[2020-02-21]印度发展的正确道路是什么？像中国那样的出口拉动增长，还是像美国的消费拉动增长？

Balaji Viswanathan,Knowledge lover.
There are different schools of thought. One group of thought - held by the Indian government - is that China like model is more suitable to bring the poor out of lower rungs. While IT and finance might bring a lot of revenues & GDP addition, they don't employ the poor. Export led manufacturing has worked in a lot of countries - US, Europe, Japan, China, Korea - in the past and thus is a proven model.Another group of thought - held by the head of India's Reserve Bank - is that the China like model can no longer work. The global economy is far slower than India's domestic economy and thus it is pragmatic to focus on serving the domestic economy. This might help manage inflation better and might even offer faster growth.To understand these different schools of thought, you need to understand the fundamental objectives and strains. It is the job of the government to primarily focus on employment. No one else can do that. No jobs, no votes. On the other hand, RBI doesn't really care about jobs. It is not in its objective or mission. Its mission is to control inflation and rupee. Thus, the government makes an emotional appeal focusing on jobs, while the RBI makes a more logical approach of focusing on inflation. Export led policy would weaken currency and increase inflation. RBI doesn't like inflation. The question is between jobs and inflation and this is fundamentally all major economies face. The Prime Minister, like an entrepreneur, wants to gamble taking the China route. His banker says na! na! na!In my personal opinion, we need to try a little more of the China model. US used to be the world's top exporter for a long time. Japan used that route too. It helps the poor better. Especially when companies are trying to cut costs during a slow down, India could potentially offer cheaper manufacturing in some sectors.

Balaji Viswanathan，知识爱好者
有不同的经济思想流派。印度政府持有的一种观点认为，类似中国的模式更适合帮助穷人摆脱贫困。 虽然信息技术和金融可能会带来大量收入和提高GDP，但这些企业并不雇佣穷人。过去，出口导向型制造业在美国、欧洲、日本、中国、韩国等许多国家取得了成功，因此这是一种有效运作的模式。印度央行行长提出的另一种观点认为，类似中国的模式已行不通了。全球经济增速远远落后于印度的国内经济增速，因此专注于为国内经济服务是实在的。这可能有助于更好地控制通胀，甚至可能带来更快的增长。要理解这些不同的思想流派，你需要了解基本目标和压力。政府的工作主要是关注就业。没有人能做到这一点。没有就业机会，就没有选票。
另一方面，印度央行并不真正关心工作。这不是它的目标或使命。它的任务是控制通货膨胀和货币。因此，政府在情感上呼吁关注就业问题，而印度储备银行在关注通胀问题上采取了更为合乎逻辑的做法。出口导向型政策将会削弱货币并增加通货膨胀。印度储备银行不喜欢通货膨胀。问题在于就业和通货膨胀之间，这是所有主要经济体基本都面临的问题。总理就像一个企业家一样，想要冒险走中国之路。但他的银行家说：不！不要！我个人认为，我们应该多尝试一些中国模式。长期以来，美国一直是世界上最大的出口国。 日本也是这样做的。这能更好地帮助穷人。 尤其是当企业努力在经济放缓期间削减成本时，印度有可能在某些领域，可以提供更廉价的制造业。

Sandeepan Bose
Export led growth always leads to two outcomes.
* Upside revaluation of the currency leading to export being non-competitive.
* Upward growth of standard of living pushes up the wages of local employees making exports non-competitive.
We see the same story in Japan, South Korea. They had to from the EU to beat the issue. USA too had to give up many manufacturing jobs to China and the rest of the world.
China has managed to keep its currency problem in control by making its currency non-convertible. It is still grappling with upward moving wages and worse it is facing a demographic issues with very few youth joining the ranks.
The internal consumption growth model is not as easy as it sounds. With intense globalisation around the world it is difficult to keep your country hermetically sealed from global financial influences. Consumption path of growth becomes risky.

Sandeepan Bose
出口导向型增长通常会导致两种结果。
* 货币升值导致出口失去竞争力。
* 生活水平的提高抬高了本地雇员的工资，使出口失去竞争力。
我们在日本、韩国也看到了同样的情况。 他们不得不从欧盟来解决这个问题。 美国也不得不放弃许多制造业工作岗位，给中国和世界其他国家。中国通过让人民币不可自由兑换，成功地控制了人民币问题。 中国仍在努力应对工资上涨的问题，更糟糕的是，中国面临着人口问题，年轻人越来越少。
内部消费增长的模式并不像听起来那么简单。随着世界范围内全球化的加剧，很难让你的国家与全球金融影响完全隔绝。 消费增长之路变得危险。

