Bharat Rakshak

ashi wrote:Me being shot and taken out? Sure, go ahead. Another Chinese poster will come here and replace me? Don't flatter yourself and the importance of this forum. So Suraj, here is my birdie to you! LoL ...

gashish wrote:^^ Guilt has very quick ears to an accusation...

Accusing others of exactly what one is guilty of is old but not so solid defensive trick.

I seriously believe that zengerl believes what he said, because brainwashing is complete and delusional disconnect has set in.

why dont you organize "Uighur/tibetan lives matter" protest just like "black lives matter" or "occupy pudong/bund bull" or "AwardWapsi" protest and see what happens..

zengerl wrote:India is proud of her democracy and looks down upon China's "dictatorship". Well,

1. "Democracy" does not do economy much good. China was once lagging behind Indian, In 1950s', China's GDP per person was 2/3 of India's, China's railway system has tracks with a length of 1/5 of India's, China China's roads are a fraction of India's, birth death in "China was much higher than India's; Now, GDP per person in China is 5 times of India's, China's has more railways and high ways than India ......

2. China's political system is different from US and other countries, but it is "democracy", people are enjoy rights equivalent to western countries. Political systems can be different. Strictly speaking, none of the countries in the world today has a "democratic" ruling, which means the ruling system in Ancient Athens, where everything is discussed and vote in a "ecclesia" formed by all male citizens of the city state. The political system in US and other western countries today are more like "republic" in ancient Rome.

3. "Democracy" is not the best, not to say perfect, system, it has its drawbacks, otherwise, the "democratic" Greek would not have been defeated by Alexander and later by Rome. Do you know why Socrates was put to death? Because he "opposed" democracy and supported "Atheism".

amit wrote:

ashi wrote:Me being shot and taken out? Sure, go ahead. Another Chinese poster will come here and replace me? Don't flatter yourself and the importance of this forum. So Suraj, here is my birdie to you! LoL ...

As if on cue, poster Zengeri, who seems to have become a member way back in 2009, reactivates his account, two post below this post.

And folks have their undies in a twist if inquiring minds wonder if this is not the handiwork of 50 centers and their supervisors.

amit wrote:

zengerl wrote:India is proud of her democracy and looks down upon China's "dictatorship". Well,

1. "Democracy" does not do economy much good. China was once lagging behind Indian, In 1950s', China's GDP per person was 2/3 of India's, China's railway system has tracks with a length of 1/5 of India's, China China's roads are a fraction of India's, birth death in "China was much higher than India's; Now, GDP per person in China is 5 times of India's, China's has more railways and high ways than India ......

2. China's political system is different from US and other countries, but it is "democracy", people are enjoy rights equivalent to western countries. Political systems can be different. Strictly speaking, none of the countries in the world today has a "democratic" ruling, which means the ruling system in Ancient Athens, where everything is discussed and vote in a "ecclesia" formed by all male citizens of the city state. The political system in US and other western countries today are more like "republic" in ancient Rome.

3. "Democracy" is not the best, not to say perfect, system, it has its drawbacks, otherwise, the "democratic" Greek would not have been defeated by Alexander and later by Rome. Do you know why Socrates was put to death? Because he "opposed" democracy and supported "Atheism".

I'm sorry to say that I can't even use the your "probably an intelligent person" sobriquet that your colleague Ashi used for me after this post.

You know why democracy is good? In the same country on the one hand you have Marxists who follow the Mao brand of fascism - oh so sorry I meant Communism - and on the other a out and various religious centered parties.

And neither of them are afraid of each other, they co-exist and via for space. It gets messy sometimes but folks take that in their stride. And here you have the great atheist government of the Communist Party of China who are afraid of their own shadow. So much so, that they have to hunt down Faulin Gong followers!

Nah, give me messy democracy with all its flaws and warts for its inherent strength rather than the so cool government which needs to make that ridiculous cartoon to explain its 5 year plans!

zengerl wrote:Well, the best way to know China and have a central opinion is to actually visit the country, just like what the following guy did:

http://www.santaihu.com/2015090101.html
http://www.santaihu.com/2015090103.html
http://www.santaihu.com/2015090105.html

zengerl wrote:Unlike this gentlemen, we believe debate is debate, we do not do personal attack, such as "50 centers".

zengerl wrote:Just like in these forum, where Chinese participators know both Chinese and English and thus know both China and India, where most do not know Chinese and has no idea what china is like, a lot of people form India, US, and Europe do not know China at all except unfounded bias; while most if not all Chinese know US, India, more or less.

