Canada vs. India

Before you think about how India has a population near China and may one day corner the sweatshop industry, consider the following comparisons:

Economy

Nominal GDP
India-9th
Canada-10th

Nominal per Capita
Canada-10th
India-135th

Purchasing Power Parity
India-4th
Canada-14th

Purchasing Power Parity Per Capita
Canada-14th
India-127th


Health

Human Development Index
Canada-Tied 4th
India-120th

Health Expenses Per Capita
Canada-6th
India-145th

Overall Life Expectancy
Canada-Tied 9th
India-129th


Athletics
Many notable athletes in various sports, particularly winter.
Many notable athletes in Cricket and Field Hockey.

Summer Olympics last 30 years
Canada-32 Gold, 53 Silver, 53 Bronze, 138 Total. (Did not participate in 1980)
India-2 Gold, 1 Silver, 4 Bronze, 7 Total.

Winter Olympics
Canada has won numerous medals at the winter olympics, India has won none due to the different climates of the countries.
Canada did recently break the record for most Gold Medals at the winter olympics in 2010.

Notable Current World Rankings Canada
#1 Curling
#2 Hockey
#7 Baseball
#13 Rugby (Union)
#16 Cricket
#20 Volleyball

The above is just for men, women rank #2 in hockey and curling and #3 in baseball.

Notable Current World Rankings India
#2 Cricket
#10 Field Hockey


Intellectual

Nobel Prize
Canada-7 in Chemistry, 4 in Medicine, 3 in Economics, 3 in Physics, 2 in Peace, 1 in Literature, 20 Total
India-2 in Physics, 1 in Medicine, 1 in Chemistry, 1 in Economics, 1 in Literature, 1 in Peace, 7 Total

Literacy
Canada-Tied 12th at 99.0%
India-120th at 74.04%

Percent of GDP spent on education
Canada-Tied 19th at 5.2%
India-Tied 50th at 4.1%


Military

Total Military Spending
India-10th
Canada-13th

Military Spending Per Capita
Canada-19th
India-35th

% of GDP on military
India-Tied 26th at 2.8%
Canada-Tied 35th at 1.5%


Other

Crime statistics and corruption are hard to track in India so whatever statistics one may find will be largely misleading. What is generally accepted is theft and murder in India is much higher than in Canada on a per capita basis. Prostitution and rape statistics are as well difficult to calculate but generally accepted to be higher than in Canada. Government corruption is generally accepted and one stat that is measurable is the amount of assassinated political figures in India and Canada. Canada has only had one notable politician murdered in the last hundred years while India has had two Prime Ministers assassinated, one while in office and a third who is considered to have been killed in office but unverified.

India, duh.

Deflated GDP per capita growth, 1980 - 2010
India: 259%
Canada: 52%

Literacy Growth, 1950-2010
India: 242%
Canada: Neglible

Life Expectancy Growth, 1960-2010
India: 53%
Canada: 13%

India has been more successful this past half century.

Surely you will say "Well India had really shitty initial values for those variables, of course their rates of growth are high."

To which I will say: "Exactly."

Nets wrote:

India, duh.

Deflated GDP per capita growth, 1980 - 2010
India: 259%
Canada: 52%

Literacy Growth, 1950-2010
India: 242%
Canada: Neglible

Life Expectancy Growth, 1960-2010
India: 53%
Canada: 13%

India has been more successful this past half century.

Surely you will say "Well India had really shitty initial values for those variables, of course their rates of growth are high."

To which I will say: "Exactly."

Hard to improve upon perfection. You imply it's better for a fat kid to lose weight and become an average kid by health than for a skinny kid to build himself and remain stout. But I guess in this case India's the starving kid who can now eat at least half a meal a day, good for him.

I don't see how that makes India more successful in any way. To succeed is to be competitive against the rest of the world, India has not, although I guess they produce the second most amount of shoddy products after China.

You said, who has been more successful over the last fifty years, implying we should normalize 1962 to zero and evaluate the performance of each country relative to 1962.

Why should the fact that Canada was a super-wealthy country fifty years ago and is still super wealthy today have be impressive at all? India was destitute fifty years and is now rapidly moving into middle-income territory. That is impressive.

It seems that the only thing you want to hear is that Canada is rich, White, first-world country endowed with many natural and financial resources not available to others. Hooray, Canada.

Try to imagine if Britain had treated all of its imperial possessions equally, and Canada had been treated the same as India.

Other: This thread has been open by a Gorkiy-whore, who should be forbidden to ever leave that (red) zone.

