Balance China’s Military Might, India needs at least 30,000 extra troops

[qamar1990]

And how does it contradict to my point?

The worth of the goods and services produced in a country largely depend on the level of technology, skill of the workers, etc etc etc and not merely the number of the population.

yh but not everybody going to be producing cars and computers if your population shrinks to 176 million

 

[Dillinger]

yh but not everybody going to be producing cars and computers if your population shrinks to 176 million

This is exactly the kind of question one would expect from someone with insubstantial knowledge. No, they won't and they won't NEED to.

Given how large India is if the population density shrank that much we would not need to have an absolute division like that. Even percentage wise divisions wrt economic sectors would wary. But the fact that large resources would be shared by comparatively very few people would itself offset HUGE economic hurdles. If the explanations provided in the last two posts are not enough then nothing will suffice in your case.

 

[qamar1990]

Oh hell yes! AND to explain why I have already hinted at a concept called income and wealth distribution. In India just 40-30 percent of the population controls over 80 percent of the income..and monies being bandied around.

Let me break this down to you. The 1.2 billion Indians do not uniformly contribute to the GDP..in fact if you had looked up at the break down of the various sectors and how they contribute to the GDP and what percentage of the population is engaged in said sectors..the answer would have already been clear to you.

Here is the GDP composition by sectors:-

GDP - composition by sector
agriculture: 17%
industry: 18%
services: 65%

Now 50 percent + of our workforce is involved in agriculture but only contributes 17% to our GDP.

Mind you while the numerical figures are exact I am giving you a very super-simplified and crude brief given your obvious inexperience in economics. These factors inter-play even further to provide very interesting variable scenarios..and effects over the years to result in a cumulative effect. At the end of the day all such exercises are futile. For example with just half of our population..the savings in expenditure required in massive nationwide programs like SSA could have been re-diverted to the industry to cause a synergistic effect and take the GDP even higher than the 1 or 2 trillion mark. A flawed but simple explanation, below my standards, for a severely flawed and even more simple question.

Comprende?

idk what to say to you.
i give up.

if you honestly seriously believe your gdp would be 2 trillion with 176 million people then check your self in to a mental hospital.

your not a developped country, poverty is big, education is a problem, it would be a miracle is you had 500 billion gdp with your current problems, your acting like your problems will disappear with a small population.

you do know that if your population could produce trillion dollar gdp with 176 million people then you would be like turkey

 

[Dillinger]

idk what to say to you.
i give up.

if you honestly seriously believe your gdp would be 2 trillion with 176 million people then check your self in to a mental hospital.

your not a developped country, poverty is big, education is a problem, it would be a miracle is you had 500 billion gdp with your current problems, your acting like your problems will disappear with a small population.

you do know that if your population could produce trillion dollar gdp with 176 million people then you would be like turkey

Yup, thus has spoken the man with zilch knowledge of economics and who replies through hyperbole and opinions rather than material information.

If despite being given liberal hints towards income distribution, population density and sector wise contribution you still cannot fathom how the fact still stands that the populace does not uni-formally contribute to the GDP, how an absolute reduction would occur due to a fall in the populace but not a substantial one..and most of all if you cannot comprehend how inane the scenario you cooked up is then one would apply your sagacious advice to one's own person and do so post haste.

 

[Bullet500]

idk what to say to you.
i give up.

if you honestly seriously believe your gdp would be 2 trillion with 176 million people then check your self in to a mental hospital.

your not a developped country, poverty is big, education is a problem, it would be a miracle is you had 500 billion gdp with your current problems, your acting like your problems will disappear with a small population.

you do know that if your population could produce trillion dollar gdp with 176 million people then you would be like turkey

ever heard of south korea, britan etc etc do you know whats their population is and how much is their gdp...oh well you are the high IQ one right!

 

[Dillinger]

@Joe Shearer Ever tried to play a game where the population suddenly contracts to 170 million while all other factors such as geographical area and contained resources of the nation etc. remain constant? Needless to say that only a lack-wit would fashion such a scenario to try and prove the misplaced notion that the fact that the GDP comprises the contributions of the total populace equates to the accuracy of stating that a fall in population would cause a correspondingly symmetrical fall in the GDP..as if all of us contribute to it uni-formally.

How do I even begin to explain to the man that even my answers are batshit given how batshit his scenario is and are thus tailored to strictly provide a brief under various constrained circumstances and constants.

I am beginning to feel like an idiot.

 

[Joe Shearer]

You are wasting your time.

 

[Developereo]

just tell me this.

would you have a 2 trillion dollr gdp with 176 million people?

just answer yes or no.

You're wasting your time.

The Indians are so busy chest thumping that they have turned off their brain.

To Indians,

The point he is making is that, given the claim that Indian economy is based mainly on domestic demand rather than being export-driven, then the large GDP is the result of a huge consumer base of 1+ billion people. Average consumption per person is low so, if you had 170 million consumers, your GDP would be lower. The actual impact would depend on the mix of foreign v/s domestic consumers' contribution to Indian GDP.

This is not to claim that a small population must inherently have a low GDP: the US with 300 million has a GDP of 15 trillion, but that's because it produces high ticket items, many of which are exported.

 

[qamar1990]

ever heard of south korea, britan etc etc do you know whats their population is and how much is their gdp...oh well you are the high IQ one right!

they are developed nations thats totally different, they dont have the porblems india does understood?

 

[Koovie]

You're wasting your time.

The Indians are so busy chest thumping that they have turned off their brain.

To Indians,

The point he is making is that, given the claim that Indian economy is based mainly on domestic demand rather than being export-driven, then the large GDP is the result of a huge consumer base of 1+ billion people. Average consumption per person is low so, if you had 170 million consumers, your GDP would be lower. The actual impact would depend on the mix of foreign v/s domestic consumers' contribution to Indian GDP.