Folks, it is you that are brainwashed!

gashish wrote:^^ Guilt has very quick ears to an accusation...

Accusing others of exactly what one is guilty of is old but not so solid defensive trick.

I seriously believe that zengerl believes what he said, because brainwashing is complete and delusional disconnect has set in.

why dont you organize "Uighur/tibetan lives matter" protest just like "black lives matter" or "occupy pudong/bund bull" or "AwardWapsi" protest and see what happens..

zengerl wrote:Well, the best way to know China and have a central opinion is to actually visit the country, just like what the following guy did:

http://www.santaihu.com/2015090101.html
http://www.santaihu.com/2015090103.html
http://www.santaihu.com/2015090105.html

vayu tuvan wrote:

zengerl wrote:Well, the best way to know China and have a central opinion is to actually visit the country, just like what the following guy did:

http://www.santaihu.com/2015090101.html
http://www.santaihu.com/2015090103.html
http://www.santaihu.com/2015090105.html

What is with the "well-stocked" fridge? Top of the tall tower is not visible - fog, smog, or smoke (and mirrors which are aplenty on that tower)?

zengerl wrote: "one child policy"

vayu tuvan wrote:

zengerl wrote:Well, the best way to know China and have a central opinion is to actually visit the country, just like what the following guy did:

http://www.santaihu.com/2015090101.html
http://www.santaihu.com/2015090103.html
http://www.santaihu.com/2015090105.html

What is with the "well-stocked" fridge? Top of the tall tower is not visible - fog, smog, or smoke (and mirrors which are aplenty on that tower)?

vayu tuvan wrote:

zengerl wrote: "one child policy"

Somebody in one thread of BRF asked a very pertinent question. To whit "Under the two child policy, what happens to the third child?". I have a follow-up question for that - what happens to couples who have one child or no child. Any answers will be gratefully read/listened to. Hopefully poster zengerl is not a "fitty cent" but a "Central view" (what does it even mean?) CPC member who can give us the low down.

zengerl wrote: ... I hear New Delhi is one of the most polluted city in the world, even worse than Beijing, ...

NRao wrote:Why India's Tortoise May Beat China's Hare

In part because of China’s faltering, the progress of Indian economic reform is now front and center, with a debate about how in the years ahead the trajectory of India’s economy will stack up against China’s. Indeed, the intense draw of India to business headlines around the world has been the country’s strong macroeconomic growth performance in the past few years, especially when compared with China. New IMF data indicate that not only did India’s rising real GDP growth rate catch up with where China’s growth rate had decreased to in 2014–7.3 percent–but they project that as China’s growth rate continues to decline–to 6.8 percent in 2015 and then decrease further to 6.3 percent in 2016—India’s growth rate will substantially exceed China’s over the same period, reaching 7.5 percent in 2016.

ike Aesop’s Hare, China has been growing at a blazing pace for years. According to China’s official statistics, average GDP growth of the country over 1980-2014 was 9.8 percent. Few if any other nation in modern times has come close to such an accomplishment, and there is little question about the incredible ingenuity of the China’s leaders. India’s GDP growth over 1980-2104 averaged 6.2 percent–more the speed of Aesop’s Tortoise. Still, a strong performance by any standard, and certainly enviable for most countries around the world.{This is something we sometimes tend to forget. This has been achieved despite all the trials and tribulations that we've gone through over the decades and more importantly the speed is ready to pick up and not falter}

China’s growth has been fueled by an excessive reliance on a mercantilist strategy of providing the world with vast amounts of cheaply priced exports rather than building a large, vibrant consumer market at home. Coupling this has been Beijing’s huge—and often wasteful—investment in lumbering state-owned enterprises (SOEs), which, despite the growth of private sector firms in certain sectors of the economy, have consolidated in number and grown ever larger over time; a moribund system of state-owned ‘banks’, who pretend to lend money to SOEs, who, in turn, pretend to pay back the banks; a breathtaking infrastructure network of modern airports, highways, ports and railways, some of which operate way below capacity; and real estate, where overspending has created an untold number of unoccupied buildings and huge market bubbles.

In no small way, China’s racing endurance to date has been made possible by the dominance throughout all aspects of the economy of the Communist Party, and questioning the Party’s aims is not tolerated. In this setting, it is understandable why the uppermost goal of the Chinese leadership is to maintain the country’s social stability, including through the controlled growth of the population. However, now as the growth of the nation’s labor force has begun to shrink and the average age of the population is increasing, China’s wages have risen to the point where other countries—including India—are becoming more competitive.

