Precambrian Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 Number of billionaires is not a figure of any relevance in my view yar. Imagine you open an IT company that becomes big in 10 yrs time like a TCS, infy, wipro, TechMahindra, HCL, Mindtree (insert any of the dozens of mid to large tier IT companies) and then you list your company in stock market. You will obviously become a billionaire but that is irrelevant...what's important is that your capital is creating so many jobs and doing so much productive work for the world. ONLY important thing to look for in income patterns in my view is - what a person from low income group able to buy from his/her salary? Is he/she able to buy sufficient groceries, pay bills, live a comfortable life etc? Thanks machan!! Hope your view doesn't change on seeing pro-aap or slightly anti-bjp posts. ;) Hehe it wouldn't. Nice to see your posts without the "election" mode on. I like it. When it comes closer to elections, let's switch to those modes ;) And I agree with your posts completely. People tend to forget the concept of wealth creation. It's not as if becoming a billionaire is a bad thing or an evil thing. More billionaires being created while capital creation and per capita income not keeping up is a bad thing. But in INdia's case I don't think htat has been the case.
Crookbond Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 US has 492 billionaires. Its GDP is 16 trillion USD. Ratio is 30 India has 56 billionaires. Its GDP is 2 trillion USD. Ratio is 28 So USA is a bigger oligarchy than India I suppose? I would request you to re-read the post again. It is not the absolute number but the increase. US had 23.17 billionaires per trillion US$ of GDP (BPT-GDP) in 2009. In 2014, the figure is 30.29. That is a 1.3 times increase in BPT-GDP from 2009-2014. India had 20.42 BPT-GDP in 2009 and is 53.28 in 2014 which is a 2.6 times increase. Similarly, Russia has an increase of 2.7 in BPT-GDP. My point was that if Russia is an Oligarchy (it is called so), so is India. The higher order bit being, our GDP has increased but the most part of that increase in wealth has been with the hands of a select few.
Crookbond Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 Number of billionaires is not a figure of any relevance in my view yar. Imagine you open an IT company that becomes big in 10 yrs time like a TCS, infy, wipro, TechMahindra, HCL, Mindtree (insert any of the dozens of mid to large tier IT companies) and then you list your company in stock market. You will obviously become a billionaire but that is irrelevant...what's important is that your capital is creating so many jobs and doing so much productive work for the world. ONLY important thing to look for in income patterns in my view is - what a person from low income group able to buy from his/her salary? Is he/she able to buy sufficient groceries, pay bills, live a comfortable life etc? I did not quote the absolute number of billionaires but the the number of billionaires per trillion dollars of India's GDP. I am not even quoting the absolute number but the increase of the aforementioned metric between 2009 to 2014 = 5 years. You might not want to believe what I write but surely you can believe the RBI governor Raghuram Rajan. He made a speech at the Bombay Chamber of Commerce in 2008 (4 days before the Lehman Bros collapse). This is what he said To see where, let me digress a little. My former classmate from IIT, Jayant Sinha, recently sent me a spreadsheet he had compiled. It lists the number of billionaires per trillion dollars of GDP for the major countries of the world. Guess which country tops the list? It is Russia, with 87 billionaires for the 1.3 trillion dollars of GDP it generates. “Of course!”, you will say – these are the oligarchs who stole the country’s mineral resources, who participated in the Loan for Votes scheme, etc. But guess which country comes second? It is India with 55 billionaires for the $1.1 trillion it generates. http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/raghuram.rajan/research/papers/Is%20there%20a%20threat%20of%20oligarchy%20in%20India.pdf I think a metric used by the current RBI governor would be pretty sound. Even recently at the 20th Lalit Doshi memorial lecture Raghuram Rajan has sounded a warning for crony capitalism and mentioned some techniques to solve it. http://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/Speeches/PDFs/LDMLF110814.pdf I concur with Rajan's view that despite the increase in wealth India is an oligarchy - not much has changed since 2009, in fact it has gone worse by Rajan's own admission. We have generated wealth but it has been concentrated in the hands of a select few.
seedhi Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 I would request you to re-read the post again. It is not the absolute number but the increase. US had 23.17 billionaires per trillion US$ of GDP (BPT-GDP) in 2009. In 2014, the figure is 30.29. That is a 1.3 times increase in BPT-GDP from 2009-2014. India had 20.42 BPT-GDP in 2009 and is 53.28 in 2014 which is a 2.6 times increase. Similarly, Russia has an increase of 2.7 in BPT-GDP. My point was that if Russia is an Oligarchy (it is called so), so is India. The higher order bit being, our GDP has increased but the most part of that increase in wealth has been with the hands of a select few.Err.. how? India has 56 USD billionaires in 2014, that is 28 billionaires per trillion GDP. This is compared to roughly 20 in 2009, so it is 1.4 times, comparable with the increase in the US.