Coming back to the question asked I have to choose between the two options export or internal consumption.
Well, if your country does not have enough people with disposable income to consume non-essential goods and services then you have to go the export way. but to participate in the export market you need to be open to foreign vendors selling in your own country, isn’t that fair? Are we ready for it?
Also, India does not seem to have the natural resources to provide basic commodities for the entire world. We need to ensure that if we are exporting goods are adding value to our natural resources, we are making good margin on it and not selling it cheap.
The problem with managing the two points above is making policy changes. It is very difficult to do that in a country ruled by a democracy and parliamentary democracy on top of that. We are always stepping on someone’s toes and then spending a lot of time making amends.

回到刚才提到的问题，我必须在出口和内部消费这两个选项之间做出选择。
好吧，如果你的国家没有足够的可支配收入，来消费非必需品和服务，那么你不得不走出口的道路。但是要进入出口市场，你必须对在你自己国家销售的外国供应商开放，这不是很公平吗？难道我们准备好了吗？
此外，印度似乎没有为全世界提供基本商品的自然资源。 我们需要确保，我们正在出口的商品，能为我们的自然资源增加价值，我们就可以利用它赚取不错的利润，而不是廉价出售。
管理上述两点的问题在于做出政策改变。在一个民主和议会民主的国家，要做到这一点是非常困难的。 我们总是踩到别人的脚趾，然后花很多时间来弥补。

United States did not grow on self consumption alone. The US forces has been engaged in operations all across the globe. Do you find US people complaining about it except at the conceptual level? Can you imagine what would happen if Indian leadership decided to tried to prove its hegemony at least on this side of the planet through military means? May be we could have pulled it off but as things stand it does not help at all.
However as globalisation was pushed deeper it was unusual to see Indian companies gobble up international companies. So here is the way to go forward. India needs to invest in greenfield technologies. And when you want to bring a product into the market, do not think about Indian market only. Think about the International market. That is how South Korea, Japan, China or EU entrepreneurs conceive their product marketing strategies.

美国的经济增长并不仅仅依靠自我消费。美国军队一直在全球范围内执行任务。 除了在概念层面上，你有没有发现美国人对此有所抱怨？ 你能想象如果印度领导人决定至少在地球的这一边，通过军事手段来证明自己的霸权，会发生什么吗？ 也许我们本可以得逞的，但目前的情况来看，这一点用也没有。
然而，随着全球化进程的加深，印度企业吞并国际企业的情况并不常见。 所以这里有一条发展的道路，印度需要投资绿地技术。 当你想把产品推向市场时，不要只考虑印度市场。 想想国际市场。 这就是韩国、日本、中国或欧盟的企业家构思他们产品的营销战略。

Recently, India has made some changes in the Direct Taxes act and apparently if a company invests money in semiconductor foundry it can write off the investment against profits according to its schedule. And guess who are the parties that are planning to take the offer. Semiconductor foundry is a huge commitment and the investor needs to have nerves and balls of steel. You want to design and manufacture a chip, you have to see the whole world as its market. Does any Indian investor have that kind of a vision. Imagine, today the largest crane in the world is designed and manufactured in China. And it had to start on that venture keeping the entire world as its target market. Can we expect Indian salesmen to sell a crane like that to a country like Sweden?
Conclusion: We can go for exports led growth, but I do not want to sell $1 fidget spinners ( Man, I swear, that toy must be making millions worth of FX earnings for China ) . I want India to export all the top of the line goods that require high tech. Why couldn’t Modi spend a few lakh crores of dollars to spend on development of Indian Bullet train. It isn’t rocket science.

最近，印度对直接税法案进行了一些修改，显然，如果一家公司投资半导体代工厂，它可以根据计划冲销投资利润。猜猜哪个是计划接受这个提议的政党。半导体代工是一项巨大的投入，投资者需要有钢铁般的意志和勇气。 你想要设计和制造一个芯片，你必须把整个世界看作它的市场。 有哪个印度投资者有这样的抱负吗。想象一下，今天世界上最大的起重机是在中国设计和制造的。 而且它必须冒险，把整个世界作为它的目标市场。我们能指望印度推销员把那样的起重机卖给像瑞典这样的国家吗？
结论: 我们可以追求出口导向型的增长，但我不想卖1美元的玩具(我发誓，那些玩具一定为中国赚取数百万美元的外汇收入)。我希望印度出口所有需要高科技的顶级产品。为什么莫迪不能拿出几十亿美元比来发展印度的子弹头列车呢？这不是火箭科学。

