Why does tiny Australia kick ass at the Olympics, while giant India flounders?

[Akrasia]

Uhh, India isn't a third world country with rampant starvation. India has world-class engineering and computer science industries, the world's largest film industy, and a huge, modern army and navy, as well as a sophisticated nuclear weapons arsenal. There is, of course wide-spread poverty, but no more than you'd find in your average American ghetto.

Sheeesh, you Americans. Learn something about what lies outside your borders for a change.

Umm ... incorrect, mon ami.

India has a GDP per head of $470. Literacy is 58 percent. It has 0.6 computers per 100 people. It is hardly the high-tech mecha you are suggesting. And there is MUCH more poverty per capita in India than there is in the U.S.

U.S. has a GDP per head of $35,500. Literacy is 99 percent. It has 62.3 computers per 100 people.

As one Canadian to another -- know your facts!

 

[Krieg]

Sheeesh, you Americans. Learn something about what lies outside your borders for a change.

Having actually been to India, I can state with absolute certainty that if you believe the poverty level in India is in any way comparable to that of western industrialized nations....your hold on reality is tenous...at best.

India has made great strides in the past 20 years, but they still have a long way to go.

 

[trancejeremy]

Uhh, India isn't a third world country with rampant starvation. India has world-class engineering and computer science industries, the world's largest film industy, and a huge, modern army and navy, as well as a sophisticated nuclear weapons arsenal. There is, of course wide-spread poverty, but no more than you'd find in your average American ghetto.

Sheeesh, you Americans. Learn something about what lies outside your borders for a change.

Uh, no offense, but you might actually want to visit the US before making a statement like that. Or India.

While India's economy is improving, and they will no doubt be one of the major countries of the 21st century, they're still in transition. The vast majority of people still work in the agriculture industry, and the literacy rate is not especially high (about 50% for women, 70% for men).

I realize that on Canadian TV, the US is often portrayed as backward, with poor people everywhere. But the largest problem facing the poor in the US is obesity. (And our literacy rate is 97%)

India's GDP per capita - around $3000
The US's - $37,000
Canada's - $29,000

 

[talinthas]

I'm an indian. I've been to india many many times.
that said, India is hampered by a super crappy infrastructure, which means that people just don't have the time for training hardcore as demanded by the olympics. When cricket becomes an olympic sport, perhaps this will change. Until then, most indian athletes will be hampered by bad nutrition, bad training facilities, and general problems with funding and time. In school, they spend time learning things that will be able to put food on the table immediatly. The culture on the whole is geared much more towards academics than leisure. People spend their spare time learning english, not platform diving. The sports India tends to excell at (cricket, field hockey) are sports that can be played in the streets with little more than a ball and a few sticks. It is very hard to find the time and money to dedicate yourself to sports while your family depends on your income to survive.


such is the reality of my mother country.

 

[Akrasia]

... I realize that on Canadian TV, the US is often portrayed as backward, with poor people everywhere.

Not true. Most Canadian TV shows are American!

India's GDP per capita - around $3000
The US's - $37,000
Canada's - $29,000

Close for U.S. and Canada -- no where near close for India. Try $470 (at least according to the Economist's data).

India is improving. But is is still a developing country. A small well-educated elite should not be confused with the majority of Indian citizens.

 

[drothgery]

Uh, no offense, but you might actually want to visit the US before making a statement like that. Or India.

While India's economy is improving, and they will no doubt be one of the major countries of the 21st century, they're still in transition. The vast majority of people still work in the agriculture industry, and the literacy rate is not especially high (about 50% for women, 70% for men).

I realize that on Canadian TV, the US is often portrayed as backward, with poor people everywhere. But the largest problem facing the poor in the US is obesity. (And our literacy rate is 97%)

India's GDP per capita - around $3000
The US's - $37,000
Canada's - $29,000

For a few more data points -- China is around $5000. Mexico is around $9000. Poland is around $11000. South Korea is around $17000. Most of western Europe (and Japan) are clustered pretty close to Canada's numbers.

India spends $14 billiion on its military, very nearly exactly what Australia spends. China spends $60 billion. For truly high-quality armed forces -- the US spends $400 billion (with a population of ~300 million), and the UK spends $40 billion (with a population of ~50 million). Australia's armed forces are quite good (probably behind only the US and UK in quality), but very small, even considering that Australia only has about 20 million people.

 

[Andrew D. Gable]

I'm an indian.

I was just gonna say that.

And ditto about the basketball team. I hate Iverson in particular. If that horse's ass ghetto thug could be bothered to PRACTICE once in a while, maybe the "Dream Team" (pshaww!) wouldn't suck. I mean, really... when the rest of the world's amateurs are beating our professionals, well, that tells you something.

I'll ditto what Jimmy Kimmel said about Puerto Rico - as soon as they beat us, we should have made them a state right then and there.

 

[drothgery]

Not true. Most Canadian TV shows are American!



Close for U.S. and Canada -- no where near close for India. Try $470 (at least according to the Economist's data).

India is improving. But is is still a developing country. A small well-educated elite should not be confused with the majority of Indian citizens.

If you use purchasing power parity numbers (which the CIA world factbook does, and so does this http://www.economist.com/countries/India/profile.cfm?folder=Profile%2DEconomic%20Data at the Economist's web site, the ~$3000 number seems to be correct. Purchasing power parity numbers are generally considered more accurate than strict currency conversions.

 

[Akrasia]

For a few more data points -- China is around $5000. Mexico is around $9000. Poland is around $11000. South Korea is around $17000. Most of western Europe (and Japan) are clustered pretty close to Canada's numbers.
....

I know this is a complete thread-jack... ... but I'd be curious to know where people are getting these numbers.

According to the Economist, China has $900 GDP per head, Mexico $6,150, Poland $4,570, and South Korea $8,970.

The U.S. has $ 35,000, Canada $22,390, and Australia $19,070. Most EU countries are around Canada's level. Norway, outside the EU, kicks all kind of arse with $ 37,020. (Switzerland also does better than the EU.)

The Economist is the gold standard for this kind of info. I'd be curious to know where this other data is coming from.

 

[Akrasia]

If you use purchasing power parity numbers (which the CIA world factbook does, and so does this http://www.economist.com/countries/India/profile.cfm?folder=Profile%2DEconomic%20Data at the Economist's web site, the ~$3000 number seems to be correct. Purchasing power parity numbers are generally considered more accurate than strict currency conversions.

Good point!