门也会拖后腿。
That really depends on the structure. There are plenty of dictatorial, one party, or autrocratic systems where parts of the goverment and administration drag their feet.
这真的取决于具体的体制结构。在很多独裁、一党制或专制体制下，部分政府和行政部门也会拖后腿。
oileripi
If government was autocratic but actually wanted to develop I think it would be better
如果政府是专制的，但真正想要发展，我想情况会好一些
If government was autocratic but actually wanted to develop I think it would be better
如果政府是专制的，但真正想要发展，我想情况会好一些
kaiveg
Not so sure about that.
Mexico was a one party state and rather autocratic for a long time under the PRI, and they wanted to develop. Yet they struggled to control many of their 31 states.
The same influences that can corrupt a democratic system can also corrupt a an autocratic one. Only that in an autocratic one you have to corrupt less people.
There is also the assumption that in an autocratic system the opinion of the population doesn't matter. Which is only partially true, because if discontent grows to critical levels there will be a revolution. And that is smoething that every autocratic system fears.
我可不敢这么说。
墨西哥是一个一党制国家，在革命制度党执政的很长一段时间内都相当专制，他们希望发展。然而，他们却很难控制 31 个州中的许多州。
可以腐蚀民主制度的因素同样可以腐蚀专制制度。只不过在专制制度下，你需要腐蚀的人更少。
还有一种假设是，在专制制度下，民众的意见并不重要。这只是部分正确，因为如果不满情绪发展到临界水平，就会发生革命。而这正是每个专制体制所害怕的。
Not so sure about that.
Mexico was a one party state and rather autocratic for a long time under the PRI, and they wanted to develop. Yet they struggled to control many of their 31 states.
The same influences that can corrupt a democratic system can also corrupt a an autocratic one. Only that in an autocratic one you have to corrupt less people.
There is also the assumption that in an autocratic system the opinion of the population doesn't matter. Which is only partially true, because if discontent grows to critical levels there will be a revolution. And that is smoething that every autocratic system fears.
我可不敢这么说。
墨西哥是一个一党制国家，在革命制度党执政的很长一段时间内都相当专制，他们希望发展。然而，他们却很难控制 31 个州中的许多州。
可以腐蚀民主制度的因素同样可以腐蚀专制制度。只不过在专制制度下，你需要腐蚀的人更少。
还有一种假设是，在专制制度下，民众的意见并不重要。这只是部分正确，因为如果不满情绪发展到临界水平，就会发生革命。而这正是每个专制体制所害怕的。
oileripi
Government has done a fine job quelling and discontent in a democratic India Im sure they are well equipped to do so in autocratic India. All your points are very valid however - im definitely envisioning a utopic Chinese model and just strong arming India into the model
印度政府在平息民主印度的不满情绪方面做得很好，我相信他们完全有能力在专制印度做到这一点。不过，你的观点都很有道理--我确实是在设想一个乌托邦式的中国模式，然后用强力武装把印度变成这个模式。
Government has done a fine job quelling and discontent in a democratic India Im sure they are well equipped to do so in autocratic India. All your points are very valid however - im definitely envisioning a utopic Chinese model and just strong arming India into the model
印度政府在平息民主印度的不满情绪方面做得很好，我相信他们完全有能力在专制印度做到这一点。不过，你的观点都很有道理--我确实是在设想一个乌托邦式的中国模式，然后用强力武装把印度变成这个模式。
kaiveg
And has done a shit job at creating buy in from drifferent levels of goverment and administration.
Somehow you expect one to change if India were autocratic and not the other.
Edit: Sorry that came across as more agrressive than I intended.
印度政府和行政部门在争取各级政府和其他行政部门的支持方面做得很糟糕。
如果印度成了如你所想的专制国家，你怎么知道他会向好而不是向坏的榜样改变呢？
编辑：很抱歉，我说得比我想的更咄咄逼人。
And has done a shit job at creating buy in from drifferent levels of goverment and administration.
Somehow you expect one to change if India were autocratic and not the other.
Edit: Sorry that came across as more agrressive than I intended.