Anand Maralad
GDP or the economic output depends on two factors at the root: higher labor force utilization (employment levels) and productivity. Exports will surely help in the beginning but not much as the economy grows.Let us take a look at the data.Exports % of GDP (Source: World Bank)One needs to note that US which is bigger economy than India and China does not depend on exports like the former countries do. Do you know why?Let us do some basic reasoning.1. One country's exports are other country's consumption. Exports will grow as long as demand (consumption) in other countries go up. Having surplus labor at lower cost is an enabler but cannot drive demand for exports. In 2009, global trade data took a big hit as the biggest consumer in the world (US) was going through a financial crisis though wages had remained same in rest of the exporting world. Studying how trade surplus in Germany has created depression in smaller economies of European Union countries would help one understand this better.

Anand Maralad
GDP或经济产出取决于两个基本因素：更高的劳动力利用率(就业水平)和生产率。出口在一开始肯定会有所帮助，但随着经济的增长，帮助不大。让我们来看一下数据（如上图）。出口占国内生产总值的百分比(资料来源: 世界银行)，需要注意的是，比印度和中国经济规模更大的美国并不像前几个国家那样依赖出口。你知道为什么吗。让我们来推理一下：
1、一个国家的出口是另一个国家的消费。只要其他国家的需求(消费)增加，出口就会增长。以较低的成本利用剩余劳动力是一个推动因素，但不能推动出口需求。2009年，全球贸易数据遭受重创，因为全球最大的消费国(美国)正在经历一场金融危机，尽管其它出口国的工资水平一直保持不变。 研究德国的贸易顺差是如何导致欧盟小经济体陷入萧条的，将有助于我们更好地理解这一点。

2. Exports boost local economy in by providing jobs and creating investments (which will have trickle down effect). As the economy expands, wages tend to catch up. Investments in infra and in upgrading skill sets of labor force will help take up productivity to offset the increase in wages. But the productivity gains become harder to come by as the gap reduces across nations and a parity reaches. Then exports seem to lose attractiveness. Call centers seem to be uninteresting business for India now in comparison to last decade.Exports surely help in quicker expansion of the economy but they bring in few risks (and dependency) to growth too. When exports are not doing good, artificial measures to prop up exports or lending to customers may not always yield positive results such as Germany lending to Greece. Not just exports but all the components of an economy have to be managed well for a healthy economy.Cash Flow in an economic system:This would mean if India or China wants to do better or reduce gap with US, focusing only on exports will not let achieve that. Making the components in the inner circle bigger so the international trade (which is still required) does not affect employment levels or purchasing power parity in the future in odd situations. Think of what damage lower crude oil will be making to oil exporting countries. Dependency on exports may not always work so balancing it out would help in keeping the stability of economy.India will have to become more competitive with exports as it has surplus labor (unemployment level) but as the economic base expands exports as a % GDP will top out too. So be prepared for that. Unlike for China, India's exports are lower than its imports. Given the scenario, it is better for India to have investments which will avoid imports. This will provide a stable (less dependent) economic growth.

2、通过提供就业和创造投资(这会产生涓滴效应)，出口促进了当地经济的发展。随着经济的扩张，工资往往会跟上。在基础设施和提升劳动力技能方面的投资，将有助于提高生产率，抵消工资的增长。但是，随着各国之间的差距逐渐缩小，并达到平均水平，生产率的提高变得更加难以实现。出口似乎失去了吸引力。与过去十年相比，呼叫中心现在对印度来说似乎是一个乏味的行业。出口肯定有助于加快经济扩张，但它们对经济增长带来的风险(和依赖性)也很少。 当出口表现不好时，人为的支持出口或向客户放贷的措施可能并不总是会产生积极的效果，比如德国向希腊放贷。
为了一个健康的经济，不仅是出口部分，经济的所有组成部分都必须有良好的管理。经济系统中的现金流：意味着，如果印度或中国想要做得更好，或者缩小与美国的差距，仅仅关注出口是无法实现的。 扩大核心圈的组成部分，这样国际贸易(现在仍然需要)，就不会影响未来各种奇怪情况下的就业率或购买力平价。 想想原油价格下跌，会对石油出口国造成什么样的损害。 依赖出口并不总能奏效，因此平衡出口，才有助于保持经济的稳定。印度必须在出口方面变得更有竞争力，因为它有过剩的劳动力(失业率)，但随着经济基础扩大出口，出口占GDP的百分比也将达到最高点。所以现在就做好准备。与中国不同，印度的出口低于进口。 考虑到这种情况，印度最好进行能够避免进口的投资。 这将会带来一个稳定(较少依赖)的经济发展。

