kubrickian Posted May 20, 2015 Posted May 20, 2015 NEW DELHI — India's economic growth is projected to surpass that of China's, with the GDP expected to zoom by 7.7 per cent in 2016, according to a UN report which said India will help accelerate economic growth in South Asia. The mid-year update of the UN World Economic Situation and Prospects (WESP), released today, said India's economy is projected to grow by 7.6 per cent this year and 7.7 per cent in 2016, overtaking China. China is projected to grow by 7 per cent in 2015 and 6.8 per cent next year. The report termed South Asia's economic outlook as "largely favourable" since most economies are expected to experience a strengthening of growth in 2015-16 on the back of stronger domestic consumption and investment, and a pick-up in exports. The region's GDP is projected to grow by 6.7 per cent in 2015 and 6.9 per cent in 2016, up from an estimated 6.3 per cent in 2014--a significant revision of the previous forecast. "This revision mostly reflects a higher growth trajectory in India," it said. It said the growth prospects for Iran and Pakistan have also improved moderately, although for both countries significant uncertainties remain. Across South Asia, the expansion is expected to be driven by buoyant household consumption and a gradual recovery in investment. Private sector demand will be underpinned by a more benign macroeconomic environment, including considerably lower inflation. In 2015, global consumer price inflation is expected to average 2.5 per cent, the lowest level since 2009. With oil prices expected to recover slowly and global activity projected to pick up, average inflation is forecast to accelerate to 3 per cent in 2016. Average inflation in the region is also projected to fall to its lowest level in almost a decade, following the recent decline in oil and food prices. As a result, monetary policy has become more expansionary in several countries, notably in India and Pakistan, it said. However, despite the improved outlook, South Asia's economies face, to varying degrees, long-standing development challenges including energy shortages, infrastructure deficits and political and social unrest. The global economy will continue to grow at a modest pace. The UN report said growth of world gross product is projected to accelerate slightly from 2.6 per cent in 2014 to 2.8 per cent in 2015. In 2016, global growth is forecast to improve to 3.1 per cent but there are still considerable downside risks to the baseline forecast, related to the upcoming move towards monetary policy normalisation in the US, ongoing uncertainties in the euro area, potential spillovers from geopolitical conflicts and persistent vulnerabilities in emerging economies. The overall subdued performance of the world economy since the global financial crisis has raised concerns of a "new normal" of lower growth, especially in view of a broad-based weakness in investment. In the United States, the economic recovery remains on track and the short-term outlook is relatively favourable, it said. Following strong expansions in the second and third quarter of 2014, growth has, however, slowed noticeably. The weak performance in early 2015 can be attributed to less investment in the energy sector, disturbances to international cargo shipping and bad weather. Growth is expected to pick up over the next quarters and reach 2.8 per cent in 2015, before decelerating slightly to 2.7 per cent in 2016. Japan's GDP is projected to grow by 1.2 per cent in 2015 and 1.0 per cent in 2016. In 2014, the Japanese economy suffered from the consumption tax rate hike and fell into recession by mid-year. The report added that Geopolitical tensions and conflicts constitute a significant downside risk to the economic outlook. In several countries such as Ukraine, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, military conflicts have taken a heavy human toll and led to widespread destruction. While the negative economic impact has so far been limited to the subregional level, the risks lie in possible spillover effects of any regional conflict to the global level. Potential transmission channels include trade, commodity prices and financial asset prices. Geopolitical conflicts, especially in Africa and Western Asia, also remain risk factors for the global oil market, it said. http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2015/05/20/india-economy-china_n_7338918.html?1432088221&utm_hp_ref=india Acche din aagaye ? :hmmm:
Cricket_Hacker Posted May 20, 2015 Posted May 20, 2015 lol comparing India with 5 times larger economy
randomGuy Posted May 20, 2015 Posted May 20, 2015 The world is headed for deflation and economic contraction due to low fertility rates. So any growth is good growth.
