Mysterious Sue
Strata Poster
We could be here all night arguing this, and to be honest, I think we are really arguing about the same thing
(I feel quite flattered to finally be in a UC debate ;p)
I'll try and concentrate on a few things
1. This silly wording thing is annoying. Saying something is on the 'way to' a place is very different to talking about 'the road to' something directly, when you can clearly see the destination at the end. I've been to some very nasty places on the way to things (Metz on the way into Paris being a notable one) but that wasn't really the character behind what I was saying.
2. I don't see why a country's total monetary output alone defines a country's growth. In fact, that's why per capita is such a useful tool, because it lets you look at the distribution of wealth across ALL the population. Bringing this back to theme parks, I'm sure that India's high earners will pose enough demand for several large theme parks in the coming years (we've already seen the start of modern, 'Western style' parks such as Wonda La outside Bangalore). However, we are comparing to China whose middle class now accounts for over 20% of the population (if you count middle class as families having a third or more of their income to spend on whatever they want). The sheer and increasing number of people who can afford to go to parks is encouraging investment that I don't think we've yet seen the like of anywhere else in the world. India meanwhile, has had difficulty in breaking out of its class system because of the historical caste hierarchy (which I will not pretend to know anything about) and so cannot, as yet, sustain the same level of growth.
3. You talk about the Chinese inability to spend money on what they want and that India's sense of democracy will somehow allow the poor more of a chance to use their money on leisure activities. I think this is very misguided. China is not the place it was in the 80s. Yes, the government does control much of the industry (but then, that is true in India as well), but it doesn't go into people's homes and tell people what to spend their cash on. And they have cash, unlike much of the Indian population living in a country with, as you say, such a high total GDP. Socialism is by no means dead in China, but the country is in many ways, very much a thriving capitalist arena now. There are a huge number of firms that are not controlled by the government, theme parks included! You seem to be mistaking China for N Korea again!
4. Finally, if you're being sarcastic with 'because a sign of how developed a country is or is becoming is whether or not they're candidates for "cred trips"' then I think you've missed the point. That is after all, what this topic (and indeed, this whole site) is about. I'm not writing for the UN here. Everything comes back to creds for us! I don't see why the growth of a pursuit that clearly shows the healthiness of an economy can't be an indicator of 'development'
(and yes I know 'development' is hard to define, that's why I've been putting it in quotation marks the whole time)
(I feel quite flattered to finally be in a UC debate ;p)
I'll try and concentrate on a few things
1. This silly wording thing is annoying. Saying something is on the 'way to' a place is very different to talking about 'the road to' something directly, when you can clearly see the destination at the end. I've been to some very nasty places on the way to things (Metz on the way into Paris being a notable one) but that wasn't really the character behind what I was saying.
2. I don't see why a country's total monetary output alone defines a country's growth. In fact, that's why per capita is such a useful tool, because it lets you look at the distribution of wealth across ALL the population. Bringing this back to theme parks, I'm sure that India's high earners will pose enough demand for several large theme parks in the coming years (we've already seen the start of modern, 'Western style' parks such as Wonda La outside Bangalore). However, we are comparing to China whose middle class now accounts for over 20% of the population (if you count middle class as families having a third or more of their income to spend on whatever they want). The sheer and increasing number of people who can afford to go to parks is encouraging investment that I don't think we've yet seen the like of anywhere else in the world. India meanwhile, has had difficulty in breaking out of its class system because of the historical caste hierarchy (which I will not pretend to know anything about) and so cannot, as yet, sustain the same level of growth.
3. You talk about the Chinese inability to spend money on what they want and that India's sense of democracy will somehow allow the poor more of a chance to use their money on leisure activities. I think this is very misguided. China is not the place it was in the 80s. Yes, the government does control much of the industry (but then, that is true in India as well), but it doesn't go into people's homes and tell people what to spend their cash on. And they have cash, unlike much of the Indian population living in a country with, as you say, such a high total GDP. Socialism is by no means dead in China, but the country is in many ways, very much a thriving capitalist arena now. There are a huge number of firms that are not controlled by the government, theme parks included! You seem to be mistaking China for N Korea again!
4. Finally, if you're being sarcastic with 'because a sign of how developed a country is or is becoming is whether or not they're candidates for "cred trips"' then I think you've missed the point. That is after all, what this topic (and indeed, this whole site) is about. I'm not writing for the UN here. Everything comes back to creds for us! I don't see why the growth of a pursuit that clearly shows the healthiness of an economy can't be an indicator of 'development'
(and yes I know 'development' is hard to define, that's why I've been putting it in quotation marks the whole time)
.