Jimmy Gao , voracious reader of the history of China
As far as I undsertand, China's export led growth is largely premised on its enormous base of educated work force, the mjority of who has received at least compulsory junior high school education (year 9) and its rather complete and sound infrastructure such as railways, roads, ports etc which are critical in terms of efficiently amd cheaply transporting raw materials and also shipping manufactured goods out. Many people tend to ignore the importance of the latter, arguing that China will soon lose its world factory title due to its ever rising labor costs. But foreign investments in China are still increasing because of its good infrastructures that could deliver goods on time and on budget. I am not sure about the education in India. But one thing I do know that has definitely hindered the infrastructure development in India is the private ownership of land. Many of you must have read many colorful news articles talking about China's brutal use of force to move local residents, who aren't happy about the compensation sum received, to build highways or industrial districts. For a country as big as China, there would have been absolutely no way for it to have developed its infrastructures so efficiently and rapidly, if the CCP hadn't had the ultimate ownership of every piece of land in China. Imagine if Indian government wants to do the same, how strenuous it will be to bring various political parties to the table and make everyone happy to convince its electorate to vote for such project.Though dictatorship has been painted in the worst light by the US for the last few decades, but not a single developed country on this planet didn't have a dictatorial/totalitarian governmentat at certain stages of its industrialisation.Japan was already industrialised before WWII under its imperialist regime.South Korea and Taiwan had high speed growth during their respective dictatorial regimes which laid the foundations for their industrialisations.In my opinion pluralistic democratic government like that of the US is a recipe for disaster for any developing countries.

Jimmy Gao ，对中国历史饥渴的读者
就我所知，中国的出口导向型增长很大程度上是基于其庞大的受过教育的劳动力基础，大多数人接受过至少初中义务教育(9年级) ，以及相当完善的基础设施，如铁路、公路、港口等，这些对于高效廉价地运输原材料和制成品至关重要。许多人倾向于忽视后者的重要性，他们认为由于中国不断上升的劳动力成本，中国将很快失去其世界工厂的头衔。但由于中国良好的基础设施能够按时、按预算交货，而外国企业在中国的投资仍在增加。
我不确定印度的教育情况如何。但是有一件事我确实知道，那就是土地的私有制，这绝对阻碍了印度的基础设施建设。 你们中的许多人一定读过许多花样百出的新闻文章：谈论中国残酷地使用武力迫使当地居民迁移，从而修建高速公路或工业区，而居民不满意收到的补偿金。对于中国这样一个大国来说，如果中共没有拥有中国每一块土地的最终所有权，它绝对不可能如此高效和迅速地发展其基础设施。想象一下，如果印度政府也想做同样的事情，把各个政党拉到谈判桌上，然后每个人都高兴地说服选民投票支持这个项目，这会是多么艰难的事情。尽管过去几十年来，美国一直把独裁描绘成最糟糕的形象，但在这个星球上，没有一个发达国家在工业化的某些阶段，没有独裁 / 极权政府的。在第二次世界大战之前，日本在帝国主义政权的统治下已经实现了工业化。韩国和台湾在他们各自的独裁政权时期都有高速增长，这为他们的工业化奠定了基础。在我看来，像美国这样的多元民主政府，对任何发展中国家来说都是灾难的根源。

