Dr Watson are you? You hit the nail partially on the head!
You’re right, but I don’t support a turban or beard! Too darn hot and sweaty in the sub continent as you have rightly mentioned!
Undoubtedly, your analysis was pretty interesting and thought provoking. Yes, India did have a ‘Hindu rate of growth’ till the early 90s. But look
at it now - 8 to 9% and growing, with China at 10%. The projected growth rate of America up to 2010 is just 2.29%!! So India’s catching up fast. It
has the biggest middle class on earth, a huge educated English speaking work force that is also young and raring to go, and needless to say, an info
tech super power.
It is also a responsible nuclear weapon state, which has the 4th largest, and one of the best-trained armed forces in the world.
Yes it has warts, plenty of them, but who doesn’t?
You mentioned comparative energy consumption patterns of America, which is excessive to say the least, and India.
Energy Security rests on two principles. The first, to use the least amount of energy to provide services and cut down energy losses. The second, to
secure access to all sources of energy including coal, oil and gas supplies worldwide, till the end of the fossil fuel era, which is fast
And so the necessity of consummating the Indo-American civilian nuclear deal, which will make India self sufficient in nuclear power generation by
For almost two decades now the Americans rise which they take as their birthright, has stalled or at least slowed dramatically.
A nation's military strength rests on its economic strength, but economic strength tends to whither when a nation devotes too many resources to the
military. ''Imperial overstretch,'' Kennedy called it. The world has changed since 1987, and the danger of the United States bankrupting itself
through military overextension seems a lot more real. Furthermore, the thought of losing their status as a military ''great power'' with defense
commitments all over the world does not traumatize most Americans, I suspect.
What does traumatize Americans is the thought of economic stagnation as a permanent condition. But there's another conundrum: the politics of decline
produce exactly the wrong formula for reversing the economics of decline. The result: as decline becomes more evident, it also becomes harder to
So what does the future hold for the US of A? There are a lot of imponderables, Don, which you have not taken into account. You are formatting the
future from the past that has little relevance now.