2050 Predictions for India, Sri Lanka, China and the West by the Economist

[guyhandz]

Typical attitude by a filthy Indian blaming everythingon Pakistan, we will see what happens in 2050 if stay alive.

am not sure about Pakistan, But India will exist in 2050... may be greater India ...

 

[Tridibans]

@Viper0011. Hey fake American Pakistani bro.... did you ever even remotely touched a maths book in oyour childhood

5% GDP growth for 35 years equals 5*35=175% ?????

Please don't tell me you learnt your maths from USA.

 

[Ind4Ever]

Good to know india is now better economy than russia in terms of GDP numbers. When we cross 3/3.5 trillion we will be third among all EU countries

 

[HariPrasad]

How does it grow by 3000 TIMES?

3000% means 30 times and not 3000 time.

 

[unbiasedopinion]

Precisely, the issue, you guys get too focused on arithmetical equations, this is a prediction and not a fact......Mathematical calculations are facts. Anyway, what I forgot to give you was a "constant" in terms of the Indian economy's size as of today. But irrespective of this, the point was that doubling the economy may be possible. But tripling it won't happen in 35 years.

Does not title of the topic itself says it is prediction not forecasting.....

 

[Skywalker]

am not sure about Pakistan, But India will exist in 2050... may be greater India ...

Good for you and like other one billion delusional idiots of your country keep dreaming about Pakistan.

 

[RiazHaq]

Haq's Musings: Sri Lanka Booms as India, Pakistan Lag Among South Asian Economies

Since the end of the civil war in 2009, Sri Lanka has been booming even as the rest of South Asia region has lagged.

Per Capita GDPs South Asia Region Source: Economist

Sri Lanka's per capita income has quintupled over the last two decades from about $700 to $3500, significantly outperforming all other South Asian economies. During the same period,Pakistan's per capita GDP has increased from $500 to $1300 while India's is up from $400 to $1400.


In addition to its high per capita GDP for the South Asia region, Sri Lanka has also excelled on Human Development Index (HDI), a key indicator of social development assessed each year by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP).


Human Development Index in South Asia Source: UNDP
Sri Lanka has the fastest growing economy with the highest social indicators in South Asia region. Its economy grew at 7.2% last year and it is expected to post 8% growth this year. With a literacy rate of 91% and life expectancy of 76 years, the UNDP ranks it among countries with high human development. It has achieved this progress in spite of a26-year-long violent insurgency by the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) which it successfully ended in 2009.


By contrast, both India and Pakistan continue to lag Sri Lanka in terms of both economic and social indicators. India's economy has slowed in recent years. India's per capita GDP has shrunk in US dollar terms this year, significantly reducing the gap with Pakistan whose GDP has also seen slow growth since 2008. India suffers from low levels of human development with a rank of 136 among 187 countries. Pakistan ranks even lower at 146.


GDP Per Capita in US$ Source: World Bank

Pakistan's per capita GDP remained essentially flat in 1990s before doubling in years 2000-2008 on Musharraf's watch when Pakistan joined the ranks of middle income countries with per capita income of $1000 or more. Pakistanis have seen a very modest growth in their incomes since 2008.

While India's human development is still low, it has continued to make steady progress in the last two decades. Pakistan's human development progress briefly accelerated in years 2000-2007 on President Musharraf's watch. Pakistan's HDI grew an average rate of 2.7% per year under President Musharraf from 2000 to 2007, and then its pace slowed to 0.7% per year in 2008 to 2012 under elected politicians, according to the 2013 Human Development Report titled “The Rise of the South: Human Progress in a Diverse World”. Going further back to the decade of 1990s when the civilian leadership of the country alternated between PML (N) and PPP, the increase in Pakistan's HDI was 9.3% from 1990 to 2000, less than half of the HDI gain of 18.9% on Musharraf's watch from 2000 to 2007.

There is much Pakistan can learn from Sri Lanka's record on human and economic development as well as fighting violent insurgencies. It is especially important today as its economy and education suffer in the midst of a growing Taliban violence that threatens the very existence of Pakistan.

Related Links:

Haq's Musings

Can Pakistan Learn From Sri Lanka to Defeat TTP?

South Asia Lags in UN MDG Goals

History of Human Development in Pakistan

Musharraf Accelerated Economic and Human Capital Growth in Pakistan

Politics of Patronage in Pakistan

Will "Last Chance" Talks With TTP Succeed?


Haq's Musings: Sri Lanka Booms as India, Pakistan Lag Among South Asian Economies

They are not predicting for Pakistan, are they?

Haq's Musings: Pakistan's Growing Population: Blessing or Curse?