Don Sillers , Econo-geezer
Thanks for the A2A, Aditya, but frankly I would encourage you to rethink your question.  Rather than simplifying other countries’ situation into a single dimension and imagining that India could be “like” them, you should be thinking about what India can learn from the countries that have successfully grown in the past, paying attention to the full range of policy choices those countries made and their outcomes.   In particular, any comparison between the situations of India and the United States is likely to be very misleading.  It’s true that the export-to-GDP ratio of the United States is lower than China’s, and actually lower than India’s.  (In fact, India’s ratio of exports of goods and services to GDP is quite close to China’s.)  But that’s because the U.S. has a large, highly diversified economy, not because of any trade barriers.  In addition, like most other high-income countries, a large share of U.S. consumer spending represents spending on services, many of which are not traded across international borders; that tends to reduce the export/GDP ratio compared with that of low- and middle-income countries, where consumers spend a higher share of their income on food and other goods that do move in international trade.  Meanwhile, the U.S. is on the technological frontier in most industries, and as a result is growing slowly as that frontier expands very slowly.   In sharp contrast, the great majority of India’s industries are far inside the world technology frontier.  Output per worker was about 10 percent of that in the United States in 2010; about 2/3 of the difference reflecting differences in the productivity with which inputs are used.  As a result of that 10-to-1 difference in output per worker, real incomes in the U.S. are also about 10 times as high as in India.  And as a result of that, well over 99 percent of Indians live below the U.S. poverty line.   My purpose in pointing out these differences is simply to underline that India does not have the option to grow “like” the United States. So does that mean that India should imitate China?  Here again, it’s important to pay attention to similarities and differences.  China has done a lot of things right – encouraging an export focus, keeping its real exchange rate competitive, and investing heavily in infrastructure.  Those are important lessons for all developing countries.  One enormous difference between China’s growth path and that available to India is that China invested heavily in basic education for its entire population, allowing it to develop a trainable workforce that has fueled its manufactured exports.  In sharp contrast, India invested mainly in higher education for its most successful students, while abandoning a large share of the rest.  Much of India’s export growth so far has involved the export of the services of its elite workforce – call centers and back-office work and lots of IT.  Unfortunately, a relatively small share of the overall workforce can aspire to those jobs, which is one reason why inequality in urban areas has been rising so fast.  Everything I read suggests that India still has plenty of room to grow, particularly in manufacturing which is a lot more promising for the broader workforce than simply doubling down on high tech.  But the recent failure of the industrial lands bill raises serious questions as to whether the will is there to do what is needed to allow manufacturing to flourish.  Similar questions arise regarding the failure to develop a path for inefficient firms to close and release their workers to find work in more efficient firms.  A structure full of zombie firms is certainly not a promising base for sustained growth.  In any case, I would advise against trying to pattern India on other countries, though it’s certainly helpful to learn lessons from other countries’ experience.  The trick is to identify the binding constraints to growth in India, which other countries’ experience may not have all that much to tell about.  Finally, I would encourage you to listen to this recent interview with Arvind Subramanian, which I found very illuminating:  Charting a course for the Indian economy

Don Sillers，经济极客
谢邀，但是坦白地说，我鼓励你重新考虑你的问题。与其将其他国家的情况简化为一个单一的维度，然后设想印度是否可以“像”他们一样，还不如想想印度可以从过去成功增长的国家那里学到什么，关注这些国家做出的各种政策选择及其产生的结果。特别是，任何对印度和美国的比较，都很可能具有误导性。的确，美国的出口占GDP的比例低于中国，实际上也低于印度。(事实上，印度的商品和服务出口占GDP的比例非常接近中国。)但这是因为美国有一个庞大的、高度多元化的经济，而不是因为任何贸易壁垒。此外，与大多数其他高收入国家一样，美国消费支出的很大一部分来自服务支出，其中许多服务是在国内交易；这往往会降低出口/GDP的比率，而中低收入国家的消费者，在食品和其他国际贸易商品上的支出，占其收入的比率更高。
同时，美国在大多数行业都处于技术前沿，因此，随着前沿领域的扩张放缓，美国的增长也在放缓。与此形成鲜明对比的是，印度绝大多数工业都远远落后于世界技术前沿。2010年，每个工人的产出大约是美国的10%；其中大约2 / 3的差异反映了投入使用的生产率的差异。由于每个工人的产出差异为10：1，所以美国的实际收入也是印度的10倍左右。因此，超过99% 的印度人生活在美国贫困线以下。
我指出这些差异的目的只是要强调，印度并没有选择像美国那样的发展方式。那么，这是否意味着印度应该模仿中国？在这里，需要着重注意相似点和不同点。中国做了很多正确的事情——鼓励以出口为重点，保持其实际汇率的竞争力，以及大力投资基础设施。这些对所有发展中国家都是重要的教训。中国的经济发展道路与印度的经济发展道路之间的一个巨大差异在于，中国对它的全体人口进行了基础教育方面的大量投资，这使得中国能够培养出一批可培训的劳动力，从而推动中国制造业的出口。与此形成鲜明对比的是，印度主要投资于最成功学生的高等教育，而放弃了其余大部分学生。到目前为止，印度的出口增长主要依靠其精英劳动力服务的出口——呼叫中心、后台工作以及大量的IT工作。不幸的是，在整个劳动力队伍中，只有相对较小的一部分人渴望得到这些工作，这就是为什么印度城市地区的不平等现象，增长如此之快的原因之一。 我所读到的一切都表明，印度仍然有很大的增长空间，尤其是在制造业上，这比简单地在高科技上加倍投注更有前途。 但是最近《工业用地法案》的失败显示了一个严肃的问题，那就是人们是否有意愿去做那些需要做的事情，让制造业蓬勃发展。类似的问题也出现在未能为效率低下的公司制定一条规则，关闭公司和解散工人，以便工人能在效率更高的公司找到工作。一个充满僵尸的公司结构，肯定不是一个有希望持续增长的的基础。
无论如何，我建议印度不要试图模仿其他国家，尽管从其他国家的经验中吸取教训肯定是有帮助的。诀窍在于找出约束印度经济增长的因素，而其它国家的经验可能并没有那么多可借鉴的地方。最后，我希望你们听听最近对阿文德•萨勃拉曼尼亚的采访，我认为这很有启发意义：为印度经济绘制一条路线