印度政府和行政部门在争取各级政府和其他行政部门的支持方面做得很糟糕。
如果印度成了如你所想的专制国家，你怎么知道他会向好而不是向坏的榜样改变呢？
编辑：很抱歉，我说得比我想的更咄咄逼人。
Son_of_Christ
A consensus will never happen. The entire world has seen that. The Chinese strategy worked at a time when people weren't looking. But the current situation is such that, every issue has significant interference. Even a simple move as getting government employees to come to their desks on time has faced backlash from unxs. Government jobs in India, which I'm told, is underpaid but has no requirement for skills or rather an intent to conduct your work well. This builds up inertia in one of the largest workforces. Where do you bring sense into people in such a manner?
共识永远不会达成。全世界都见证了这一点。中国的战略会在人们不去注意的时候也能发挥作用。但现在印度的情况是，每个问题都会受到重大干扰。即使是让政府雇员按时上班这样简单的举措，也会遭到工会的反弹。据我所知，印度的政府工作报酬很低，但对技能却没有要求，或者说，对你是否有做好工作的意愿没有要求。这在最大的劳动力队伍中形成了惰性。在这种情况下，你能从哪里给人们带来理智呢？
A consensus will never happen. The entire world has seen that. The Chinese strategy worked at a time when people weren't looking. But the current situation is such that, every issue has significant interference. Even a simple move as getting government employees to come to their desks on time has faced backlash from unxs. Government jobs in India, which I'm told, is underpaid but has no requirement for skills or rather an intent to conduct your work well. This builds up inertia in one of the largest workforces. Where do you bring sense into people in such a manner?
共识永远不会达成。全世界都见证了这一点。中国的战略会在人们不去注意的时候也能发挥作用。但现在印度的情况是，每个问题都会受到重大干扰。即使是让政府雇员按时上班这样简单的举措，也会遭到工会的反弹。据我所知，印度的政府工作报酬很低，但对技能却没有要求，或者说，对你是否有做好工作的意愿没有要求。这在最大的劳动力队伍中形成了惰性。在这种情况下，你能从哪里给人们带来理智呢？
rithvikrao
But so did Taiwan and South Korea. And they came out ahead of the curve. There's always positives and negatives.
但台湾（地区）和韩国也是这么过来的。现在他们走在了前面。有弊也有利。
But so did Taiwan and South Korea. And they came out ahead of the curve. There's always positives and negatives.
但台湾（地区）和韩国也是这么过来的。现在他们走在了前面。有弊也有利。
kaiveg
South Koreas economic rise only happened in its sixth republix which was democratic. Taiwans economic rise started in the 90s which is after they became a democracy.
China is the exception when it comes to an autocratic state experiencing an econmic miracle.
韩国的经济崛起是在第六次民主共和国时期。台湾（地区）的经济崛起始于上世纪 90 年代，也就是他们成为民主国家之后。
说到专制国家创造经济奇迹，只有中国是个例外。
South Koreas economic rise only happened in its sixth republix which was democratic. Taiwans economic rise started in the 90s which is after they became a democracy.
China is the exception when it comes to an autocratic state experiencing an econmic miracle.
韩国的经济崛起是在第六次民主共和国时期。台湾（地区）的经济崛起始于上世纪 90 年代，也就是他们成为民主国家之后。
说到专制国家创造经济奇迹，只有中国是个例外。
Nomustang
Realist
Not really. Think the Soviet unx post WW2 or Nazi Germany post Weimar Republic or South korea under Park Chung Hee or Japan post WW2 (Not a dictatorship but has been ruled by the LDP for almost all of its history). These are flawed examples admittedly for many reasons and China is by far the most remarkable because of the level of poverty, scale and speed but there is a record.
Most developed democracries of today at least with major economies took a lot longer albeit they developed over the course of the Industrial revolution like America or France while some others had a decent run before stumbling like Brazil.