New IMF data indicate that not only did India’s rising real GDP growth rate catch up with where China’s growth rate had decreased to in 2014–7.3 percent–but they project that as China’s growth rate continues to decline–to 6.8 percent in 2015 and then decrease further to 6.3 percent in 2016—India’s growth rate will substantially exceed China’s over the same period, reaching 7.5 percent in 2016.

The most notable to take into account when assessing these countries’ economic destinies concern the prospects for international integration, which is key for any country to strengthen its global competitiveness; improve its access to external (as well as the domestic generation of) advances in technology and innovation; and enhance both the efficiency of its enterprises and the acumen of its business leaders and public policy decision-makers.

In China, reflecting the country’s still heavy, indeed actually growing, reliance on fixed investment—rather than a shift towards consumption, as habitually embodied in the Party’s formal pronouncements to the contrary—as a share of GDP the industrial sector comprises 44 percent and the services sectors account for 46 percent (with the balance occurring in agriculture). By contrast, in India, industry accounts for 24 percent, while services comprise 58 percent, illustrative of the country’s emphasis on development of human capital, the key intangible asset needed for economic success in today’s globalized marketplace.

In the sphere of international trade, India’s economy is actually more extensively integrated into the world’s trading system than China’s. No doubt this will be a shock to most observers, since China’s global share of exports of goods and services is about five times as large as India’s. The problem with that perspective is it does not adjust for the differences in the scale of output between the two countries: China accounts for about 17 percent of the world’s GDP, whereas India’s output constitutes about 7 percent.

Measured correctly, while India’s total trade in goods and services (that is, the sum of exports and imports) accounts for 50 percent of the country’s GDP, for China, the comparable measure is only 42 percent. Perhaps even more important is that for exports alone, they actually constitute a larger share of GDP for India than they do for China.

The story is remarkably similar in the case of foreign direct investment (FDI), where, by committing to significant, tangible ownership of in-country productive facilities (rather than as a minority, passive shareholder), external investors vote with their feet and wallets as to the economic prospects of an economy. Indeed, despite China attracting annual FDI inflows twelve times India’s volume, it is striking that as a share of each country’s GDP, the cumulative flows of FDI into India today is 12.3 percent, whereas for China the analogous figure is 10.5 percent.

Over the last decade, even though Chinese firms pursued significantly fewer acquisitions or greenfield investments in the G-20 countries than did Indian businesses, China’s enterprises were only able to successfully complete about 50 percent of their proposed transactions, whereas India’s firms successfully closed on almost 70 percent of their deals. No doubt the differences in these track records are due, perhaps in large part, to the fact that the typical Chinese firm is a state-owned enterprise, while most Indian firms are in the private sector.{We all know about the Alibabas, Huaweis and Lenovos - all great brands undoubtedly - but at the country level this is the picture}

Of course, many factors will impact how this economic race between India and China turns out. Needless to say, in a very real sense it is just beginning. And who might look like the winner today may well not be the first to cross the finish line. In the end, however, as has always been the case throughout the world’s economic history, it will boil down to human capital. It will not hurt India that one of its main assets propelling it forward is youth: India’s median age is 27, compared with China’s 37. Unless China’s recent lifting of its one-child policy has a dramatic effect, by 2030 India’s population will exceed China’s, with an additional 300 million included in its labor force. By that time, no matter how fast China is able to sprint, as long as India adopts a slower yet steadier pace, coupled with continual enhancement of the talent of its people through greater investment in the entire population’s education, it will likely win.

zengerl wrote:And due to people's complaining and protesting, environment problem has been deemed by the government as the most important issue to take care;

amit wrote:X-Posting from the Indian Economy Thread:

NRao wrote:Why India's Tortoise May Beat China's Hare

This Forbes article needs to be quoted extensively and I would urge poster, who haven't read it, to go through it in full

In part because of China’s faltering, the progress of Indian economic reform is now front and center, with a debate about how in the years ahead the trajectory of India’s economy will stack up against China’s. Indeed, the intense draw of India to business headlines around the world has been the country’s strong macroeconomic growth performance in the past few years, especially when compared with China. New IMF data indicate that not only did India’s rising real GDP growth rate catch up with where China’s growth rate had decreased to in 2014–7.3 percent–but they project that as China’s growth rate continues to decline–to 6.8 percent in 2015 and then decrease further to 6.3 percent in 2016—India’s growth rate will substantially exceed China’s over the same period, reaching 7.5 percent in 2016.