 

[Mr.Nair]

India among few bright spots in global economy, says IMF - The Economic Times

Indian economy sees 'firming growth', says OECD - The Economic Times

While both Brazil and Russia are in the midst of a recession, India's economy has been growing at impressive rates, with last week's release of GDP figures showing that India grew as fast as China last quarter (7.0 percent year-on-year).

So with Chinese economic growth moderating - expected to be 6.5 percent in 2015 and 6.3 percent in 2016 - India is projected to become the fastest growing BRICS economy, with GDP growth forecast to be 7.6 percent in 2015 and 8.1 percent in 2016, according to IHS.

China′s economic slowdown - India′s opportunity? | Asia | DW.COM | 07.09.2015

@RiazHaq

@Skywalker @Zarvan @Windjammer @Areesh @coffee_cup @IceCold @Viper0011. @Umair Nawaz @xyxmt @Shamain @VelocuR @Menace2Society @Raja.Pakistani

They are not predicting for Pakistan, are they?

Pakistan’s economy to surpass $2 trillion by 2050

 

[Gibbs]

@RiazHaq .. I found this stat from your blog quite interesting

(IMF DATA from 1970)
Nominal per capita GDP was:

SRI LANKA $189
PAKISTAN $184
BANGLADESH $134 (then east PAKISTAN)
INDIA $118

So essentially Bangladesh was in a much better position than India prior to independence..

@UKBengali @bongbang @Bilal9 @asad71

 

[bongbang]

@RiazHaq .. I found this stat from your blog quite interesting

(IMF DATA from 1970)
Nominal per capita GDP was:

SRI LANKA $189
PAKISTAN $184
BANGLADESH $134 (then east PAKISTAN)
INDIA $118

So essentially Bangladesh was in a much better position than India prior to independence..

@UKBengali @bongbang @Bilal9 @asad71

Yes
World Development Indicators-Google Public Data Explorer

And in 1975 we had better per capita income than both India and Pakistan

 

[Gibbs]

Yes
World Development Indicators-Google Public Data Explorer

And in 1975 we had better per capita income than both India and Pakistan

Oh yes a spike.. Why do you reckon that was ? Because jump that was not sustained.. Any particular reason ?

But yeah pre independence Bangladesh was NOT just ahead of India in GDP terms but by quite a margin.. I guess political instability would be the main reason for the reversal.. Now that the country is experiencing a economic boom again hopefully political stability will be maintained.. Best wishes

 

[bongbang]

Oh yes a spike.. Why do you reckon that was ? Because jump that was not sustained.. Any particular reason ?

But yeah pre independence Bangladesh was NOT just ahead of India in GDP terms but by quite a margin.. I guess political instability would be the main reason for the reversal.. Now that the country is experiencing a economic boom again hopefully political stability will be maintained.. Best wishes

Sheikh Mujib gov brought socialism and one party gov. And nationalized all properties gas fields, industries etc. Which increased Gov's wealth. But after SM's assassination the later Gov privatized all properties and couldnt sustain the growth.

 

[Bilal9]

@RiazHaq .. I found this stat from your blog quite interesting

(IMF DATA from 1970)
Nominal per capita GDP was:

SRI LANKA $189
PAKISTAN $184
BANGLADESH $134 (then east PAKISTAN)
INDIA $118

So essentially Bangladesh was in a much better position than India prior to independence..

@UKBengali @bongbang @Bilal9 @asad71

I don't know what data were used to compile this set of statistics but it seems realistic. Let me delve into the history a bit. Sorry to bore all of you but history is a great teacher.

E. Pakistan was the agrarian and industrial powerhouse of Pakistan pre-1971. 65% of Pakistani exports (agricultural items like Jute, Rice, Tea etc. and their by-products) came from East Pakistan. E. Pakistan also had the majority (65%) of the population and West Pakistan was rather sparsely populated - unlike today. The center of power however lay in the West (Karachi, prior to the creation of Islamabad) - as did the majority of Fauzi installations and assets, dominated by Punjabis. Bengalis constituted less than 5% (2 or 3% was the norm) of the administration, although they were equally (some would say more) qualified.

If E. Pakistan was contributing 65% of the exports, shouldn't the GDP figures have been at least equal (compensating for the higher population in E. Pakistan)? It was not (as shown above). So - this made an ironclad case for the legitimacy of E.Pakistan's autonomy, which Mr. Bhutto refused (and in my opinion made a royal mess of). In hindsight it would have been a better strategic move for Pakistan to give autonomy to E. Pakistan but the powers that be realized this a bit late. India would not have emerged as the clear and undisputed leader of the subcontinent as it did post 1971.