velu Posted May 20, 2015 Posted May 20, 2015 lol comparing India with 5 times larger economy china cant keep growing forever .. they will do well as long as they have cheap labour
randomGuy Posted May 20, 2015 Posted May 20, 2015 china cant keep growing forever .. they will do well as long as they have cheap labour China fert. Rate was 1.4 children per woman in 2014: http://www.cctv-america.com/2015/01/05/chinese-fertility-rate-drops-into-low-fertility-trap In India it was 2.3 in 2012:
velu Posted May 20, 2015 Posted May 20, 2015 China fert. Rate was 1.4 children per women in 2014: http://www.cctv-america.com/2015/01/05/chinese-fertility-rate-drops-into-low-fertility-trap In India it was 2.3 in 2012: chart is loud and clear .. southies will be minorities in another 50 years
randomGuy Posted May 20, 2015 Posted May 20, 2015 chart is loud and clear .. southies will be minorities in another 50 years Yep. Bengalis have surprisingly low tfr.
randomGuy Posted May 20, 2015 Posted May 20, 2015 lol comparing India with 5 times larger economy Also beyond a point, GDP doesn't make much difference. (Other parameters do) Suppose every Indian gets literate but can afford to have a moto-e phone for 5k-6k rupees. And to reflect the difference in gdp sizes, every American has an iPhone costing 50-60k. I think it hardly makes a difference. What matters is that the poorest of the poor are literate and have social security and a reasonable buying power.
Shivaji bhonsle Posted May 20, 2015 Posted May 20, 2015 Yep. Bengalis have surprisingly low tfr. Kashmir too. Very less for a Muslim majority state.
NareshK Posted May 21, 2015 Posted May 21, 2015 chart is loud and clear .. southies will be minorities in another 50 years Who cares ? Its better to be prosperous and be in the minority than be the majority and starve for lack of resources. Fertility rate should go to 0.8 or below because population is already 120-130 crores. Even in states with low fertility rates in India, rate of 1.7 or 1.8 would mean the population will still remain almost the same in the next generation.
randomGuy Posted May 21, 2015 Posted May 21, 2015 Who cares ? Its better to be prosperous and be in the minority than be the majority and starve for lack of resources. Fertility rate should go to 0.8 or below because population is already 120-130 crores. Even in states with low fertility rates in India' date=' rate of 1.7 or 1.8 would mean the population will still remain almost the same in the next generation.[/quote'] If tfr is 0.8 , then after 20 yrs tht will put a lot of pressure on younger people to care of the many old people. Tfr 1.5-2.1 is good for a couple of decades I guess
zen Posted May 21, 2015 Posted May 21, 2015 Also beyond a point, GDP doesn't make much difference. (Other parameters do) Suppose every Indian gets literate but can afford to have a moto-e phone for 5k-6k rupees. And to reflect the difference in gdp sizes, every American has an iPhone costing 50-60k. I think it hardly makes a difference. What matters is that the poorest of the poor are literate and have social security and a reasonable buying power. Based on the numbers you presented; and assuming that the margin on the phones is 10% and sales tax is 10%: Sales tax collected in INR USA - 5k to 6k per phone (equivalent of the entire price of the phone sold in India) Ind - 500 to 600 Profits for the company in INR USA - 5k to 6k Ind - 500 to 600 Similarly the corp tax Even after taking the purchasing power / cost of living in to equation, a higher GDP would help to drive growth and more opportunities / social benefits for the poorest of the poor, along with having access to relatively world class products, services and facilities
randomGuy Posted May 21, 2015 Posted May 21, 2015 Based on the numbers you presented; and assuming that the margin on the phones is 10% and sales tax is 10%: Sales tax collected in INR USA - 5k to 6k per phone (equivalent of the entire price of the phone sold in India) Ind - 500 to 600 Profits for the company in INR USA - 5k to 6k Ind - 500 to 600 Similarly the corp tax Even after taking the purchasing power / cost of living in to equation, a higher GDP would help to drive growth and more opportunities / social benefits for the poorest of the poor, along with having access to relatively world class products, services and facilities The same logic is valid for most other products and services. So that covers almost the entire economic cycle : Suppose in India, people can afford 1 mbps internet connection, in US , people have 10 mbps connection to reflect gdp difference. again it hardly makes a difference for the well being of the people. Suppose in India, people can afford a 32' lcd tv, in US, they use a smart tv that costs say 10 times more. again, hardly makes a diff. In india, we can afford to pay $1-2 million per IPL to our star players, in the US, they pay mayweather and Pacquiao $100-200 milllion for a fight. Same for the diff. in paycheques for bollywood and hollywood. Hardly makes a difference for the well being of the people. Copy-pasting from last post - What matters is that the poorest of the poor are literate and have social security and a reasonable buying power. If that is accomplished as a consequence of GDP growth, then gdp growth is useful, else it hardly makes a difference.