Mathew Cherian , I watch China as they drive the World Economy
This is a good question and very difficult to answer because the conditions prevailing in our country may not allow a choice in which ever direction one can go in our country. For example we live in Gandhian frugal environment. Anything that provide welfare is taxed as luxury. This mind set led to substandard products with no functional quality to be manufactured here. So our products became non competitive for world markets that prefer functional and hazard free products. We export mainly naturally occuring environmental products and materials much. Textiles sometimes find markets in south east Asian countries. On opening up the economy WTO quota helped us to improve this situation since other countries were forced to buy our products on a quota basis.Moreover our economy has no infrastructure of scientific quality to create large scale manufacturing base. A distance that can be covered in say 8 hours usually take 4 to 5 days for a truck to reach. This increase the cost of transportation and perishable goods cannot be transported this way. Moreover inter state taxes are heavy making transportation inefficient. One other major road block is poverty is rampant here making difficult to obtain and train work force who can provide quality workamanship. There is also deficit in power for large scale undertaking to come up and grow. Bureaucracy makes it more difficult to enter and operate here.

Mathew Cherian，我看着中国推动世界经济
这是一个很好的问题，但也很难回答，因为我们的国家印度，目前的情况可能不允许我们在任何方向上作出选择。 例如，我们生活在甘地式的节俭环境中。任何提供福利的东西都被当作奢侈品征税。这种心态导致了这里生产的产品不合格，没有实用的质量。 所以我们的产品在世界市场上变得没有竞争力，因为世界市场更喜欢功能性和无害的产品。我们出口的产品主要是天然环保产品和材料。纺织品有时会在东南亚国家找到市场。
在经济开放方面，世贸组织的配额帮助我们改善了这种情况，因为其他国家被迫按配额购买我们的产品。此外，没有科学质量的基础设施，我们的经济不能创造大规模的生产基地。一辆卡车可以在8小时内走完的路程，通常需要4到5天才能到。 这增加了运输成本，易腐货物不能用这种方式运输。此外，地区之间的税收沉重，也让运输效率低下。另一个主要障碍是，这里的贫困现象十分严重，难以培训获得能够提供高质量工作和管理的劳动力。大规模事业的兴起和发展也缺乏动力。官僚主义使得进入印度和在这里运营变得更加困难。

Dadi Naga Sai , Jai Hind
Many succesful people always say that if your path to success is making you feel like its a tough one then you're on the right path to success. And when you want to succeed as fast as you can with easy path you may first feel like you succeed but you'll come to know what happened later. Export led growth is risky because even though you're an independent nation you're again dependent on other nations. If other nations fall then you'll also fall. If you're export led nation your position is just like any other street seller who is looking for someone to buy your goods so that you can eat for that night. Consumption led growth is a tough way to develop. But if other nations are falling you'd still be standing strong.

Dadi Naga Sai ，印度万岁
许多成功的人总是说，如果你的成功之路让你觉得很艰难，那么你就在通往成功的正确道路上。 当你想以最快的速度通过简单的途径获得成功时，你可能首先会觉得自己成功了，但随后你就会明白发生了什么。 出口导向型的增长是危险的，因为即使你是一个独立的国家，你仍然依赖于其他国家。 如果其他国家倒下了，那么你也会跟着扑街。 如果你是出口导向型国家，你的处境就像街头小贩一样，吆喝着让人们来买你的东西，这样你的晚饭就有着落了。而内部消费引导的增长是一条艰难的发展道路，但你不是在找人来买你的东西。即使其他国家在走下坡路，你也会坚强地站着。

Mayur Vaghasiya , Stock Trader at Upadhyay's Securities (2016-present)
There is no magical formula which lead the country.
For country growth most important is employment of people. For that we must starting more and more manufacturing in India and then export outside of country.
But latest manufacturing data poorly and black true is that last 4 year no employment growth in India under NDA government as per RBI data. Employment growth flat.
So we keep focus on manufacturing so that more and more job produce and also country growth faster rate.