This is not to claim that a small population must inherently have a low GDP: the US with 300 million has a GDP of 15 trillion, but that's because it produces high ticket items, many of which are exported.

Interesting point, however, the thing is that not every one has the same purchasing power, especially not in a country where you have people living in deep poverty and people who got everything they can dream of. And then you got the people who are in the middle.

Its safe to assume that 30-40 maybe even 50% cannot afford anything except the food and other studd they need to survive, and such things are very often not accounted for in the GDP simply because they get it from sources who don`t know anything about book keeping.

So the vast majority of the consumption done in India is made by half or maybe even less of the population.




And this high GDP provides India with large amounts of money... thats why we spent billions and billions of USD on infra.. thats why we will spend one trillion one infrastructure in the coming years... thats why we can spend over 70 billion USD on anti poverty measures like food, subsidies on food and gas etc etc etc...

 

[qamar1990]

Interesting point, however, the thing is that not every one has the same purchasing power, especially not in a country where you have people living in deep poverty and people who got everything they can dream of. And then you got the people who are in the middle.

Its safe to assume that 30-40 maybe even 50% cannot afford anything except the food and other studd they need to survive, and such things are very often not accounted for in the GDP simply because they get it from sources who don`t know anything about book keeping.

So the vast majority of the consumption done in India is made by half or maybe even less of the population.




And this high GDP provides India with large amounts of money... thats why we spent billions and billions of USD on infra.. thats why we will spend one trillion one infrastructure in the coming years... thats why we can spend over 70 billion USD on anti poverty measures like food, subsidies on food and gas etc etc etc...

so im guessing your finally realized that your gdp wouldnt be a quarter of what it is now if your population is 176 million?
i think you have.

but listen another thing.

the reason you can spend all that money is not because your a good economy, its again because of your population becuase you have a massive number of tax payers and your also the biggest importer which equals tariff tax.
now listen to this your government revenues are only 175 billion a year and your talking about spending trillions in a few years.

You're wasting your time.

The Indians are so busy chest thumping that they have turned off their brain.

To Indians,

The point he is making is that, given the claim that Indian economy is based mainly on domestic demand rather than being export-driven, then the large GDP is the result of a huge consumer base of 1+ billion people. Average consumption per person is low so, if you had 170 million consumers, your GDP would be lower. The actual impact would depend on the mix of foreign v/s domestic consumers' contribution to Indian GDP.

This is not to claim that a small population must inherently have a low GDP: the US with 300 million has a GDP of 15 trillion, but that's because it produces high ticket items, many of which are exported.

thanks for your help bro.
somethings are just commonsense you dont need to be a economist to figure out that indias high gdp is only becuase of its population lol.

 

[Bullet500]

so im guessing your finally realized that your gdp wouldnt be a quarter of what it is now if your population is 176 million?
i think you have.

but listen another thing.

the reason you can spend all that money is not because your a good economy, its again because of your population becuase you have a massive number of tax payers and your also the biggest importer which equals tariff tax.
now listen to this your government revenues are only 175 billion a year and your talking about spending trillions in a few years.



thanks for your help bro.
somethings are just commonsense you dont need to be a economist to figure out that indias high gdp is only becuase of its population lol.

and is the gdp of 6-7% due to population only?
We had this large population from the day we got independent so why was our economy so bad for all these years?

Korea was a destroyed country after the war they developed rapidly coz they industrialized aggressively! Thats what india and china are doing now! Industrialization is the only way for us to develop and pull people out of agricultural. This is easier said than done

 

[Developereo]

So the vast majority of the consumption done in India is made by half or maybe even less of the population.

That's cheating.

If we are discussing a hypothetical scenario with a smaller population, then we must keep the various segments proportional. You can't say, in the hypothetical sample, we will keep all the rich people and throw away the poor.

you dont need to be a economist to figure out that indias high gdp is only becuase of its population lol.

That's true, but we must also give credit where credit is due.

It is a fact that India has used their natural resources -- human and material -- far better than has Pakistan. China, in turn, has done better than India, and the top per-capita economies have done better than China.

At the other end, Pakistan has done better than most other developing countries in Africa, South America, etc.

 

[Koovie]

so im guessing your finally realized that your gdp wouldnt be a quarter of what it is now if your population is 176 million?
i think you have.

Where did I say that? No one can say how much it would be with a lesser population, yes probably less, but less than a quarter?

It would totally depend on which kind of people you would cut out. IF you would cut out 300 million people who barely live with 20 rs a day and are performing the lowest level of jobs, it would not make as much difference as if you would cut out 300 million educated middle class and lower middle class people.

And you could also hamper the economy by cutting out just a few thousand of the really rich guys, like CEO`s and other top notch business people.

 

[Koovie]

the reason you can spend all that money is not because your a good economy, its again because of your population becuase you have a massive number of tax payers and your also the biggest importer which equals tariff tax.
now listen to this your government revenues are only 175 billion a year and your talking about spending trillions in a few years.

So you think that the 300- 400 million poor people are paying taxes? No they are`t. The vast majority of them are working in utterly underpaid and technically illegal jobs because they arent paying taxes. Of course they are paying indirect taxes when they buy things, but again, thats not much if you consider them having just 20 rs at disposal per day.

The bulk of the demand created in India comes from the lower middle class, the middle class and the really rich people. But they just make up around 40 % of the population.

And concerning the infra spending, of course the money does not come from the government of India alone!

State governments, private investors and foreign private investors are paying the bulk of it!
RICS study: India to lead $50 trillion global spend on infrastructure over 25 years
India to spend $ 1 trillion on infrastructure in next 5 years