并非如此。想想二战后的苏联、魏玛共和国后的纳粹德国、朴正熙统治下的韩国或二战后的日本（虽然不是独裁国家，但在几乎所有历史时期都由自民党统治）。诚然，由于种种原因，这些例子都有缺陷，而中国是迄今为止最突出的例子，因为其贫穷程度、发展规模和速度都是如此显眼，但前面说的那些例子都是有记录可循的。
当今大多数发达的民主国家，至少是拥有主要经济体的民主国家，都需要更长的时间，尽管它们是在工业革命的过程中发展起来的，比如美国或法国，而其他一些民主国家在蹒跚起步之前也有过不错的发展，比如巴西。
Realist
Not really. Think the Soviet unx post WW2 or Nazi Germany post Weimar Republic or South korea under Park Chung Hee or Japan post WW2 (Not a dictatorship but has been ruled by the LDP for almost all of its history). These are flawed examples admittedly for many reasons and China is by far the most remarkable because of the level of poverty, scale and speed but there is a record.
Most developed democracries of today at least with major economies took a lot longer albeit they developed over the course of the Industrial revolution like America or France while some others had a decent run before stumbling like Brazil.
并非如此。想想二战后的苏联、魏玛共和国后的纳粹德国、朴正熙统治下的韩国或二战后的日本（虽然不是独裁国家，但在几乎所有历史时期都由自民党统治）。诚然，由于种种原因，这些例子都有缺陷，而中国是迄今为止最突出的例子，因为其贫穷程度、发展规模和速度都是如此显眼，但前面说的那些例子都是有记录可循的。
当今大多数发达的民主国家，至少是拥有主要经济体的民主国家，都需要更长的时间，尽管它们是在工业革命的过程中发展起来的，比如美国或法国，而其他一些民主国家在蹒跚起步之前也有过不错的发展，比如巴西。
kaiveg
The Soviet unxs economy ended up being highly dependent on ressource exports. So much so that a fall of oil prices was a threath to the stability of the state.
Nazi Germanys economic uptick post Weimar is nothing compared to the Germanys economic miracle in the in the 50s, which happened under a democratic goverment. Not to mention that in the 50s it was achieved by building productive industries, which is consderably more sustainable than growing an economy by increasing military spending.
Park Chung Hee only was in power until 79. SK economic rise didn't happen until the mid to late 80s.
While LD won most elections in Japan, they had serious competition and cannot be compared to an auticratic one party state due to that.
So none of these examples show that autocratic goverments have an advantage when it comes to growing the economy fast and into a system that works well.
苏联的经济最终高度依赖资源出口。以至于油价下跌对国家稳定构成了威胁。
纳粹德国在魏玛时期后的经济腾飞与 50 年代德国的经济奇迹相比简直是小巫见大巫，而德国的经济奇迹是在民主政府的领导下发生的。更不用说，50 年代的经济奇迹是通过建设生产性工业实现的，这无疑比通过增加军费开支来实现经济增长更具可持续性。
朴正熙只执政到 79 年。韩国的经济崛起直到 80 年代中后期才出现。
在日本，虽然民主党赢得了大多数选举，但他们也有激烈的竞争，因此不能与一党专制国家相提并论。
因此，这些例子都不能说明专制政府在快速发展经济和建立运行良好的制度方面具有优势。
The Soviet unxs economy ended up being highly dependent on ressource exports. So much so that a fall of oil prices was a threath to the stability of the state.
Nazi Germanys economic uptick post Weimar is nothing compared to the Germanys economic miracle in the in the 50s, which happened under a democratic goverment. Not to mention that in the 50s it was achieved by building productive industries, which is consderably more sustainable than growing an economy by increasing military spending.
Park Chung Hee only was in power until 79. SK economic rise didn't happen until the mid to late 80s.
While LD won most elections in Japan, they had serious competition and cannot be compared to an auticratic one party state due to that.
So none of these examples show that autocratic goverments have an advantage when it comes to growing the economy fast and into a system that works well.
苏联的经济最终高度依赖资源出口。以至于油价下跌对国家稳定构成了威胁。
纳粹德国在魏玛时期后的经济腾飞与 50 年代德国的经济奇迹相比简直是小巫见大巫，而德国的经济奇迹是在民主政府的领导下发生的。更不用说，50 年代的经济奇迹是通过建设生产性工业实现的，这无疑比通过增加军费开支来实现经济增长更具可持续性。
朴正熙只执政到 79 年。韩国的经济崛起直到 80 年代中后期才出现。
在日本，虽然民主党赢得了大多数选举，但他们也有激烈的竞争，因此不能与一党专制国家相提并论。
因此，这些例子都不能说明专制政府在快速发展经济和建立运行良好的制度方面具有优势。
Nomustang
Fair points although in 3 of these examples the miracles were also fueled by American support.