ike Aesop’s Hare, China has been growing at a blazing pace for years. According to China’s official statistics, average GDP growth of the country over 1980-2014 was 9.8 percent. Few if any other nation in modern times has come close to such an accomplishment, and there is little question about the incredible ingenuity of the China’s leaders. India’s GDP growth over 1980-2104 averaged 6.2 percent–more the speed of Aesop’s Tortoise. Still, a strong performance by any standard, and certainly enviable for most countries around the world.{This is something we sometimes tend to forget. This has been achieved despite all the trials and tribulations that we've gone through over the decades and more importantly the speed is ready to pick up and not falter}

The following is something we all know and understand but it's still helpful to put out for a sense of perspective:

China’s growth has been fueled by an excessive reliance on a mercantilist strategy of providing the world with vast amounts of cheaply priced exports rather than building a large, vibrant consumer market at home. Coupling this has been Beijing’s huge—and often wasteful—investment in lumbering state-owned enterprises (SOEs), which, despite the growth of private sector firms in certain sectors of the economy, have consolidated in number and grown ever larger over time; a moribund system of state-owned ‘banks’, who pretend to lend money to SOEs, who, in turn, pretend to pay back the banks; a breathtaking infrastructure network of modern airports, highways, ports and railways, some of which operate way below capacity; and real estate, where overspending has created an untold number of unoccupied buildings and huge market bubbles.

In no small way, China’s racing endurance to date has been made possible by the dominance throughout all aspects of the economy of the Communist Party, and questioning the Party’s aims is not tolerated. In this setting, it is understandable why the uppermost goal of the Chinese leadership is to maintain the country’s social stability, including through the controlled growth of the population. However, now as the growth of the nation’s labor force has begun to shrink and the average age of the population is increasing, China’s wages have risen to the point where other countries—including India—are becoming more competitive.

New IMF data indicate that not only did India’s rising real GDP growth rate catch up with where China’s growth rate had decreased to in 2014–7.3 percent–but they project that as China’s growth rate continues to decline–to 6.8 percent in 2015 and then decrease further to 6.3 percent in 2016—India’s growth rate will substantially exceed China’s over the same period, reaching 7.5 percent in 2016.

Now here are some very interesting perspectives put forward by the author:

The most notable to take into account when assessing these countries’ economic destinies concern the prospects for international integration, which is key for any country to strengthen its global competitiveness; improve its access to external (as well as the domestic generation of) advances in technology and innovation; and enhance both the efficiency of its enterprises and the acumen of its business leaders and public policy decision-makers.

In China, reflecting the country’s still heavy, indeed actually growing, reliance on fixed investment—rather than a shift towards consumption, as habitually embodied in the Party’s formal pronouncements to the contrary—as a share of GDP the industrial sector comprises 44 percent and the services sectors account for 46 percent (with the balance occurring in agriculture). By contrast, in India, industry accounts for 24 percent, while services comprise 58 percent, illustrative of the country’s emphasis on development of human capital, the key intangible asset needed for economic success in today’s globalized marketplace.

Now it gets really interesting:

In the sphere of international trade, India’s economy is actually more extensively integrated into the world’s trading system than China’s. No doubt this will be a shock to most observers, since China’s global share of exports of goods and services is about five times as large as India’s. The problem with that perspective is it does not adjust for the differences in the scale of output between the two countries: China accounts for about 17 percent of the world’s GDP, whereas India’s output constitutes about 7 percent.

Measured correctly, while India’s total trade in goods and services (that is, the sum of exports and imports) accounts for 50 percent of the country’s GDP, for China, the comparable measure is only 42 percent. Perhaps even more important is that for exports alone, they actually constitute a larger share of GDP for India than they do for China.

The story is remarkably similar in the case of foreign direct investment (FDI), where, by committing to significant, tangible ownership of in-country productive facilities (rather than as a minority, passive shareholder), external investors vote with their feet and wallets as to the economic prospects of an economy. Indeed, despite China attracting annual FDI inflows twelve times India’s volume, it is striking that as a share of each country’s GDP, the cumulative flows of FDI into India today is 12.3 percent, whereas for China the analogous figure is 10.5 percent.