Mayur Vaghasiya ，Upadhyay 证券的股票交易员(2016年至今)
没有什么神奇的秘诀可以带领这个国家。
对于国家的增长而言，最重要的是人民的就业。 为此，我们必须在印度开展越来越多的制造业，然后出口到国外。
但是印度最新的制造业数据很糟糕，而且根据印度储备银行的数据，在印度全国民主联盟的领导下，印度过去四年的就业率没有增长。保持稳定。
因此，我们继续把重点放在制造业上，这样就会产生越来越多的就业机会，国家也会以更快的速度增长。

Rakesh Wagh , Engineer, Healthcare, Information Technology
Adopting a particular economic model sounds very unnatural and unsustainable. World economy is like a big jigsaw puzzle. If a piece(country) does not find itself in a tight fitting position, it will often be marginalized (example north Korea and Iran to certain extend). America is a big central piece in this puzzle and being in such a dominant position it pretty much dictates how it would like other pieces to render themselves. Countries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea tried not to be part of this puzzle and define their own existence. However that did not work.Long story short, India must decide how much of "globalization" it need to adopt. Less global economy for the country means less control in hands of America (and its allies). If India can find a self sustained local economic model where small economies/societies thrive and balance each other such that the net sum is progressive, then India will be able to achieve what lot of other countries could not and create a brand new economic eco system that is sustainable, progressive and less harm to the planet and its inhabitants.

Rakesh Wagh 工程师，医疗保健，信息技术
采用一种特定的经济模式听起来非常不自然，也不可持续。 世界经济就像一个巨大的拼图游戏。 如果一个国家没有发现自己处于一个紧密的位置，它往往会被边缘化(例如北朝鲜和伊朗在一定程度上是这样)。 美国在这个拼图游戏中处于一个重要的中心部分和主导地位，它几乎决定了其他国家如何展现自己。像伊朗、伊拉克和朝鲜这样的国家努力不成为这块拼图游戏的一部分，而是定义自己的存在。然而，这并不管用。长话短说，印度必须决定它需要接受多少程度的“全球化”。对这个国家来说，更少的全球经济意味着更少的控制权被掌握在美国(及其盟友)手中。如果印度能够找到一个自给自足的地方经济模式，让小型经济体 / 社会繁荣发展并且相互平衡，从而实现净总量的提高，那么印度将能够实现其他许多国家无法实现的目标，并创造一个全新的经济生态系统，这个系统是可持续的、进步的，对地球及其居民有更小的伤害。

Shyam Sundar Sridhar , Mercantilist and Postdevelopmentalist
India can grow through self-consumption because the potential size of the is massive. If India had shifted from an agrarian economy into a labor-intensive manufacturing one, then we could have pulled a lot of people out of agriculture and into more value-added jobs. This would not only have increased agricultural productivity and raised incomes overall, but would have also given us enough surplus to invest in the capital goods industry. However, these things are highly complex, and involve many, many variables that interact with each other in a variety of different ways. There is no such thing as a "perfect" or "correct" solution in human affairs. There's only the "good enough" or "works right now" approach.

Shyam Sundar Sridhar 、重商主义和后发展主义
印度可以通过内部消费实现增长，因为其潜在规模非常巨大。 如果印度从农业经济转变为劳动密集型制造业，那么我们就可以把很多人从农业转移到更具附加值的工作。 这不仅会提高农业生产率和总体收入，而且还会给我们带来足够的盈余，来投资资本品行业。 然而，这些事情非常复杂，涉及许多许多因素，这些因素以各种不同的方式相互影响。在人类事务中，没有所谓的“完美”或“正确”的解决方案。 只有“足够好”或“马上奏效”的方法。

Mohit Ambani , Reading a lot about politics and policies
Looking at some fundamentals a strong economy is created by export led growth in the start thereby increasing the capita income and then make it a self consumption economy.USA was the world's factory in start and China is now the world's factory which will eventually have a transition to consumption based economy in near future. India is a very big purchasing power economy but exports are not that high so most of India's revenue is from consumption.

Mohit Ambani 阅读大量关于政治和政策的书籍
从一些基本面来看，一个强大的经济体是由出口带动的增长创造的，从而提高了人均收入，然后使它成为一个内部消费的经济体。美国在一开始就是世界工厂，而中国现在是世界工厂，在不久的将来，中国最终会向消费型经济转型。印度是一个购买力非常强大的经济体，但出口没有那么高，因此印度的大部分收入来自内部消费。

Ankit Kumar , a proponent of free markets.
India should let the market forces decide what is the ideal path. Governments should stop wasting money on deciding where to invest. Any country which tries to run its economy on one engine is bound to fail. India should let markets to determine what is the need of hour. "Make in India" is a good concept but government should really do something about it. Till now it has been only talks no concrete steps. Give the power in the hands of people and they will definitely develop themselves. We have been growing way below potential because governments are deciding for people where to invest and how much to invest. India has not taken that much advantage of globalization that it should have. It is very naive to say that export or consumption can grow Indian economy. Economies grow only because of productivity growth of their citizens. India should focus on productivity growth and let the markets take care of rest.