In Japan's case in particular, they traded military spending for growth. South Korea's fertility rate has crashed and Germany is facing some huge structural problems today. Japan completely stalled. China has big issues as well.
Which obviously raises questions about whether incredibly fast growth is actually desirable. Malaysia grew at 5-6% for decades and is borderline a high income country today for example.
But the common factor in all of these sotries is education. Japan and Germany all had relatively well educated populations post WW2 and China had a substantially better education system in the 70s than India did. South Korea and the USSR poured a lot of investment into education as they grew. This is part of why China's bureacracy is more effective than India's.
I guess a better example for a succesful dictatorship would be Singapore albeit it's a very lite form and again...scale and being very lucky to have competent leaders.
有道理，不过其中 3 个例子的奇迹也是由美国的支持促成的。
尤其是日本，他们用军费开支换来了经济增长。韩国的生育率已经崩溃，德国如今也面临着巨大的结构性问题。日本完全停滞不前。中国也有很大的问题。
这显然让人怀疑，高速增长是否真的可取。例如，马来西亚几十年来一直以 5-6%的速度增长，如今已接近高收入国家的水平。
但所有这些国家的共同点是教育。日本和德国在二战后都拥有受过相对良好教育的人口，而中国在 70 年代的教育体系比印度好得多。韩国和苏联在发展过程中对教育投入了大量资金。这也是为什么中国的政府比印度更有效的部分原因。
我想，新加坡是成功的独裁统治的一个更好的例子，尽管它的形式非常简单，而且......规模和拥有有能力的领导人是非常幸运的。
Fair points although in 3 of these examples the miracles were also fueled by American support.
In Japan's case in particular, they traded military spending for growth. South Korea's fertility rate has crashed and Germany is facing some huge structural problems today. Japan completely stalled. China has big issues as well.
Which obviously raises questions about whether incredibly fast growth is actually desirable. Malaysia grew at 5-6% for decades and is borderline a high income country today for example.
But the common factor in all of these sotries is education. Japan and Germany all had relatively well educated populations post WW2 and China had a substantially better education system in the 70s than India did. South Korea and the USSR poured a lot of investment into education as they grew. This is part of why China's bureacracy is more effective than India's.
I guess a better example for a succesful dictatorship would be Singapore albeit it's a very lite form and again...scale and being very lucky to have competent leaders.
有道理，不过其中 3 个例子的奇迹也是由美国的支持促成的。
尤其是日本，他们用军费开支换来了经济增长。韩国的生育率已经崩溃，德国如今也面临着巨大的结构性问题。日本完全停滞不前。中国也有很大的问题。
这显然让人怀疑，高速增长是否真的可取。例如，马来西亚几十年来一直以 5-6%的速度增长，如今已接近高收入国家的水平。
但所有这些国家的共同点是教育。日本和德国在二战后都拥有受过相对良好教育的人口，而中国在 70 年代的教育体系比印度好得多。韩国和苏联在发展过程中对教育投入了大量资金。这也是为什么中国的政府比印度更有效的部分原因。
我想，新加坡是成功的独裁统治的一个更好的例子，尽管它的形式非常简单，而且......规模和拥有有能力的领导人是非常幸运的。
kaiveg
Chinas growth was fueled by american, well western support as well. A lot of the capital, machines and markets were all provided by the west.
Low birthrates in Germany have been a problem in both the east and the western parts and only western germany had this huge economic growth. They also are an issue in Spain, the UK, France, to a degree the US and so on. Low birthrates in general seem to be an issue that developed countries have to deal with.
Fast or slow is the wrong question imo. The important part is whether the growth is sustainable. Fast sustainable growth is great, but if you got fast growth that leads to a collapse which wipes out most of that growth anyway a slow and steady approach is prefferabble.