Over the last decade, even though Chinese firms pursued significantly fewer acquisitions or greenfield investments in the G-20 countries than did Indian businesses, China’s enterprises were only able to successfully complete about 50 percent of their proposed transactions, whereas India’s firms successfully closed on almost 70 percent of their deals. No doubt the differences in these track records are due, perhaps in large part, to the fact that the typical Chinese firm is a state-owned enterprise, while most Indian firms are in the private sector.{We all know about the Alibabas, Huaweis and Lenovos - all great brands undoubtedly - but at the country level this is the picture}

Of course, many factors will impact how this economic race between India and China turns out. Needless to say, in a very real sense it is just beginning. And who might look like the winner today may well not be the first to cross the finish line. In the end, however, as has always been the case throughout the world’s economic history, it will boil down to human capital. It will not hurt India that one of its main assets propelling it forward is youth: India’s median age is 27, compared with China’s 37. Unless China’s recent lifting of its one-child policy has a dramatic effect, by 2030 India’s population will exceed China’s, with an additional 300 million included in its labor force. By that time, no matter how fast China is able to sprint, as long as India adopts a slower yet steadier pace, coupled with continual enhancement of the talent of its people through greater investment in the entire population’s education, it will likely win.

The above is IMO the most important point of all.

vayu tuvan wrote:

zengerl wrote:And due to people's complaining and protesting, environment problem has been deemed by the government as the most important issue to take care;

People and government are different?

Followup question:

So, if people didn't protest Govt. would not have deemed it the most important issue even if the people of the republic are dying by the millions which might turn into billions (China has the numbers for millions or even billions)?

China doesn't do anything small. It has to be big; building big three gorge dams, great wall, world's ralgest ..., world's tarrest ..., world's deepest ..., wolrd's most pollluting ... .

zengerl wrote:Well, plenty of them, people's talking and protesting are, de facto, pushing the policy and law making in China; otherwise, what do you think is the force behind the "one child policy" and the abandoning of it? who do you think is behind the "free trade zone" in Shanghai and other cities?

gashish wrote:

zengerl wrote:Well, plenty of them, people's talking and protesting are, de facto, pushing the policy and law making in China; otherwise, what do you think is the force behind the "one child policy" and the abandoning of it? who do you think is behind the "free trade zone" in Shanghai and other cities?

you seriously believe one child policy was lifted due to public protests clamoring for social empowerment or freedom to choose size of the family? Does economic burden of aging population anything to do with it?

Free trade zone in shanghai meant for foreign businesses..a symbol of reform stemmed from public protests..are you for real? Do you even know what organized public protests are?

zengerl wrote:Well, you want to believe this. But the fact is, if that is the case, India would not have allowed china to grow, as terms of GDP per person, from 2/3 to 5 times of India. There got to be something in it, right? The rabbit might not fall asleep ever......

zengerl wrote:if population is the critical factor, China would have been dominating US and any other country on earth for the last 200 years.

amit wrote:

zengerl wrote:Well, you want to believe this. But the fact is, if that is the case, India would not have allowed china to grow, as terms of GDP per person, from 2/3 to 5 times of India. There got to be something in it, right? The rabbit might not fall asleep ever......

Zengeri,

A piece of advice. That kind of one line posts will not earn you respect here, as you colleague Ashi found out. If you want to discuss, do a point by point rebuttal. Most of us will listen to a well argued POV. The rabbit might not fall asleep ever... is a piece of juvenile crap, IMO.

ashi wrote:I am not so hanging on to something that is so past tense. The world is moving and changing. Pick tradionarl clothes as an example. The style of traditional clothes is not stationary in the last thousands years and itself keeps evolving. And most of the traditional clothes is not even convenient for modern daily work, or even going to bathroom.

Singha wrote:engine is the CFM LEAP1c engine. 1st flight is expected in 2016, which is creditable for 1st attempt given initial target was 2014.
honeywell and some other OEMs are involved in the avionics and controls.

http://atwonline.com/engines/first-cfm- ... ered-comac

if 737MAX is heavier or same as the C919, the lesser thrust of leap1b might indicate the 737max is some uber refined design with high composites
http://www.cfmaeroengines.com/engines/leap

LEAP is a true ubermensh specs:DID YOU KNOW?
The LEAP engine will be the first to introduce Ceramics Matrix Composites into commercial service. The engine will feature a CMC shroud in first stage of the high-pressure turbine.

It takes 150,000 miles of carbon fiber to create on LEAP fan blade. One LEAP fan blade is so strong, it can support the weight of a wide-body airplane like the Airbus A350 or Boeing 787.

The LEAP TAPS II combustor reduces NOx emissions by 50% compared to current CFM 56 engines with identical overall pressure ratio.

The unique LEAP debris rejection system helps prevent sand, dirt, and other harmful items from reaching the core. As a result, the LEAP engine stays newer, longer.

zengerl wrote:You have to pay "fee for social burden", which can be up to one year's income. Actually, China has "one child policy" for over 30 years, but still her population has grown from 1 billion to 1.4 billion and is still growing, why? longer life expectancy and a lot of people are have two or three children by paying the fee.