Precambrian Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 I would request you to re-read the post again. It is not the absolute number but the increase. US had 23.17 billionaires per trillion US$ of GDP (BPT-GDP) in 2009. In 2014, the figure is 30.29. That is a 1.3 times increase in BPT-GDP from 2009-2014. India had 20.42 BPT-GDP in 2009 and is 53.28 in 2014 which is a 2.6 times increase. Similarly, Russia has an increase of 2.7 in BPT-GDP. My point was that if Russia is an Oligarchy (it is called so), so is India. The higher order bit being, our GDP has increased but the most part of that increase in wealth has been with the hands of a select few. Yes, but you "judged" India is an oligarchy didnt you? I just showed if India is one, USA is a bigger oligarchy.
Precambrian Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 I would request you to re-read the post again. It is not the absolute number but the increase. US had 23.17 billionaires per trillion US$ of GDP (BPT-GDP) in 2009. In 2014, the figure is 30.29. That is a 1.3 times increase in BPT-GDP from 2009-2014. India had 20.42 BPT-GDP in 2009 and is 53.28 in 2014 which is a 2.6 times increase. Similarly, Russia has an increase of 2.7 in BPT-GDP. My point was that if Russia is an Oligarchy (it is called so), so is India. The higher order bit being, our GDP has increased but the most part of that increase in wealth has been with the hands of a select few. Err - 56 billionaires divided by 2 trillions give me 28. So 20.42 to 28 represents an increase of 1.3 as well. Enna Muruga, oru vaati koodi calculate pannungo.. Do ur math again. There is another basic fallacy in ur argument. Assume a super equitable nation which had a GDP of 3 trillion in 2009 but just 1 billionarie. In 2014, the GDP increased to 3.25 but somehow one more millionaire crept in. So 2009, the ratio was 0.33. But in 2014 the ratio became 0.57. The increase is 1.76 times which far exceeds US's and India's/ So as per ur logic would u call this nation also "oligarchy" as well? Now u understand why your logic is laughable?
randomGuy Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 I did not quote the absolute number of billionaires but the the number of billionaires per trillion dollars of India's GDP. I am not even quoting the absolute number but the increase of the aforementioned metric between 2009 to 2014 = 5 years. You might not want to believe what I write but surely you can believe the RBI governor Raghuram Rajan. He made a speech at the Bombay Chamber of Commerce in 2008 (4 days before the Lehman Bros collapse). This is what he saidn http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/raghuram.rajan/research/papers/Is%20there%20a%20threat%20of%20oligarchy%20in%20India.pdf I think a metric used by the current RBI governor would be pretty sound. Even recently at the 20th Lalit Doshi memorial lecture Raghuram Rajan has sounded a warning for crony capitalism and mentioned some techniques to solve it. http://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/Speeches/PDFs/LDMLF110814.pdf I concur with Rajan's view that despite the increase in wealth India is an oligarchy - not much has changed since 2009, in fact it has gone worse by Rajan's own admission. We have generated wealth but it has been concentrated in the hands of a select few. I want to believe u as much as I want to believe gov. Rajan . but I am not convinced how no. of billionaires per trillion GDP is a criteria. The number of billionaires is so small that one has to look on a case-by-case basis. Imagine a small country where there's just 1 multi billion dollar company called 'A'. ..after 5 yrs, say company 'B' and 'C' also become multi billion dollar cos. Tell me what diff.does it make if 'B' And 'C' belong to owners of company 'A' only(meaning they havent created any new billionairs) or belong to seperate owners (have created new billionaires) ?
Malcolm Merlyn Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 Latest forbes Indias richest says India has 100 billionaires.
Vilander Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 Did u hear of the new defence procurements signed a couple of days ago? 50 k crores for submarines is good but cost for MMRCA and FGFA come from where someones behind ?
Vilander Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 what portion of defence is procured externally? And what % of that is of the GDP? Other way around. You misunderstand boss !, why f'n so combative ?, such an ass clown forum this place has become. Since PPP takes into consideration relative cost of goods and services in a country to factor purchasing power, real terms are an useful way to judge Indias defense budget efficiency.