The disparity between the GDP and infrastructure spending (whether perceived or real) between the two wings of Pakistan was the primary reason for the breakup of Pakistan along with other sundry misgivings. Bengalis perceived that Pakistani cities (actually massive numbers of cantonments in West Pakistan) were being built with E. Pakistani export proceeds and they (Bengalis) were not getting their fair share of development spending. Also it was true that over 80% of spending was going towards Fauzi purchases (which benefited the West Pakistani Fauzi and non-Fauzi elite by way of graft). The remaining 20% was being divided up equally between two wings. This way 90% of the money reportedly remained in the West. Which would explain the difference of GDP numbers between West and East Pakistan above.

The sad thing was that no attempt was even made to placate the Bengalis or address their grievances, and the attitude was that this was a lost cause...

Whether it was true or not is a debate for another day - however the upshot of it was that the Indians were able to whip up this ill-feeling to their advantage. Certain vested quarters and politicians in Bangladesh and India used the devolving situation to gain their objectives.

India was an inward-looking economy and a Nehruvian social experiment at that time and was growing at 2% or 3%, known as the 'Hindu' rate of growth. For this reason its not unnatural that India was at the bottom of the barrel GDP-wise then.

Sheikh Mujib gov brought socialism and one party gov. And nationalized all properties gas fields, industries etc. Which increased Gov's wealth. But after SM's assassination the later Gov privatized all properties and couldnt sustain the growth.

Agreed. Sheikh Mujib's Govt. made all the wrong economic moves, killing growth. But one cannot discount the succession of coups and power hungry military commanders either which introduced uncertainty in the business landscape and killed any investments.

 

[Gibbs]

I don't know what data were used to compile this set of statistics but it seems realistic. Let me delve into the history a bit. Sorry to bore all of you but history is a great teacher.

E. Pakistan was the agrarian and industrial powerhouse of Pakistan pre-1971. 65% of Pakistani exports (agricultural items like Jute, Rice, Tea etc. and their by-products) came from East Pakistan. E. Pakistan also had the majority (65%) of the population and West Pakistan was rather sparsely populated - unlike today. The center of power however lay in the West (Karachi, prior to the creation of Islamabad) - as did the majority of Fauzi installations and assets, dominated by Punjabis. Bengalis constituted less than 5% (2 or 3% was the norm) of the administration, although they were equally (some would say more) qualified.

If E. Pakistan was contributing 65% of the exports, shouldn't the GDP figures have been at least equal (compensating for the higher population in E. Pakistan)? It was not (as shown above). So - this made an ironclad case for the legitimacy of E.Pakistan's autonomy, which Mr. Bhutto refused (and in my opinion made a royal mess of). In hindsight it would have been a better strategic move for Pakistan to give autonomy to E. Pakistan but the powers that be realized this a bit late. India would not have emerged as the clear and undisputed leader of the subcontinent as it did post 1971.

The disparity between the GDP and infrastructure spending (whether perceived or real) between the two wings of Pakistan was the primary reason for the breakup of Pakistan along with other sundry misgivings. Bengalis perceived that Pakistani cities (actually massive numbers of cantonments in West Pakistan) were being built with E. Pakistani export proceeds and they (Bengalis) were not getting their fair share of development spending. Also it was true that over 80% of spending was going towards Fauzi purchases (which benefited the West Pakistani Fauzi and non-Fauzi elite by way of graft). The remaining 20% was being divided up equally between two wings. This way 90% of the money reportedly remained in the West. Which would explain the difference of GDP numbers between West and East Pakistan above.

The sad thing was that no attempt was even made to placate the Bengalis or address their grievances, and the attitude was that this was a lost cause...

Whether it was true or not is a debate for another day - however the upshot of it was that the Indians were able to whip up this ill-feeling to their advantage. Certain vested quarters and politicians in Bangladesh and India used the devolving situation to gain their objectives.

India was an inward-looking economy and a Nehruvian social experiment at that time and was growing at 2% or 3%, known as the 'Hindu' rate of growth. For this reason its not unnatural that India was at the bottom of the barrel GDP-wise then.



Agreed. Sheikh Mujib's Govt. made all the wrong economic moves, killing growth. But one cannot discount the succession of coups and power hungry military commanders either which introduced uncertainty in the business landscape and killed any investments.

Very informative thanks.. Note that even Ceylon (Sri Lanka) was under a strict socialist economic system in the the late 60's to the 80's.. Firmly in the Socialist block as many post colonial nations at that time, exceptions being Pakistan i believe in the region

 

[samv]

@Saradiel @Gibbs @Godman

Sri Lanka's economic policy for the next 5 years:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=481785518657247

Ranil Wickremesinghe and his gang of corruption are going to drive Sri Lanka's economy down the drain. They have stopped investment projects including in infrastructure, given massive subsidies, provided huge wage increases for state sector employees (as a vote buying exercise), use international airports as storage sites for paddy, have no plan to keep the cities and towns clean of garbage. it's a shame the last decade or high economic growth has come to an end.

At least the USA is happy that it has a boot licker in power now.