Can Indian Economy Avert Crash Landing in 2011?

[DesiGuy]

Ah here we go again, typical diversion tactics being used by bharatis. Why don't you worry about your own country, etc. Well why don't bharatis worry about their own country too and stop discussing Pakistan's issue then.

this thread itself was created by one of your guys. and than u dare to question Indian why they worry too much about Pakistan. i think you should ask this to socem ajtr, omar and many others.

 

[Hutchroy]

If Indian GDP even grows by 9% this FY ..it will have a GDP of $1412 B.

In next FY(2011-12) if Indian economy grows by 10%(very optimistic) it will stand at $1.55 Trillion

Well, let us then wait for the Final Figures in respect of the Indian Economy for the Period April 2011 to March 2012.

Possibly EIU be proved wrong.

OTOH - EIU might be Right!

 

[SMC]

this thread itself was created by one of your guys. and than u dare to question Indian why they worry too much about Pakistan. i think you should ask this to socem ajtr, omar and many others.

Not talking about this thread in particular. Pretty much the whole forum, economy forum included.

 

[DesiGuy]

Not talking about this thread in particular. Pretty much the whole forum, economy forum included.

yea...you probably don't check threads created by ajtr and socom on Indian economy!!!

 

[RiazHaq]

Mr. Haq your are one of a kind.

The Pakistani Population Figure of 184 Million is for 2010.

The EIU estimate of the Pakistani Population being 189.6 Million is for the Year 2011 - It is an increase of about 3% which is not beyond the Capability of the Pakistani People.

As per the SBP Report the Pakistani Population since 1991 increased by over 2% as the Population of 119 Million in 1991 has increased to 184 Million in 2010 and as such the figure of 189.6 Million for the Year 2011 is not "Excessive".

They say "Everything looks Yellow to the Jaundiced Eye" - which is the reason for your considering the Bigoted Indian Staff at the Economist-EIU.

So now who is the bigot!

P.S. The Indian GDP of US$ 1.8 Trillion is the "Estimate" for the Year 2011.

Watch this Space

The Economist pages you are refering to are dated Nov 22, 2010.

Nowhere do these pages say that the data is a forecast or estimate for 2011. It is clearly wrong and misleading.

Why are you acting as an apologist for the shoddy work of The Economist magazine?

The world in figures: Countries: Pakistan | The Economist

The world in figures: Countries: India | The Economist

 

[RiazHaq]

I understand you are calculating for financial year and not calendar year.
Indian GDP stood at $1296 Billion at the end of FY 2009-10.

If Indian GDP even grows by 9% this FY ..it will have a GDP of $1412 B.

In next FY(2011-12) if Indian economy grows by 10%(very optimistic) it will stand at $1.55 Trillion


but IMF does its calculation for the calendar year and not finacial year.
As of 2010(in middle of present FY), Indian economy stands at $1367.22 billion.

Indicators for INDIA

There is no question that the Indian economy is doing much better than Pakistani economy as Pakistan fnds itself mired in som serious crises.

But there is a reporting attern by some western magazines, probably inspired by their Indian staffers, that exaggerate India's accomplishments, while making Pakistan look worse than the reality warrants.

The latest example is data published by The Economist on India and Pakistan in its current issue.

It says the following about India:

GDP growth: 8.2%
GDP: $1,832bn (PPP: $4,508bn)
Inflation: 5.8%
Population: 1,202.1m
GDP per head: $1,520 (PPP: $3,750)

And Pakistan:

GDP growth: 3.2%
GDP: $188bn (PPP: $487bn)
Inflation: 9.9%
Population: 189.6m
GDP per head: $992 (PPP: $2,570)

Here are the problems with the above:

1. Pakitan's population is about 180 million, not 190 million as stated by the Economist. This distortion causes Pakistan's GDP to look smaller than it is.

2. India's GDP is not $1.8 trillion. The highest figure I have seen is $1.5 trillion. This exaggeration makes India's per capita GDP higher than reality.

3. The magazine puts India's inflation rate at 5.8%...the actual inflation rate in India is in double digits....wth the latest figures closer to 15%.

