India's economic development is a kind of Tsarist growth, while Sino is an old German type of growth, the basic logic and economic ethics of the two are different, you can certainly make a very rough comparison from the numbers, but someone to compare the two, or even use "endogenous growth" to describe it, is simply a big joke and self-inflicted humiliation. Ironically, to prevaricate with the nonsense that "growth is driven by learning to imitate speed and economic scale" is essentially to say that Africa, India, and Latin America (Brazil) will definitely rise, and Brazil already had this logic of pseudo-endogenous growth during the Vargas era. Of course, learning and imitation is a very important part, all those who have some common sense also know the concept of "learning by doing", but even if you do not start from the endogenous logic of capital - endogenous technology, simply look at this learning speed, it is also a serious change of concept, fast learning speed and whether you have spontaneous creativity has no inevitable relationship, the most important thing in endogenous growth is the production of knowledge, not the replication of knowledge, replication is not creation, not diffusion, just like someone created" "Cultural capital" is the same as some people abusing this concept, capital is to derive more and newer returns, rather than the reproduction and equalization of capital itself. Apparently not.
Don't confuse replication with production, these are two different things.
Brazil used to learn very quickly, after all, its population is much larger than that of any other European country. But can we say that there is any logic of "organic growth" in Brazil? Obviously, it can't, and today's imposition of a top hat on India for certain purposes has to be said to be a disgusting repetition of the old trick. Tsarist Russia used to be relative to Western Europe, and today India is to the West. Of course, there is also a difference between Tsarist Russia and India, one capital account is completely open, and the other is half-open and half-open, but in fact there is not much difference, very simple truth, the 1907 financial crisis, Tsarist Russia was also impacted, and India in 2008 was also severely impacted, the only essential difference lies in two points, politically, Tsarist Russia is an absolute monarchy, and India is a republic; Economically, Tsarist Russia allowed Western European capital to invest in almost all industries and fields such as finance and industry, while India was semi-open and allowed to invest in finance, and industry was actually half-open, but India's internal industry monopolies and restrictions were too much, so industrial investment was meaningless.
The land system of Tsarist Russia was loosened, after Stolypin's reforms, the serf owners were transformed into younger brothers in the general sense, and the interests of India's younger brothers were difficult to shake, and the political significance of land surpassed the general economic significance, so the difficulty of land acquisition for India's new railways and large factories was much higher than that of Tsarist Russia, which was also the reason why the industrial economy of Tsarist Russia developed rapidly, while India was very slow. As long as India is still a republic, then it will be impossible for India to achieve efficient growth in industry, and the industrial growth of Tsarist Russia is obviously based on the inflow of financial capital from Britain, France and Germany, and Tsarist Russia's "speed of learning and imitation" and "economic scale" are also very large. Obviously not. Why, you close the door and see if it's still alive and it's over. In World War I, the economy of Tsarist Russia was only a German-Austrian blockade, cutting off its bulk ** line with Britain, France and the United States, and as a result, the internal currency depreciated, prices soared, and the economy almost collapsed, which is called "endogenous growth"?
Why is the United States endogenous growth? World War II gave an example, Germany, Italy and Japan except for Germany, are not very powerful powers, the threat of global shipping and capital flows caused by them, has made Britain ** cost, the cost of transportation **, and then Britain is basically supported by the United States to walk, Britain before the war to the world ** role to the world must not need to say much, Britain and the United States ** is also very important, Britain after 1941 is completely on credit to live, Germany was blocked, and after the declaration of war with the United States, the United States ** is basically cut off, So is the U.S. economy collapsing? Not at all. ** In essence, it is to earn a surplus, use the real thing to buy the monetary capital that the whole world trusts, capital in hand, can support investment internally, investment produces socialized wage benefits, people take wages to consume, dare to use this as a guarantee to loan consumption, this is a cycle, without foreign trade can not maintain this cycle of the economy, in fact, can not be regarded as endogenous growth.
An economy can be self-sufficient in capital, endogenous capital, can support its basic operation and technological transformation process, this is the possibility of knowledge production, technology endogenous, once this endogenous scale of the emergence, become one of the driving forces that can not be ignored, triggering the social flow of capital, then endogenous growth will be completed, it can be said that an economy in the state of foreign trade cut-off, blockade can still maintain economic growth, technological revolution, this is the real developed countries, is the real endogenous growth economy.
The performance of India's economy in 2008 and during the epidemic is enough to show that India's current state is not fundamentally different from that of Tsarist Russia more than 100 years ago, except that the capital gains generated by India's "financial innovation" and the continuous expansion of its derivatives bubble make the Indian economy look like a certain pseudo-liquidity and pseudo-endogenous style. Finance itself is an industry that is easy to rely on leverage to make huge profits, India's financial industry was first associated with British colonial rule and later opium**, although Mumbai is smelly and dirty, but Mumbai's financial industry is not many years later than Europe. India is a microcosm of a series of backward small and poor countries that hope to make breakthroughs and development in their economies, but the sample of India is large enough. If there is no strong implementation of a series of industrial policies, the vested interests of the land elite are not dared, and there is no good industrial foundation, how can the economy develop? India solves this problem.
