BD exceeds Singapore, HK in GDP

[Nilgiri]

Do not project far away in 2030. It is too uncertain. The growth may stop before that. Please take examples of many other countries that showed promise that could not be materialized. Take also the example of China, its GDP per capita is still below $9000 after so many decades of real growth in manufacturing and others.

It was building jet planes when its GDP was a mere $3,700 per capita in 2008, eleven years before 2019. How about BD in 2019, eleven years before 2030? It still cannot build even pump machines for irrigation or farm machines/tools. There is almost no existence of companies that produce mechanical products like nails or needles.

Today, all the foreign loans/credits are added to the GDP figures that show a superficial higher growths on paper. However, a day is coming when these credits must be repaid along with interest. So, will this value not be deducted from the then GDP?

However, a turning point may come by when large amounts of FDIs get into the economy. It will cause the real growth of the economy with things being manufactured inside the country creating new wealth and productive employment of the population.

No one can really foresee or forecast the future. But, so far BD has not moved in the right direction. The govt is taking away the money from the savings of Post Offices and Banks as a loan instead of making it available to the local private investors. This creates an upward trend of Bank interest rates. Private companies are then unable or reluctant to borrow. The govt borrowing has a dumping effect on the economy. So, which new sectors will add to the growth of GDP unless there are manufacturing plants?

Anyway, this is what I think about the BD economy. Many men many minds. But, please evaluate what I said above in short.

You are right, there is a high variability in applying exchange rate (with USD) directly to a whole economy (given trade that determines this exchange rate is only some % of it and rest is ultimately very dependent on public and private sector credibility and internal liquidity which are very much more opaque and fuzzy for developing countries).

You have illustrated some of the distortions.

Bangladesh also is having a major issue in reverse-investment. This day and age you have to invest outside your borders at some sufficient level with forex you gain so you can influence growth industries (where they are better grounded and sized outside your country) of note 5 - 10 years etc down the road....to add qualitative change past what you can simply attract in conventional FDI stream direction.

 

[Smarana Mitra]

Internet now is more and more like real life, has to be controlled, in real life you have police doing the same job, remember, all countries will follow in the future. you will see.

This is not correct. In real life we have to deal with various problems, scammers,liars, thieves etc and as a result, we become more experienced in handling tough life, get more understanding of things and become responsible. Similarly, by reading inconsistent things on internet, people can realise the propaganda and then fight back. Especially, people with decent IQ can filter out the garbage and use only the important information while applying in real life. Restricting internet in terms of content is like installing CCTV in someone's bedroom. Police don't do such things but only act when there is a complaint or breach of security. If police start trying to restrict people from talking, then there will be revolt

 

[bluesky]

Bangladesh also is having a major issue in reverse-investment. This day and age you have to invest outside your borders at some sufficient level with forex you gain so you can influence growth industries (where they are better grounded and sized outside your country) of note 5 - 10 years etc down the road....to add qualitative change past what you can simply attract in conventional FDI stream direction.

BD is not awash with FDI companies. It has shortage of them. Instead of investing abroad, it needs many FDI companies with experience, technology, machines, production lines and markets abroad. BD can only provide them some other important input:

- a piece of land to build factories or workshop in the EPZ
- electricity (we have ample now)
- access roads to the factories
- water (piped or underground) supply
- telephone/fax and Internet lines
- cheap labors and
- access to the local market

It is not time for our companies to invest abroad. Actually, we do not have companies like Reliance, Birla or TATA. The GoI allowed many of them to take out the Capital in dollars that resulted in the hollowing of the local economy. People in India are employed or underemployed. We should not follow the Indian example of putting the cart before the horse. A company must invest in the country to enrich it.

This is completely different from Japanese policy. Historically, they neither encouraged FDIs nor investment abroad by their companies unless forced by the Americans/Europeans. Even today, Japan discourages foreign car/truck companies to invest in Japan. There is not a single foreign car manufacturer in Japan. All those BMW, Benz, Chrystler or Volkwagon cars are imported.

 

[haidian]

No need for the UK to "take it", I just wanted to clarify the legal position of the territories and make sure you didn't mislead anyone about it.

Since when colonization becomes legal? Ir was illegal in the first place.

This is not correct. In real life we have to deal with various problems, scammers,liars, thieves etc and as a result, we become more experienced in handling tough life, get more understanding of things and become responsible. Similarly, by reading inconsistent things on internet, people can realise the propaganda and then fight back. Especially, people with decent IQ can filter out the garbage and use only the important information while applying in real life. Restricting internet in terms of content is like installing CCTV in someone's bedroom. Police don't do such things but only act when there is a complaint or breach of security. If police start trying to restrict people from talking, then there will be revolt

You will be doing the same in the future, rumors on the internet resulted in hundreds if not thousands od deaths in India every year.
India Proposes Chinese-Style Internet Censorship
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/technology/india-internet-censorship.html

 

[bluesky]

Come and take it, China was being nice to you so she waited that long, China could've taken it back in 1949.

It would have backfired on the Chinese face, same as Folkland war between England and Argentine.

 

[haidian]

It would have backfired on the Chinese face, same as Folkland war between England and Argentine.

China is not argentina, India took Goa from Portugal by force, but China was being nice to Britain, British always know, what kind of backfire you are talking about? the west can not be more anti China anyway. But they still can not live without China.