The fact is that, using credible data from multiple souces, the real per capita GDP of both India and Pakistan hovers a little over $1000 in nominal terms.

Isn't it shoddy journalism by the Economist?

What happened to fact-checking at the Economist magazine?

Aren't these figments of The Economist's Indian staffers' imagination?

Haq's Musings: India and Pakistan Contrasted in 2010

 

[Hutchroy]

The Economist pages you are refering to are dated Nov 22, 2010.

Nowhere do these pages say that the data is a forecast or estimate for 2011. It is clearly wrong and misleading.

Why are you acting as an apologist for the shoddy work of The Economist magazine?

The world in figures: Countries: Pakistan | The Economist

The world in figures: Countries: India | The Economist

Mr Haq - Thank you for exhibiting your lack of scholarship.

The pages you refer to above are part of this year's Annual Publication i.e. The World in 2011.

Please visit The Economist Website.

Obviously, you are not a subscriber to The Economist and as such you will only be able to "Read" Five Articles per week.

So, visit the Economist Web Site, and LEARN the Art of Broadening your Knowledge!

Best of Luck.

 

[Hutchroy]

There is no question that the Indian economy is doing much better than Pakistani economy as Pakistan fnds itself mired in som serious crises.

But there is a reporting attern by some western magazines, probably inspired by their Indian staffers, that exaggerate India's accomplishments, while making Pakistan look worse than the reality warrants.

The latest example is data published by The Economist on India and Pakistan in its current issue.

It says the following about India:

GDP growth: 8.2%
GDP: $1,832bn (PPP: $4,508bn)
Inflation: 5.8%
Population: 1,202.1m
GDP per head: $1,520 (PPP: $3,750)

And Pakistan:

GDP growth: 3.2%
GDP: $188bn (PPP: $487bn)
Inflation: 9.9%
Population: 189.6m
GDP per head: $992 (PPP: $2,570)

Here are the problems with the above:

1. Pakitan's population is about 180 million, not 190 million as stated by the Economist. This distortion causes Pakistan's GDP to look smaller than it is.

2. India's GDP is not $1.8 trillion. The highest figure I have seen is $1.5 trillion. This exaggeration makes India's per capita GDP higher than reality.

3. The magazine puts India's inflation rate at 5.8%...the actual inflation rate in India is in double digits....wth the latest figures closer to 15%.

The fact is that, using credible data from multiple souces, the real per capita GDP of both India and Pakistan hovers a little over $1000 in nominal terms.

Isn't it shoddy journalism by the Economist?

What happened to fact-checking at the Economist magazine?

Aren't these figments of The Economist's Indian staffers' imagination?

Haq's Musings: India and Pakistan Contrasted in 2010

No Sir - it is NOT.

The Population of Pakistan, as per the State Bank of Pakistan, is 184 Million for 2010.. The Economist is giving Estimated Figures for, most probably, the Financial Year 2011.

Wake up and smell the Tea or Coffee as the case may be.

 

[GangLeader]

There is no question that the Indian economy is doing much better than Pakistani economy as Pakistan fnds itself mired in som serious crises.

But there is a reporting attern by some western magazines, probably inspired by their Indian staffers, that exaggerate India's accomplishments, while making Pakistan look worse than the reality warrants.

The latest example is data published by The Economist on India and Pakistan in its current issue.

It says the following about India:

GDP growth: 8.2%
GDP: $1,832bn (PPP: $4,508bn)
Inflation: 5.8%
Population: 1,202.1m
GDP per head: $1,520 (PPP: $3,750)

And Pakistan:

GDP growth: 3.2%
GDP: $188bn (PPP: $487bn)
Inflation: 9.9%
Population: 189.6m
GDP per head: $992 (PPP: $2,570)

Here are the problems with the above:

1. Pakitan's population is about 180 million, not 190 million as stated by the Economist. This distortion causes Pakistan's GDP to look smaller than it is.

2. India's GDP is not $1.8 trillion. The highest figure I have seen is $1.5 trillion. This exaggeration makes India's per capita GDP higher than reality.