India's software outsourcing relied on the bureaucratic education system left over from the British and Indian colonies and the elite positioning of the Brahmins, while the pharmaceutical industry relied on Qin Hui's "low-edged fist advantage" to kill the bodies of poor people who had no dignity at all as a testing ground, in exchange for officially licensed piracy rights, that is, generic drugs. Naturally, India's agriculture does not need to be said, and the main income of Britain and India in the local area is land rent. As long as the income from land rent is invested in any kind of service industry such as commerce, medicine or outsourcing, or financial derivatives, it can be profitable, this is because, although India's 1.4 billion people, more than half of them are tenant farmers who have no status and will never leave the village for a lifetime, but if India's 100 big cities, each city produces 10,000 upper-class people, Brahmins, Kshatriyas, wealthy families, and even some Vaishyas and other rich merchants, it is not surprising that these rich people are enough to consume expensive imports. Each city has another 100,000 middle class, that is, 1 million rich people and 10 million middle class, and the scale of their consumption of imported goods is already considerable.
Suppose a middle-class person spends 10,000 dollars a year, and a rich person spends 100,000 dollars a year, how much is that? That's right, Zhao Ah Jing Ah will all come out. Their main foundation is in the countryside, in the big real estate, and then there is the income from the commercial, transportation, and financial assets invested in the real estate income, and after these returns are multiplied, they earn much more, but on the whole, their capital is flowing out, because they are properly in deficit, so what to do? Then borrow money, but crooked nuts are not stupid, how can they be willing to come and borrow? Of course, these things are financialized, "debt-to-equity swaps". As long as the debt-to-equity swap is completed, you will be able to get a piece of the pie, and you will not be in a hurry to return the principal, but will eat interest every year.
India has always been like this, it has been done since the time of British India, but now it seems to be dressing up itself, but in fact it is changing the soup and not the medicine. India is actually very dependent on foreign capital, but this kind of foreign capital is not the kind of fixed capital renewal of foreign factories seen in SINO, but financial, so India is systematically dependent on external capital, otherwise the monetary income of the Indian elite will also depreciate seriously because there is no collateral, the credit of the currency essentially depends on economic growth, and economic growth is the fundamental collateral, but many economies are highly exogenous, so their collateral has become foreign currency, This is also the essence of the US dollar and other statements, but people generally do not look so deep, so there is the so-called oil, ** and other guarantees, in fact, these commodities are relied on financial market operations to give you the ** to the point that it is not enough to lose everything.
To put it bluntly, it depends on whether the economic growth of the importing country is good or not, and from the abstract meaning to the concrete collateral, the sustainability of the US economic growth is transferred to the US dollar. The essence of de-dollarization is also to shift the collateral of economic growth from the sustainability of US economic growth to the sustainability of its own economic growth, which is ultimately the meaning. The Indian rupee can't do that, essentially because the Indian economy can't grow sustainably without relying on the outside world, right?
SINO's rent economy, naturally there are drawbacks, but in the final analysis, the rent economy, but to promote endogenous springboard, without this internal support, our production socialization can not be done, without this capital accumulation, consumption, investment of an internal circulation flow can not be established, real estate has become a symbol of wealth, it is precisely the docking of bulk consumption and bulk investment, to achieve the internal flow of capital, with this support, the fundamentals of the economy is controllable, Otherwise, most people's income and employment will be affected by external shocks, and the economy will easily collapse. If the economy has been like Japan and South Korea from the very beginning, relying solely on superior exporters, then you have to compromise, and it is not possible to do so without compromise.
In the process of competition, the earliest must be a disadvantage, but why can it last, the main reason is that economic growth does not mainly rely on these, and the internal can give you financial support, so you can maintain a certain investment, to fight against competitors, so the quality of products, production technology, it can be constantly updated, improved, and even can develop new products and new technologies. If we were like Japan and South Korea from the beginning, it would have been suppressed a long time ago, and the period when Japan's own technology was best was precisely the stage when the United States supported it and did not suppress it in any industry. Now, over the years, have you seen major breakthroughs in the field of new technologies in South Korea, an island and Japan, and then formed an industrial advantage? What you don't have at all is eating the old book.
India cannot play with the land rent economy, their land rent economy decision-making is decentralized, and it does not have socialized benefits, let alone form a large-scale investment vector to support industries. Dispersion, that is, each brother cooks his own play with his own, and most of the capital income flow is not used for investment, but for financial rentier and enjoyment of consumption; Socialization, needless to say, they have no wages to the tenant farmers, and even if we regard that pitiful share as wages, it is only enough to feed the stomach, and it does not produce consumption at all; Supporting the industry? They will support a small number of crony capital, such as Tata, Hindustan aviation industry and other semi-bureaucratic capital, but they will not be able to produce any industrial benefits, it belongs to the left pocket in the right pocket out, and there is no meaning, except for the occasion of increasing corruption. This point determines that India must follow the model of Japan, South Korea and a certain island to industrialize, but the question is, what does the West want from India? Is it like now, while eating the first export dividend, while reaching out for the financial dividends of the rich in India, or will it invest in Indian industry in the future and cultivate it like Tsarist Russia or Brazil? If it's the latter, what else can India give to the West in exchange?
The embarrassment is that India can only continue to liberalize capital controls and access regulations, but this will impact the interests of the local elite, and even if it is through the financialization and replacement of the assets of the local elite, and an Indian-style Stolypin reform, then India's industry is still exogenous and not controlled by itself, because they have no safe haven, so they go around in circles, and in the end India's industrialization is just to open the door wide, and then allow Western financial and industrial capital to gain a monopoly position in India, The end of India is a large Poland, and it is not the Indian elite that dominates India, but the West, especially the United States, which is like Tsarist Russia being manipulated by France. If nothing else, India could easily have turned into the Tsarist Russia in World War I, and Britain and France would fight wherever the United States pointed and India would fight, and the result could be imagined. An India, which relies on foreign growth collateral in all walks of life, will only be more vulnerable than it is now, and less likely to meet the criteria for "organic growth." Finally, when India's use value is exhausted, India becomes the next Brazil, and that's it.