I agree that education, especially basic education is a must in order to become industrialised.
Singapore is indeed an interesting example. Although it is also worth mentioning that Singapore doesn't have to worry about the different levels of goverment going along with a plan due to them being a citystate.
中国的发展离不开美国以及西方的支持。很多资金、机器和市场都是由西方提供的。
德国的低出生率在东部和西部都是一个问题，只有德国西部才有如此巨大的经济增长。低出生率在西班牙、英国、法国也是一个问题，美国在一定程度上也是如此。总体而言，低出生率似乎是发达国家必须解决的一个问题。
在我看来，“快”还是“慢”是个错误的问题。重要的是增长是否可持续。可持续的快速增长固然很好，但如果你的快速增长导致了经济崩溃，无论如何都会使大部分增长化为乌有，那么还是采用缓慢而稳定的方式更为可取。
我同意教育，尤其是基础教育是实现工业化的必要条件。
新加坡确实是一个有趣的例子。值得一提的是，由于新加坡是一个城市国家，因此不必担心各级政府是否会按计划行事。
Chinas growth was fueled by american, well western support as well. A lot of the capital, machines and markets were all provided by the west.
Low birthrates in Germany have been a problem in both the east and the western parts and only western germany had this huge economic growth. They also are an issue in Spain, the UK, France, to a degree the US and so on. Low birthrates in general seem to be an issue that developed countries have to deal with.
Fast or slow is the wrong question imo. The important part is whether the growth is sustainable. Fast sustainable growth is great, but if you got fast growth that leads to a collapse which wipes out most of that growth anyway a slow and steady approach is prefferabble.
I agree that education, especially basic education is a must in order to become industrialised.
Singapore is indeed an interesting example. Although it is also worth mentioning that Singapore doesn't have to worry about the different levels of goverment going along with a plan due to them being a citystate.
中国的发展离不开美国以及西方的支持。很多资金、机器和市场都是由西方提供的。
德国的低出生率在东部和西部都是一个问题，只有德国西部才有如此巨大的经济增长。低出生率在西班牙、英国、法国也是一个问题，美国在一定程度上也是如此。总体而言，低出生率似乎是发达国家必须解决的一个问题。
在我看来，“快”还是“慢”是个错误的问题。重要的是增长是否可持续。可持续的快速增长固然很好，但如果你的快速增长导致了经济崩溃，无论如何都会使大部分增长化为乌有，那么还是采用缓慢而稳定的方式更为可取。
我同意教育，尤其是基础教育是实现工业化的必要条件。
新加坡确实是一个有趣的例子。值得一提的是，由于新加坡是一个城市国家，因此不必担心各级政府是否会按计划行事。
commentaddict
It’s hard for developing nation with a low trust culture to control 31 states in a geography of mostly mountainous land.
对于信任度较低的发展中国家来说，要在多山的地理环境中控制 31 个地方政府是很困难的。
It’s hard for developing nation with a low trust culture to control 31 states in a geography of mostly mountainous land.
对于信任度较低的发展中国家来说，要在多山的地理环境中控制 31 个地方政府是很困难的。
bearhug89
Any of the democracies had as big a population as india or as diverse as india ?
有哪个民主国家像印度一样人口众多或像印度一样多样化？
Any of the democracies had as big a population as india or as diverse as india ?
有哪个民主国家像印度一样人口众多或像印度一样多样化？
kaiveg
There is no country with such a big and diverse population as India. So if you apply this criteria nothing that works anywhere can work in India because of that.
没有一个国家能像印度这样人口众多且多样化。因此，如果你采用这一标准，任何在任何地方都行得通的东西在印度都行不通。
There is no country with such a big and diverse population as India. So if you apply this criteria nothing that works anywhere can work in India because of that.
没有一个国家能像印度这样人口众多且多样化。因此，如果你采用这一标准，任何在任何地方都行得通的东西在印度都行不通。
bearhug89
Exactly nothing does, cause population , diversity and geography changes everything. Percentage of tax paying people in India is very less and that money generally caters to non tax payers, which is mostly given in form of freebies, which cannot stop because without freebies parties will loose ( irrespective of any political parties) . Development becomes a huge challenge.