Canada. It is far better than a nation composed of one billion annoying call center operators and the nuclear weapons to keep us all from going over there and sticking their headsets up their collective asses.

Other: success is relative, so it is impossible to answer objectively...

Begrudgingly Canada, cause I dont like the Curries.

Nets wrote:

You said, who has been more successful over the last fifty years, implying we should normalize 1962 to zero and evaluate the performance of each country relative to 1962.

Why should the fact that Canada was a super-wealthy country fifty years ago and is still super wealthy today have be impressive at all? India was destitute fifty years and is now rapidly moving into middle-income territory. That is impressive.

It seems that the only thing you want to hear is that Canada is rich, White, first-world country endowed with many natural and financial resources not available to others. Hooray, Canada.

Try to imagine if Britain had treated all of its imperial possessions equally, and Canada had been treated the same as India.

You have a warped view of success there my friend.

It's nice for India that it's come out of the gaping hole they were in 1948 but they haven't exactly crawled out of it.

Impressive? Please. You want impressive turnarounds you look at West Germany, in just 20 years the country went from ruins to substantial relevance and was a regional power by the 1970s.

I'll also restate that the growth is misleading because much of the gains India has made goes towards the very few who control the wealth and benefits.

Consider that 100 million AT MOST are living in decent conditions while about 30 million are living in luxury.

In a country of 1.2 billion that's less than 10% of citizens that aren't starving or suffering illness due to avoidable crap in much of the developed world.

Canada has maintained and Canada has continued to grow on the world stage.

In terms of science, engineering and athletics, etc, etc.

And for a country of only 30 million Canada is immensely successful.

Lexington wrote:

It's a bit different to come out of the ruins of factories that you knew how to work and run, rebuild them, and work and run them again, than for a country that never had them to begin with to build them and run them.

India's a 3rd world country and will remain far behind the world powers for decades to come because only a small fraction of the population is doing well.

You seem to realize that successful countries tend to be well round.

India is not well rounded at all.

Like I said, I'm not impressed with anything they've done and that includes the nuclear bomb.

Think about it, they have nukes and a space program yet more than half of the population lives in piss poor conditions and crime is apart of life for most of the citizens.

That's not success.

Lexington wrote:

I mean, if you had to live fifty years in a third world country in 1948, which one would you live in? And don't say Singapore because that was my answer already.

Cuba probably, at least my health and reading would be fine despite the mass poverty. Same cannot be said of India.

But really you can pick several of the oil rich Arab nations.

The UAE for one, primarily Abu Dhabi of the TS.

I voted other : Lightman's rule apply

What next Bangladesh vs Germany

Edit : Lexington already mentioned Uk vs Kenya, oh well.

How often do countries and economies fall?
Not temporary dips, but hard falls (like Japan's economy in the 90s) and permanent losses (like Serbia's loss of Kosovo)?

Should the possibility of a fall be taken into account when thinking about success? If Canada is to get credit for being stable and not falling then so should India. Should this credit be valued differently for a well-to-do country that has maintained that status then a country that was poor and undeveloped and has made huge strides in development?

If they should be taken into account and valued differently, then once again India gets the nod. First world nations rarely fall, undeveloped nations are known to fall and routinely falter yet India hasn't fallen.


India's achievements over the last 50 years compared to where they were are far more impressive then Canada's over that same 50 years. That being said, the average immigrant/2nd Gen/local in Canada 50 years ago or now probably has a better life then their counter parts in India.

Obviously India!

India has a larger economy that is growing 7% every year, a larger military spending and a population(!), that's pretty much the only three things which really matter.

Canada is an open and capitalist society, but the socialist influences are increasing fast-paced. Canada has a decreasing native population, massive immigration coming mainly from India, Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hizbollah. A socialist nihilist hedonist youth who just want "to party", abort their own kids and indulge into drugs and promiscuity. A demographic bomb. The ones who were rioting in Vancouver will be Canada's next leaders and politicians.
While in India the youth is religious, conservative and is getting forged to lead India inside Europe's best Universities. Indians are extremely good at maths and logical thinking.

Just like decadent Europe, Canada is dying. India is surging.

Go, India!

I voted India.

All of Canada's "success" the last half century has been the result of Western colonialism and environmental vandalism.

India has accomplished more with less.

What kind of stupid question is this? It would be more interesting to compare Brazil and India, rising stars, not a rich-ass country with low population density and lots of natural resources to a country that was owned by another country 70 years ago and has hundreds of millions of people.