Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JRI who wrote (7215)	12/8/2002 6:23:10 PM
From: SouthFloridaGuy	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 306849

<India> Wasn't there a huge front-page article in NYT comparing India vs. China (last 20 years) and how India has fallen so far behind...aren't most of benefits in India acrueing to a very small %> No idea about the article. Both China and India have wealth going to a disproportionate part of the population. But what does one expect after 20 years? Is the migrant nomad going to be the one who opens up a factory? Or is he the one who will work at the factory, have one of his kids get a good education, and then have that child do something with his/her life? My point is that it takes time for the benefits of globalization to accrue ESPECIALLY for large countries. However, once large countries accrue economic power, they can shift the balance of power to their favor. America should be very scared of a Russia, China, India axis because entrepreneuers will pander to where the growth IS not where the growth WAS. On a historical note, India fell behind because it attempted to pursue egalitarian, socialist policies, modeled around Marx. Gandhi was a main advocate of these views - a great man, but not a great economist. Unlike China, India is a free country and many of the best and brightest moved out to the US, Canada, UK, and Australia. I don't blame them, but I am sure this played a big role in keeping growth anemic. Now, however, these NRI's (Non Resident Indians) are doing much to guide the policies of the Indian government and play a significant role in promoting free-market initiatives without "selling out" the citizenry to freewheeling speculators like Latin America did. I think this brain drain peaked with the dot com bubble. On a relevant note to the thread topic, I am sure that Indian H1B's played an important role in the real estate bubble in NYC and the Bay Area as they were further fuel to the rental shortage. Now I hear many stories of H1B's not being hired and having to pack up and go home or taking jobs as waiters just to stay in the country. So much for immigrants fueling further price appreciation, eh? I think that by virtue of their large populations, BOTH India and China are the best places to invest for the future. Population growth is a necessary part of economic growth. This is why the United States pursues a near open-door policy and why homogenous societies like Japan are in trouble, because a large portion of the population is ageing and young people are not reproducing. I am rambling now.