Ankit Kumar，自由市场的支持者
印度应该让市场的力量来决定什么是理想的道路。政府应该停止在决定投资方向上浪费钱。 任何国家如果只想用一台发动机来发动经济，就注定要失败。印度应该让市场来决定需要多少时间。“印度制造”是一个很好的概念，但是政府真的应该做点什么。到目前为止，都还只是空谈，没有具体的步骤。把权力交到人民手中，他们一定会发展自己。我们的增长远远低于潜力，因为政府正在决定人们到哪里投资，以及要投资多少。印度没有充分利用全球化带来的好处。如果说出口或内部消费能够促进印度经济增长，那就太天真了。一个国家经济的增长只是因为其公民的生产率增长。印度应该专注于生产力的增长，让市场来解决问题。

Sunny Adak , lived in India
India is so big and richly diverse than other countries, that it is impossible to implement any such model in whole country.But We can take inspiration from different models and implement them in different parts of India.China uplifts their poor population in shortest period of time because of manufacturing sector.We can implement this in Bihar, Uttar pradesh, Bengal and Orissa. If govt. reduces their taxes and welcome manufacturing industries, then it might be possible that Bihar and Uttar pradesh could be our own China. Also, People from Bihar and U.P. don't have to travel in different states to find employment and they can save even more. West Bengal and Orissa have access to Sea ports also, which can be useful for exporting.Tamilnadu, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh are our IT service hub.They also have capability to be our R&D hub. It requires will power from our Policy makers to make this region as our own large scale Technological Hub. They have capability to make global presence.Jharkhand and Chattisgarh are very important, as they are enriched by our most of the natural resources. They can be our "Heavy Industry" hub, producing best quality products. Rajasthan can be hub for our future Energy needs. Like Solar power. Which will be backup for Industries.If we implement this greatly, Madhya Pradesh can be useful to connect all this things. Madhya Pradesh connects to most of these states, and distance is almost equal from each part. Technical advances from Tamilnadu or Karnataka, Manufactured products from Bihar and if requires, Backup power from Rajasthan. and Finally Assembly in Madhya Pradesh. Ships, Planes, or Electronic Gadget can be assemble there.As IT industry is feeling lots of pressure, it will be good if we move our ITES-BPO services to our North-East States.It's my own imagination which can make India more strong.

Sunny Adak ，住在印度
与其他国家相比，印度庞大且多样化，以至于任何模式不可能在整个国家范围内实施。但是我们可以从不同的模式中获得灵感，并在印度的不同地区实施。由于制造业的存在，中国能够在最短的时间内减少本国的贫困人口。我们可以在比哈尔邦、北方邦、孟加拉邦和奥里萨邦实施这一政策。如果政府减少他们的税收，欢迎制造产业，那么比哈尔邦和北方邦就有可能成为属于我们自己的“中国”。此外，来自比哈尔邦和北方邦的人们，不需要到不同的邦去寻找工作，他们可以存更多的钱。西孟加拉邦和奥里萨邦也有出口港口，这对出口很有帮助。塔米尔纳德、 卡纳塔克邦 和 安得拉邦 是我们的 IT 服务中心。它们也有能力成为我们的研发中心。但这需要我们的政策制定者的意志力，使这个地区成为我们自己的大规模科技枢纽。 它们有能力在全球范围内展现自己。恰尔肯德邦和恰蒂斯加尔邦非常重要，因为他们包含了我们大部分丰富的自然资源。它们可以成为我们的“重工业”枢纽，生产最优质的产品。 拉贾斯坦邦可以成为我们未来能源需求的中心。比如太阳能，这将是工业的后盾，如果我们大力实施这一政策，中央邦将有助于连接起所有的东西。中央邦与这些地区中的大多数相连，距离几乎相等。来自塔米尔纳德或卡纳塔克邦的科技进步，来自比哈尔邦的产品制造，如果需要，来自拉贾斯坦邦的备用电源。最后在中央邦组装。船舶、飞机或电子产品都可以在那里组装。由于 IT 行业的压力越来越多，如果我们把我们的IT外包服务转移到我们的东北部各邦，那将是件好事。这是我自己所想的，可以让印度变得更强大。