Quote from stud_loser:
Part of what you said is true. But uncertainty about future shouldn't prevent us from giving credit to the economies which are doing well today. That way(some people might argue) the future of Chinese economy looks even shakier. And speaking of China, 60 years ago who knew this is how Chinese economy would turn out to be.
There are ways of telling.
If you read Jane Jacobs and know of the places she wrote about, you'll be very surprised at just how accurate her projections into the future were. She wasn't perfect, but she was certainly better than the average contributor to ET, or sainted icons like Jim Rogers or Marc Faber.
The way to tell is simple: does it have a complex economy that constantly adds new industries? China passes that test with flying colors. India and Australia don't.
She would have been far harsher in her judgment of Australia than I've been. Also, she probably would have turned out to be right, if we all could live another fifty years and look back and see.
But I tend to be optimistic. India, I think, will muddle along, but it won't get much further than, say, Mexico, which also manages to muddle along from one generation to the next.
The reason why is the same in both cases: neither will allow modern business practices in because neither can afford to. They simply have too many young people who need work, and that means they will simply have to forego putting in place the modern technology that allows people to be used as efficiently as possible.
Put in the way Jane Jacobs would put it: neither India nor Mexico have enough vibrant cities to absorb their populations. Mexico has Mexico City and Guadalajara, and that's it. India has Mumbai, and maybe Chennai, and after that, the rest live at one remove from the West, living off outsourcing. There's only so far that will go.