3. The magazine puts India's inflation rate at 5.8%...the actual inflation rate in India is in double digits....wth the latest figures closer to 15%.

The fact is that, using credible data from multiple souces, the real per capita GDP of both India and Pakistan hovers a little over $1000 in nominal terms.

Isn't it shoddy journalism by the Economist?

What happened to fact-checking at the Economist magazine?

Aren't these figments of The Economist's Indian staffers' imagination?

Haq's Musings: India and Pakistan Contrasted in 2010

This is probably the first time you are desperate to show Pakistan has less population than that shown in stats.

As the years progress the gap is going to get only wider unless GOP pulls up its socks and show amazing progress in social security situation.

Peace and stability are the first steps of attracting FDI, more than me you know it better. Unless this is achieved, good infrastructure can only provide negligible results.

 

[Jade]

There is no question that the Indian economy is doing much better than Pakistani economy as Pakistan fnds itself mired in som serious crises.

But there is a reporting attern by some western magazines, probably inspired by their Indian staffers, that exaggerate India's accomplishments, while making Pakistan look worse than the reality warrants.

The latest example is data published by The Economist on India and Pakistan in its current issue.

It says the following about India:

GDP growth: 8.2%
GDP: $1,832bn (PPP: $4,508bn)
Inflation: 5.8%
Population: 1,202.1m
GDP per head: $1,520 (PPP: $3,750)

And Pakistan:

GDP growth: 3.2%
GDP: $188bn (PPP: $487bn)
Inflation: 9.9%
Population: 189.6m
GDP per head: $992 (PPP: $2,570)

Here are the problems with the above:

1. Pakitan's population is about 180 million, not 190 million as stated by the Economist. This distortion causes Pakistan's GDP to look smaller than it is.

2. India's GDP is not $1.8 trillion. The highest figure I have seen is $1.5 trillion. This exaggeration makes India's per capita GDP higher than reality.

3. The magazine puts India's inflation rate at 5.8%...the actual inflation rate in India is in double digits....wth the latest figures closer to 15%.

The fact is that, using credible data from multiple souces, the real per capita GDP of both India and Pakistan hovers a little over $1000 in nominal terms.

Isn't it shoddy journalism by the Economist?

What happened to fact-checking at the Economist magazine?

Aren't these figments of The Economist's Indian staffers' imagination?

Haq's Musings: India and Pakistan Contrasted in 2010

It is not the figures that matter, but the bullishness of the Economist on the prospects of the Indian economy that has to be examined more closely; moreover, it would not be correct to attribute the figure to employees of Indian origin. After all Economist is a reputed publication and their reputation is at stake. I am sure they must have their own methodologies of arriving at figures in addition to the corresponding checks

Have you observed a dollar in Pakistan fetches more than does a dollar in India.

 

[Storm Force]

I,M convinced that RIAZHAQ... is deeply concerned about the Economic growth of india currently and in the near future.

Being of pakistani orgin/national and educated he understands the MASSIVE IMPLICATIONS that will exist for Pakistan because of india current 8-1 and soon 10-1 DISPARITY in GDP and the near 20-1 disparity in forex.

We are at a situation now where INDIA dominates diplomatically getting massive favours/deals from west eg USA & eu AND THE wealth and military power is leaving pakistan with less voice and clout locally and internationally.

SO RIAZHAQS answer to this

LETS START A THREAD ABOUT INFLATION !!!!!!!!! running a mock in india..

Keep going all its a good thread

 

[RiazHaq]

Why does Economist magazine hide the names of its staffers? Why does it not print by-lines identifying the authors of articles, other than surveys and special "by invitation" contributions?

