Obviously, the map wouldn't be 100% accurate; it's only one data point. But it is pretty good. And before you go off and figure Australia's economy is an advanced one, think again. It mostly exports raw materials, and imports value-added goods. Internally, it functions like an advanced economy, so as the resources decline it should be able to move over to value-added goods and export of those services. It does seem to have avoided the resource curse. But its relationship to the world, and especially to its principal trading partners, isn't that of an advanced economy.
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.
Sharing IP with him is way better than sharing IQ with you! Why don't you simply keep away from threads you know nothing about. Your other post on this thread too doesn't say much, apart from revealing your arrogance
Funny how economists take the rate of growth of the rate of growth growth acceleration and project it to extend to the infinite. remember they said so of rome, france. spain. UK, nazi germany, japan and ... america every one of these forecasts failed
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.
I don't think that's what she would have said. If you consider her import replacement theory for industrial growth, both India and China would fail that test miserably. India because of its high government subsidies and China because of its overwhelming dependence on export growth. That said, I don't concur with her theories completely. I also believe that because of comparative advantages, free trade, globalisation etc, in long term economies are going to converge and the world will truly be a global village. At least you would see fewer threads like this