 

[bluesky]

China is not argentina, India took Goa from Portugal by force, but China was being nice to Britain, British always know, what kind of backfire you are talking about? the west can not be more anti China anyway. But they still can not live without China.

Goa is a different case. England lost its past glory after the WWll. But, it remained a world power. In comparison, what was China in 1949? The Communist Party was good against Kuomingtan but could not do the same against the Gurkha Regiment in HK under Britain. CP was full of ragtag soldiers with Red Books in hand memorizing the Communist ideology. Please, read your history before and after the Opium War with England. Think of Shanghai under Britain.

 

[haidian]

Goa is a different case. England lost its past glory after the WWll. But, it remained a world power. In comparison, what was China in 1949? The Communist Party was good against Kuomingtan but could not do the same against the Gurkha Regiment in HK under Britain. CP was full of ragtag soldiers with Red Books in hand memorizing the Communist ideology. Please, read your history before and after the Opium War with England. Think of Shanghai under Britain.

Korean war happened in 1950, China can take on and defeat US lead UN army in Korea, and you believe China can't take Hong kong from British?

Mao fought US in early 1950's and USSR and India in 1960's, Mao feared no one, you don't know Chinese politics, Mao spared Hong kong in exchange of Britain's recognization of PRC over Taiwan, UK is among the first countries to recognize PRC and Mao also wanted to leave a window to interract with the west. It's nothing to do with military might. That's why China renegotiated with UK and ensured a smooth transition.

 

[bluesky]

Korean war happened in 1950, China can take on and defeat US lead UN army in Korea, and you believe China can't take Hong kong from British?

Mao fought US in early 1950's and USSR and India in 1960's, Mao feared no one, you don't know Chinese politics, Mao spared Hong kong in exchange of Britain's recognization of PRC over Taiwan, UK is among the first countries to recognize PRC and Mao also wanted to leave a window to interract with the west. It's nothing to do with military might. That's why China renegotiated with UK and ensured a smooth transition.

So, finally, you are only talking what I said before. Military or diplomacy China under Mao was no match to England. There was no way China could take over HK by force. It could not do so in Taiwan. India is no England.

By the way, where do you find a US defeat in Korea? It was North that invaded South with the direct assistance from China. Finally, all the parties made a truce that is still holding. Read about Russian and Chinese involvement.

"In April 1950, Stalin gave Kim permission to attack the government in the South under the condition that Mao would agree to send reinforcements if needed. For Kim, this was the fulfillment of his goal to unite Korea after its division by foreign powers. Stalin made it clear that Soviet forces would not openly engage in combat, to avoid a direct war with the US.[117] Kim met with Mao in May 1950".

"Mao was concerned the US would intervene but agreed to support the North Korean invasion. China desperately needed the economic and military aid promised by the Soviets.[118] However, Mao sent more ethnic Korean PLA veterans to Korea and promised to move an army closer to the Korean border.[119] Once Mao's commitment was secured, preparations for war accelerated".

China will never be a match for either the US military power or economy.

 

[haidian]

So, finally, you are only talking what I said before. Military or diplomacy China under Mao was no match to England. There was no way China could take over HK by force. It could not do so in Taiwan. India is no England.

China will never be a match for either the US military power or economy.

Good, we'll see, the west is never short of China predictors, won't hurt to have one more. but anyway, we'll do what we believe is right to do in Hong kong, sorry for your frustration.

By the way, happy for you that in PPP, Bangladesh is overtaking Hong kong and Singapore, all other Chinese cities are also doing the overtaking one after another.

 

[Mage]

By 2030 it will be 6000 usd nominal per capita gdp

Let's say the prediction comes true. Still it will be 6000 by 2030 USD value. Which will be less than 6000 USD today. Not to mention 6000 USD per capita is still poor. Better than beggar standard. But still poor nonetheless.

 

[Battle of Waterloo]

Since when colonization becomes legal? Ir was illegal in the first place.

Conquest of new land was not illegal at the time (only after WW2). Inter-temporality is a key principle of international law so China's transfer of legal title of Hong Kong Island to the UK must be judged only by the legal standards of the time, so it was fully legal.

 

[Smarana Mitra]

Conquest of new land was not illegal at the time (only after WW2). Inter-temporality is a key principle of international law so China's transfer of legal title of Hong Kong Island to the UK must be judged only by the legal standards of the time, so it was fully legal.

Who defines what is legal or illegal? Mere convenience of some people isn't the defining factor. So, nothing is legal or illegal when it comes to man-made law regardless of timings

 

[haidian]

Conquest of new land was not illegal at the time (only after WW2). Inter-temporality is a key principle of international law so China's transfer of legal title of Hong Kong Island to the UK must be judged only by the legal standards of the time, so it was fully legal.

Guess you don't know, China denounced all unfair treaties made by the past governments when PRC was established. What we say is illegal is illegal in China, China doesn't care what British say, Deng just showed the terms of new treaty to Britain and basically said, take it or leave it, it must be done China's way, and Britain wisely chose to take it.

 

[Battle of Waterloo]

Who defines what is legal or illegal? Mere convenience of some people isn't the defining factor. So, nothing is legal or illegal when it comes to man-made law regardless of timings

International law.

But according to the Chinese "What we say is illegal is illegal in China".

So you can compare our attitudes to legality.