Canadian author John Ralston Saul describes The Economist as a "magazine which hides the names of the journalists who write its articles in order to create the illusion that they dispense disinterested truth rather than opinion. This sales technique, reminiscent of pre-Reformation Catholicism, is not surprising in a publication named after the social science most given to wild guesses and imaginary facts presented in the guise of inevitability and exactitude. That it is the Bible of the corporate executive indicates to what extent received wisdom is the daily bread of a managerial civilization"

Deliberate distortions by the Economist and other similar rags anywhere should be exposed.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and those who block the sunlight are part of the corrupt media, like India's Hindustan Times (Vir Sanghvi) and NDTV (Burkha Dutt) who were recently caught on tapes as the agents of special interests including Ambani and Tata.

It's because of corporate media pushing special interests that in India, a nation which has the dubious distinction of being home to the world's largest population of poor, hungry, illiterate and sick people, and where 7000 people die of hunger every day, fully 81% say terrorism is the biggest problem India faces today.

Haq's Musings: Rulers and Media Manufacturing Consent in India

Haq's Musings: Growing 2G Scandal Exposes India's Crony Capitalism

 

[Jade]

Why does Economist magazine hide the names of its staffers? Why does it not print by-lines identifying the authors of articles, other than surveys and special "by invitation" contributions?

Canadian author John Ralston Saul describes The Economist as a "magazine which hides the names of the journalists who write its articles in order to create the illusion that they dispense disinterested truth rather than opinion. This sales technique, reminiscent of pre-Reformation Catholicism, is not surprising in a publication named after the social science most given to wild guesses and imaginary facts presented in the guise of inevitability and exactitude. That it is the Bible of the corporate executive indicates to what extent received wisdom is the daily bread of a managerial civilization"

Deliberate distortions by the Economist and other similar rags anywhere should be exposed.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and those who block the sunlight are part of the corrupt media, like India's Hindustan Times (Vir Sanghvi) and NDTV (Burkha Dutt) who were recently caught on tapes as the agents of special interests including Ambani and Tata.

It's because of corporate media pushing special interests that in India, a nation which has the dubious distinction of being home to the world's largest population of poor, hungry, illiterate and sick people, and where 7000 people die of hunger every day, fully 81% say terrorism is the biggest problem India faces today.

Haq's Musings: Rulers and Media Manufacturing Consent in India

Haq's Musings: Growing 2G Scandal Exposes India's Crony Capitalism

John Ralston Saul is himself against the contemporary economic ideas…so I am not surprised about his comments on Economist…neither am I surprised about your comments on poverty, I was expecting something on those line from you

 

[Hutchroy]

Why does Economist magazine hide the names of its staffers? Why does it not print by-lines identifying the authors of articles, other than surveys and special "by invitation" contributions?

Canadian author John Ralston Saul describes The Economist as a "magazine which hides the names of the journalists who write its articles in order to create the illusion that they dispense disinterested truth rather than opinion. This sales technique, reminiscent of pre-Reformation Catholicism, is not surprising in a publication named after the social science most given to wild guesses and imaginary facts presented in the guise of inevitability and exactitude. That it is the Bible of the corporate executive indicates to what extent received wisdom is the daily bread of a managerial civilization"

Deliberate distortions by the Economist and other similar rags anywhere should be exposed.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and those who block the sunlight are part of the corrupt media, like India's Hindustan Times (Vir Sanghvi) and NDTV (Burkha Dutt) who were recently caught on tapes as the agents of special interests including Ambani and Tata.

It's because of corporate media pushing special interests that in India, a nation which has the dubious distinction of being home to the world's largest population of poor, hungry, illiterate and sick people, and where 7000 people die of hunger every day, fully 81% say terrorism is the biggest problem India faces today.

Haq's Musings: Rulers and Media Manufacturing Consent in India

Haq's Musings: Growing 2G Scandal Exposes India's Crony Capitalism

Hell hath no Fury like "Riaz Haq" Scorched!

 

[RiazHaq]

There is plenty of data from various credible sources that puts the Indian GDP figures at $1.2 trillion to $1.4 trillion. Only the Economist exaggerates it to $1.832 trillion.

For example, IMF puts India's 2010 GDP at $1.43 trillion and 2011 GDP forecast at $1.59 trillion.

No one, I repeat no one, other than the Economist magazine is putting it at $1.832 trillion in 2011, or even 2012.