Is India a better investment than China?

india is a better investment then china, im no economist but id rather live in india over china and its starting to look like america is going to become one or the other........

India is a friend and ally whereas China is a clear and present threat to our economy and security. The Chinese people themselves are not the problem but their oppressive communist regime is.

In Uncertain Times it's best to Diversify rather than Put All Your Eggs in One Basket.
But keep Caveat Emptor in mind too, melamine in milk & spyware in consumer (& classified military) electronics should give one pause.

Big potential to build a thorium (can't be made into weapons & no carbon) breeder power industry in India, they have plenty of it. They will overtake China in population in a few decades and they are a democracy (barely) while China is totalitarian. Your choice.

I don't have any investments in either India or China. I don't have any hate on with them its just that I've concentrated elsewhere.

Both are bad.

Why?

To make it short and sweet, why give China another angle of us being dependent on them and India, although now is considered the 4th most powerful nation, is still not that distant of the olden days as a third world country and even still, they aren't excelling in taking care of their impoverished in their own homeland. I don't trust either country through investments or anything else.

I see. Read my other article on why I think investing in other nations is a good idea.http://politicoid.blogsp...

More like "other" Again, free trade with all, entangling alliances with none.

Well that's how we handle that; we get rid of government aid, etc and simply invest ourselves.

I definitely think India is the better investment and I also think that it's worth investing in other nations.

As long as you are talking about private firms voluntarily investing in private enterprise in India. On that, I'm not qualified to have an opinion. However, I am completely opposed to the GOVERNMENT "investing" in either, for the reason listed above.

I THINK that's what you are saying, but just making sure we are on the same page.

Oh of course. Here, I posted on that too http://politicoid.blogspot.co...

Of course, I do my best to cover every angle lol

As stated in my answer, better to diversify when uncertain.

The problem with shipping jobs overseas isn't that Americans are somehow more deserving of jobs than others, but that labor in some foreign countries tends to be cheaper because of various human rights abuses. As such, making those human rights abuses economically advantageous to those countries perpetuates authoritarianism by corrupt governments. India is slightly better in this regard than China.

Ever stayed in a Chinese motel?

Nope.

This where all the jobs and investment will go if Romney is elected.

No worse than Obama. http://politicoid.blogspot.co...

If I remember correctly, it was Bush's policies that shipped jobs overseas and cost us 8 million jobs. We have had net gains for the last 3 1/2 years...haven't we? Romney has asked Bush strategists to shape his economic policies for his campaign...now why would we want to go back to that?

The policies that cost jobs in America are not Bush's or Republicans or Democrats alone. They were policies of government meddling in the housing market and that should never have happened.

I am talking about Obama's current support of a massive corrupt multinational corporation like GE which has a habit of shipping jobs overseas.

Think it is Obama who is in favor of closing tax loopholes for all corporations and giving tax incentives for those who bring jobs home. I also don't think it was the housing market alone that caused the problem. That was one cause. The lack of banking and investing polices on Wall Street was a big part of the equation.

Only certain corporations would be effected by that; odds are GE won't be. I get it, as long as it's "your guy" in charge you're fine. He can continue to give away hundreds of billions of dollars to corrupt bank and corporations.

It's Democrats like you and Republicans like those who support Romney that have been so well trained into being obedient slaves to the Republocratic machine that are allowing this country to be destroyed.

http://politicoid.blogspot.co...
http://politicoid.blogspot.co...

If you read the first link, good. If not then you should. Read the second one on how Baucus with the help of Obama destroyed 1,000 small businesses on behalf of big tobacco.

I think you have me confused with someone else...it's not fine, no matter who's in office. I don't' agree with everything President Obama does. I don't support corporate welfare for any company. Just given the choices, I'd go with Obama before I go with Romney.

With Romney the floodgates would be wide open. I see you are a Libertarian, which is fine with me. I get into it all the time with a guy on my job who is also one. He supports states rights, I don't. I am African American and the states have a bad history with my people. So, you can see my hesitation to support the states. He also thinks businesses should be able to refuse to serve anyone they like. I don't' support that because it's segregationist to me.