Also to note that none of our neighbours want us to succeed specially China, so they do everything they can to stop india competing with them
没错，因为人口、多样性和地理位置改变了一切。在印度，纳税人的比例非常低，而这些钱一般都提供给了非纳税人，主要是以免费的形式提供，这种做法没办法停止，因为不提供免费的东西，政党就会失败（不管是哪个政党）。发展就成了一个巨大的挑战。
此外，我们的邻国都不希望我们成功，尤其是中国，因此他们竭尽全力阻止印度与他们竞争。
Exactly nothing does, cause population , diversity and geography changes everything. Percentage of tax paying people in India is very less and that money generally caters to non tax payers, which is mostly given in form of freebies, which cannot stop because without freebies parties will loose ( irrespective of any political parties) . Development becomes a huge challenge.
Also to note that none of our neighbours want us to succeed specially China, so they do everything they can to stop india competing with them
没错，因为人口、多样性和地理位置改变了一切。在印度，纳税人的比例非常低，而这些钱一般都提供给了非纳税人，主要是以免费的形式提供，这种做法没办法停止，因为不提供免费的东西，政党就会失败（不管是哪个政党）。发展就成了一个巨大的挑战。
此外，我们的邻国都不希望我们成功，尤其是中国，因此他们竭尽全力阻止印度与他们竞争。
ReasonAndHumanismIN
We don't have leaders; we have followers of the masses as our "leaders".
Leaders would gain the trust of the people, communicate the sense behind policies, and lead them into sometimes unpleasant directions for the sake of long-term good. You have to build consensus for reforms, and then reforms will happen. But you need good leaders for that.
我们没有领袖，我们的“领袖”是群众的追随者。
领导者要赢得人民的信任，传达政策背后的意义，为了长远利益，带领人民朝着有时令人不快的方向前进。你必须为改革建立共识，然后改革才会发生。但为此你需要好的领导人。
We don't have leaders; we have followers of the masses as our "leaders".
Leaders would gain the trust of the people, communicate the sense behind policies, and lead them into sometimes unpleasant directions for the sake of long-term good. You have to build consensus for reforms, and then reforms will happen. But you need good leaders for that.
我们没有领袖，我们的“领袖”是群众的追随者。
领导者要赢得人民的信任，传达政策背后的意义，为了长远利益，带领人民朝着有时令人不快的方向前进。你必须为改革建立共识，然后改革才会发生。但为此你需要好的领导人。
End_Journey
As long as politicians buy vote banks with handouts, instead of investment in the education system and basic infrastructure; we will always lag behind Developed nations.
只要政客们用施舍收买选票库，而不是投资教育系统和基本基础设施，我们就永远落后于发达国家。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
As long as politicians buy vote banks with handouts, instead of investment in the education system and basic infrastructure; we will always lag behind Developed nations.
只要政客们用施舍收买选票库，而不是投资教育系统和基本基础设施，我们就永远落后于发达国家。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
platinumgus18
People won't admit it but their communist background allowed them to develop their human resources and discipline to a great level though they couldn't leverage it until a controlled liberalization where they made sure the foreign countries couldn't use China as a slave, like they did with South East Asia and South America, the reason why they will be stuck in middle income trap. Most of India is uneducated and unhealthy with no discipline
大家不愿意承认这一点，但他们的共产主义背景允许他们将人力资源和纪律发展到一个很高的水平，尽管他们无法利用这一点，直到有控制的自由化，他们确保外国不能把中国当作奴隶，就像他们对东南亚和南美所做的那样，这也是他们将陷入中等收入陷阱的原因。印度大多数人没有受过教育，身体不健康，没有纪律性
People won't admit it but their communist background allowed them to develop their human resources and discipline to a great level though they couldn't leverage it until a controlled liberalization where they made sure the foreign countries couldn't use China as a slave, like they did with South East Asia and South America, the reason why they will be stuck in middle income trap. Most of India is uneducated and unhealthy with no discipline
大家不愿意承认这一点，但他们的共产主义背景允许他们将人力资源和纪律发展到一个很高的水平，尽管他们无法利用这一点，直到有控制的自由化，他们确保外国不能把中国当作奴隶，就像他们对东南亚和南美所做的那样，这也是他们将陷入中等收入陷阱的原因。印度大多数人没有受过教育，身体不健康，没有纪律性
commentaddict
You forgot to mention how the caste system creates unnecessary problems and complications for India.