mishra Posted May 21, 2015 Posted May 21, 2015 Bihar rulez. My UP bros have also got healthy oats to sow :aha: Seriously :facepalm:
zen Posted May 21, 2015 Posted May 21, 2015 The same logic is valid for most other products and services. So that covers almost the entire economic cycle : Suppose in India, people can afford 1 mbps internet connection, in US , people have 10 mbps connection to reflect gdp difference. again it hardly makes a difference for the well being of the people. Suppose in India, people can afford a 32' lcd tv, in US, they use a smart tv that costs say 10 times more. again, hardly makes a diff. In india, we can afford to pay $1-2 million per IPL to our star players, in the US, they pay mayweather and Pacquiao $100-200 milllion for a fight. Same for the diff. in paycheques for bollywood and hollywood. Hardly makes a difference for the well being of the people. Copy-pasting from last post - What matters is that the poorest of the poor are literate and have social security and a reasonable buying power. If that is accomplished as a consequence of GDP growth, then gdp growth is useful, else it hardly makes a difference. I understood your point from the phone example. However, to provide basic education, social security and reasonable income to the poorest of the poor would require the government to have relevant funds. These funds are generated through various revenue streams that the govt has In terms of equation: Higher GDP = Higher Revenues for Govt = Higher funds allocated to benefit the poorest of the poor Since you are comparing USA with India, note that the % of poor in Ind > % of poor in the USA. Assume that 1/3 of India' s population is below the poverty line, while in US it is 1/5. Which means that 2/3 of Indians have to share the economic costs to support the poorest of poor in India vs. 4/5 in the USA. And the GDP of Ind is lower Relating to the examples you gave - 10 mbps = higher prices for the internet speed = more revenues = more taxes vs. 1 mbps; the $100-$200M fight is equivalent to 100 players making $1M-$2M in IPL; and so on wrt other examples. GDP growth is a key driver for the process of the upliftment of the poor What you presented is a good idea but with a simplistic execution such as "Educated population is good for a country. As long as people get basic education, it should be ok whether it at a Madarassa or someone teaching in a park or in a reputed private school. As long as people can read and write, they can contribute positively to the country and the standard of living will improve. If quality of education is a key to the improving standard of living, it is great or else it hardly makes a difference. " Well, quality is a key driver!
randomGuy Posted May 21, 2015 Posted May 21, 2015 ^ You can make more with less. Govt. schools can become world class. This does not need extra money. I am a Govt. school pass out too, there are a lot of improvements that be done such as in curriculum (like more English-medium schools, imparting banking knowledge, computer knowledge, vocational training etc) that doesn't depend on GDP growth. (that will propel gdp growth for the future actually) If you want to measure well-being of people, then HDI is better parameter.
randomGuy Posted May 21, 2015 Posted May 21, 2015 Although HDI is calculated thru life expectancy at birth , avg. schooling yrs, GDP per capita too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
Recommended Posts