I'm sure if I read info on any single candidate, they have enacted some sort of policy that adversely affected one portion of the population while benefiting another.

Your choice is a false one. Republicans and Democrats work together to destroy the middle class.

If you want a real choice then go with someone besides the machine. You really think the floodgates aren't open now? Look at this nation, we've had nearly 4 years of stagnation as well as multiple assaults on the middle class and small business by this administration as it continues the policies of bailing out big business and a corrupt banking industry.

As for the issue with segregation, that was a policy of authoritarians thinking that they can control people and yes it did happen in many states, but it also didn't in many states, now let's compare that to the internment of all Japanese American citizens, the destruction of their families and property which occurred in an instant on the federal level as well as the recent destruction of 1,000 small businesses and over 8,000 jobs which also occurred in an instant at the federal level.

Over time local governments move towards protecting the citizens but the opposite is true on the federal level. And if you think the change in civil rights has effected anything then you need to look at the ratio of non whites to whites in the prison system. All the federal government did was push it below the surface.

Ok, who's the best choice? Let me guess Paul? He doesn't have a chance of winning. Why cast a vote for a candidate that has no chance, and potentially give Romney a vote? I want my vote to count.

Actually I'd go with Gary Johnson over Paul since he's more socially moderate. Whether or not he has a chance of winning or not is irrelevant. You have to vote for a good candidate not one that you think will do a little less damage. If everyone did that then we would never have another Romney or Obama.

Well, we both know that would be great in a dream world, but who even knows who Gary Johnson is? I sure the held don't

That's because you're too obsessed with ensuring the party that you've dedicated yourself to wins instead of finding a candidate that's good.

Again, if people stopped acting like you are acting then it wouldn't be a dream to assume that a decent candidate would win.

Ok, I'm sorry that you are disappointed with "people like me". I just happen to disagree with you. I don't support the Libertarian platform. We have big philosophical differences, something that my Libertarian colleague at work cannot respect either.

He talks the same way you do, and I'm sure it's because you are passionate about what you believe in. That's ok, but the rhetoric and brow-beating isn't going to help sway anyone.

It's partially because I am passionate about what I believe but it's also because I am sick and tired of the Republicans and Democrats destroying this country.

It's not rhetoric; it's simple truth. Republicans and Democrats created the situation that led to the recession. Republicans and Democrats bailed out massive corporations and failed banks. Republicans and Democrats wage war when they don't have to. Republicans and Democrats create hostile situations which destroy small business.

I agree with you on those points, it's just that I don't' agree with the Libertarian philosophy as a whole. I don't' believe in reducing government to the point that you all believe it should be.

There need to be regulations in place, and not just leave things up to the "free market". I don't' trust the airlines to police themselves, neither do I trust the oil companies to police themselves either. There also should be limitation placed on what government agencies can do. I am more of a moderate, and hate anything that is extreme...right or left.

I'm a moderate. I can handle some regulations on the local level because we are still somewhat in control of that, but as my posts clearly state federal regulations lead to destruction of small business.

I do think we need some federal regulations to keep things honest among the states. What if one state decides they want to enact policies or regulations that violate the rights of others or hurt some businesses and help others?

That's the only purpose of the federal government or at least it was supposed to be. The federal government exists to ensure that the states work together, nothing more. They should not be regulating whether or not roll your own cigarette shops should be in existence, building roads, etc

I agree with you on those points, but the states depend tremendously on federal funds for road construction and repair. Without it, the states couldn't keep up those roads, pay for natural disasters.

That's because the federal government has made them dependent on those funds. The federal government uses those funds like a drug to keep the states under their control just like they use welfare funds to keep the poor under their control.

The state can refuse to take those funds, just like Texas and other states are refusing funds for the Healthcare Act.

Except that in the case of health care it puts an increased burden on them because they would need to expand the programs as well. In the case of transportation, as it stands right now they can not afford to lose those funds.

That's how the national drinking age was established actually. The federal government threatened to take away funding to states that did not set it to 21.

The plan would put no extra cost on the states for the first three years. It's 100% paid for by Federal funds then 90% there after.

Why can't the states pay for their own road and transportation costs?