你忘了说种姓制度是如何给印度带来不必要的问题和麻烦的。
You forgot to mention how the caste system creates unnecessary problems and complications for India.
你忘了说种姓制度是如何给印度带来不必要的问题和麻烦的。
lazyhulk_
I have seen this video and I agree with him . Here democracy is not mature and it will take long time to elevate majority of citizens to status where they can take informed decision. Until then cast and religion based manipulation will be there as major factor in politics . But I am glad atleast the elite class is setting sight for the top position in the world . We cannot see more than 10 percent growth in the near future .
我看过这段视频，我同意他的观点。这里的民主还不成熟，需要很长时间才能将大多数公民提升到可以做出明智决定的地位。在此之前，选票和宗教操纵将是政治中的主要因素。但我很高兴，至少精英阶层正在瞄准世界第一的位置。在不久的将来，我们不可能看到超过 10% 的增长。
I have seen this video and I agree with him . Here democracy is not mature and it will take long time to elevate majority of citizens to status where they can take informed decision. Until then cast and religion based manipulation will be there as major factor in politics . But I am glad atleast the elite class is setting sight for the top position in the world . We cannot see more than 10 percent growth in the near future .
我看过这段视频，我同意他的观点。这里的民主还不成熟，需要很长时间才能将大多数公民提升到可以做出明智决定的地位。在此之前，选票和宗教操纵将是政治中的主要因素。但我很高兴，至少精英阶层正在瞄准世界第一的位置。在不久的将来，我们不可能看到超过 10% 的增长。
DamnBored1
But I am glad atleast the elite class is setting sight for the top position in the world .
Those with the money (elite class) are fuckin' flying away in droves and settling in green pastures abroad. India will soon be a country filled with old people and youth who couldn't fly away due to some reason.
“但我很高兴，至少精英阶层正在为世界第一的位置而努力。”
那些有钱人（精英阶级）正成群结队地飞往国外的绿色牧场定居。印度很快就会成为一个充斥着老人和因故无法飞走的年轻人的国家。
But I am glad atleast the elite class is setting sight for the top position in the world .
Those with the money (elite class) are fuckin' flying away in droves and settling in green pastures abroad. India will soon be a country filled with old people and youth who couldn't fly away due to some reason.
“但我很高兴，至少精英阶层正在为世界第一的位置而努力。”
那些有钱人（精英阶级）正成群结队地飞往国外的绿色牧场定居。印度很快就会成为一个充斥着老人和因故无法飞走的年轻人的国家。
Koshurkaig85
India won't grow like China, but it doesn't need to it needs to find its own way. We can't undercut the world in manufacturing, but we can leverage our better geography and leverage goodwill to cut deals. We shouldn't make the mistake of strategic sector thinking and pour our efforts only in a few sectors .it creates vulnerabilities for larger countries.
印度不会像中国一样发展，但也不需要，它需要找到自己的道路。我们无法在制造业方面压倒世界，但我们可以利用我们较好的地理位置和商誉来达成交易。我们不应该犯战略部门思维的错误，只在少数几个部门下功夫。这样会给较大的国家带来脆弱性。
India won't grow like China, but it doesn't need to it needs to find its own way. We can't undercut the world in manufacturing, but we can leverage our better geography and leverage goodwill to cut deals. We shouldn't make the mistake of strategic sector thinking and pour our efforts only in a few sectors .it creates vulnerabilities for larger countries.
印度不会像中国一样发展，但也不需要，它需要找到自己的道路。我们无法在制造业方面压倒世界，但我们可以利用我们较好的地理位置和商誉来达成交易。我们不应该犯战略部门思维的错误，只在少数几个部门下功夫。这样会给较大的国家带来脆弱性。
很赞 17
收藏