Precambrian Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 Other way around. You misunderstand boss !, why f'n so combative ?, such an ass clown forum this place has become. Since PPP takes into consideration relative cost of goods and services in a country to factor purchasing power, real terms are an useful way to judge Indias defense budget efficiency. Huh ? Where was I "combative" in my questions? Seems you are a very touchy fellow. Welcome to the forums dearest vilander. Hope you have understood what I wanted to convey through my questions. kindly let me know if you didn't understand so that I can help you out Yours truly Precambrian
Precambrian Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 I want to believe u as much as I want to believe gov. Rajan . but I am not convinced how no. of billionaires per trillion GDP is a criteria. The number of billionaires is so small that one has to look on a case-by-case basis. Imagine a small country where there's just 1 multi billion dollar company called 'A'. ..after 5 yrs' date=' say company 'B' and 'C' also become multi billion dollar cos. Tell me what diff.does it make if 'B' And 'C' belong to owners of company 'A' only(meaning they havent created any new billionairs) or belong to seperate owners (have created new billionaires) ?[/quote'] And the direness that it excludes someone who is 900 Millions 'rich' but treats a 12 Bn guy as same as 1 bn guy. Ridiculous in more ways than one.
Vilander Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 Huh ? Where was I "combative" in my questions? Seems you are a very touchy fellow. Welcome to the forums dearest vilander. Hope you have understood what I wanted to convey through my questions. kindly let me know if you didn't understand so that I can help you out Yours truly Precambrian alrite.
velu Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 our gdp or percaptia is far more than what it is documented.. most of our gdp in small and mid level business is unaccounted
randomGuy Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 Other way around. You misunderstand boss !, why f'n so combative ?, such an ass clown forum this place has become. Since PPP takes into consideration relative cost of goods and services in a country to factor purchasing power, real terms are an useful way to judge Indias defense budget efficiency. Its also abt the balance of trade. US imports IT, pharma etc from India. Balance of trade is skewed in India's favour. That also prompts India to import weaponry from the US (apart from the weapon requirement ofcourse ) to an extent...
SLICKR392 Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 Huh ? Where was I "combative" in my questions? Seems you are a very touchy fellow. Welcome to the forums dearest vilander. Hope you have understood what I wanted to convey through my questions. kindly let me know if you didn't understand so that I can help you out Yours truly Precambrian :hysterical:
kubrickian Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 Man just think where we would have been if not those 10 yrs by that bastard UPA. Doesnt matter if its Congress or BJP. India is backward because that's what the people deserve. 90 % of population are worthless, incompetent, retarded individuals. GDP is high because population is high because of the result of people breeding like cockroaches. Per capita is among the lowest in the world just like other 3rd world $ hit holes like Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Nigeria etc.
hhunaeh Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 Doesnt matter if its Congress or BJP. India is backward because that's what the people deserve. 90 % of population are worthless, incompetent, retarded individuals. GDP is high because population is high because of the result of people breeding like cockroaches. Per capita is among the lowest in the world just like other 3rd world $ hit holes like Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Nigeria etc. That was harsh :haha:
Crookbond Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 Err - 56 billionaires divided by 2 trillions give me 28. So 20.42 to 28 represents an increase of 1.3 as well. Enna Muruga, oru vaati koodi calculate pannungo.. Do ur math again. I got the numbers from Forbes released in March 2014 - you can check, cite and show the calculations. Let me show you the data and the numbers I got in my calculator. 53.28/20.42 = 2.6 for India 30.29/23.17 = 1.3 for US Here's the data below Countries,India,China,UK,Germany,Russia,US,Switzerland,Brazil Billionaires per $ trillion of GDP 2014,53.28,15.26,18.63,23.38,52.94,30.29,36.88,25.38 Billionaires per $ trillion of GDP 2013,34.97,20.41,15.03,16.93,54.52,26.31,20.6,31.57 Billionaires per $ trillion of GDP 2011,32.19,19.39,13.94,15.74,66.23,27.68,16.39,14.47 Billionaires per $ trillion of GDP 2010,35.89,12.83,13.13,16.07,50.71,27.95,11.78,11.11 Billionaires per $ trillion of GDP 2009,20.42,6.19,9.3,14.9,19.27,23.17,17.17,7.86 There is another basic fallacy in ur argument. Assume a super equitable nation which had a GDP of 3 trillion in 2009 but just 1 billionarie. In 2014, the GDP increased to 3.25 but somehow one more millionaire crept in. So 2009, the ratio was 0.33. But in 2014 the ratio became 0.57. The increase is 1.76 times which far exceeds US's and India's/ So as per ur logic would u call this nation also "oligarchy" as well? Now u understand why your logic is laughable? I would highly recommend that you first understand what a person is trying to say before indulging in exaggerated statements. You shouldn't answer questions which you raise in your mind but what I raise. It has happened multiple times in the past, that you create your own question. Also, do not play with numbers with me. The increase in ratio was done over 5 years, not 1 year. Your basic argument is on the sample size of the billionaires - 1, 5 etc. Your argument is flawed because the increase in billionaires has been in multiples of 10s which stabilizes ratios and is a statistically significant sample size. Basically, you are calling Raghuram's assertion of calculation of India being an oligarchy as stupid. I would much rather believe him when he's made these statements at two different forums where luminaries were present and he was invited. Lets agree to disagree.
Recommended Posts