IMF WEO Database (April 2017): China and US grow most

[Martian2]

I don't mean to flood your thread with misinformation. But if there's a point to be made, I'll risk making the point.

According to your graph, India is much stronger economically than Russia. 2.4 trillion vs 1.5 trillion, sales of SU-33s included.

You've made an error in your reasoning.

India is stronger than Russia economically on a quantitative basis.

On a qualitative basis, Russia is still stronger economically than India. For example, Russia can produce turbofan jet engines. India cannot. Thus, the technological level of the Russian and Indian economies are different.

It is potentially misleading to claim: "India is much stronger economically than Russia."

Your claim seems to imply that India is stronger than Russia on both a quantitative and qualitative basis, which is not true. India is only stronger than Russia on a purely quantitative basis.

 

[Shajida Khan]

You've made an error in your reasoning.

India is stronger than Russia economically on a quantitative basis.

On a qualitative basis, Russia is still stronger economically than India. For example, Russia can produce turbofan jet engines. India cannot. Thus, the technological level of the Russian and Indian economies are different.

And who or what decides qualitative basis? Certainly it cannot be only jet engines.
Again where did you find this jet engines as measure of qualitative aspect of economy? Any paper or article or book or relevant reference?

BTW a number of European nations do not manufacture jet engines etc. Like Sweden or Switzerland. Are they qualitatively weaker than Russia?

 

[Martian2]

And who or what decides qualitative basis? Certainly it cannot be only jet engines.
Again where did you find this jet engines as measure of qualitative aspect of economy? Any paper or article or book or relevant reference?

It's called common sense.

Russia builds jet engines, nuclear submarines, icebreakers, AESA radars, missiles, destroyers, etc.

India has to beg Russia for the engines for the Brahmos "joint-venture" cruise missile. It is widely accepted that India is significantly behind Russia in technology at this point in time.

India imports a huge variety of advanced Russian military technology (e.g. Su-30MKI, cryogenic rocket engines, submarines and Klub missiles, etc.). It's pretty clear-cut that India is currently significantly behind technologically.

 

[Shajida Khan]

It's called common sense.

Russia builds jet engines, nuclear submarines, icebreakers, AESA radars, missiles, destroyers, etc.

India has to beg Russia for the engines for the Brahmos "joint-venture" cruise missile. It is widely accepted that India is significantly behind Russia in technology at this point in time.

Common sense is not always accurate. Try comparing say Japan and China qualitatively. Which will be qualitatively better? Clearly Japan does not produce nuclear submarine or fighter jet engines or radars right now. Will you say Japan's economy is qualitatively weaker than china?

 

[TaiShang]

Answer my questions.

Show me a PPP dollar. Where is it?

How much does does an Su-33 cost in PPP?

Have the Russians EVER exported a weapon system to India and accepted PPP dollar payment?

You cannot beat an Indian on PPP. The only practical way is to ignore them. I think you are much more experienced. If you ignore them, they will incrementally disappear.

PPP is a feel good indicator. It is their personal and national resolution to have all their hopes tied to PPP. In fact, such a mindset is a good sign from the point of view of India's peer-competitors (China is not a competitor).

If I am a Vietnamese or Indonesian vying for global investment and economic cooperation, I would let India gloat and shine as the third largest economy in the world (soon to pass the US), and do my hard homework silently.

PPP is like a religion to them; religion is based on a strong faith, cannot really be reasoned with, my friend.

@Shotgunner51 , the OP wants to limit his academic argument to nominal GDP debate. Could you please make sure the thread would not be derailed. The interested parties can create another thread to specifically debate GDP in PPP.

 

[The Eagle]

It would be really appreciated, if members may kindly stay on topic and not to turn the same in Versus contest.

Thanks.

 

[Shotgunner51]

@Shotgunner51 , the OP wants to limit his academic argument to nominal GDP debate. Could you please make sure the thread would not be derailed. The interested parties can create another thread to specifically debate GDP in PPP.

All members, please stay on topic.

 

[Suika]

It is not fair that he was the one that made the thread and he is the one that caused the drift.

 

[Shotgunner51]

It is not fair that he was the one that made the thread and he is the one that caused the drift.

Agree, all posters in this thread are very resourceful writers but indeed gradually drifting away from topic. On technology comparison, very interesting, I wish such informative debate can continue, I will invite relevant posters from another thread.

 

[Shotgunner51]

@grey boy 2 @Suika @Martian2
Guys, I have moved those off-topic but very informative posts to a new thread
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/wipo...gest-ip-powerhouse.489225/page-9#post-9182282
So here we get back to economic, thanks!

 

[Shajida Khan]

@Shotgunner51 @WebMaster ,@waz @The Eagle @WAJsal

All members, please stay on topic.

I will further like to say that the topic of the discussion is

"IMF WEO Database (April 2017): China and US grow the most"

the discussion topic no where states that it is about 'Nominal GDP'. Nor the original post is asking it to be limited to Nominal GDP.

@Martian2 's arbitrary assertion that GDP should only be measured in nominal for this discussion is well, arbitrary and should not be used to mark posts quoting GDP PPP as a measure for economic size as Out of Topic.

Further the member also failed to produce any reputable reference to corroborate his point that GDP should only be compared in Nominal value.

Invoking forum moderation to limit the discussion to 'GDP Nominal', when it was not mentioned in the Topic/Subject nor in the original post is IMHO unfair and will amount to misuse of authority of moderation.

The topic is 'IMF WEO Database (April 2017): China and US grow the most' and should not be arbitrarily reduced to 'GDP Nominal' for the sake of one member's wish.

 

[Martian2]

@Shotgunner51 @WebMaster ,@waz @The Eagle @WAJsal

I will further like to say that the topic of the discussion is

"IMF WEO Database (April 2017): China and US grow the most"

the discussion topic no where states that it is about 'Nominal GDP'. Nor the original post is asking it to be limited to Nominal GDP.

@Martian2 's arbitrary assertion that GDP should only be measured in nominal for this discussion is well, arbitrary and should not be used to mark posts quoting GDP PPP as a measure for economic size as Out of Topic.

Further the member also failed to produce any reputable reference to corroborate his point that GDP should only be compared in Nominal value.

Invoking forum moderation to limit the discussion to 'GDP Nominal', when it was not mentioned in the Topic/Subject nor in the original post is IMHO unfair and will amount to misuse of authority of moderation.

The topic is 'IMF WEO Database (April 2017): China and US grow the most' and should not be arbitrarily reduced to 'GDP Nominal' for the sake of one member's wish.

Read the original post. The content of the original post, citation, and chart all mention nominal GDP.

 

[Shotgunner51]

@Shotgunner51 @WebMaster ,@waz @The Eagle @WAJsal

I will further like to say that the topic of the discussion is

"IMF WEO Database (April 2017): China and US grow the most"

the discussion topic no where states that it is about 'Nominal GDP'. Nor the original post is asking it to be limited to Nominal GDP.

@Martian2 's arbitrary assertion that GDP should only be measured in nominal for this discussion is well, arbitrary and should not be used to mark posts quoting GDP PPP as a measure for economic size as Out of Topic.

Further the member also failed to produce any reputable reference to corroborate his point that GDP should only be compared in Nominal value.

Invoking forum moderation to limit the discussion to 'GDP Nominal', when it was not mentioned in the Topic/Subject nor in the original post is IMHO unfair and will amount to misuse of authority of moderation.

The topic is 'IMF WEO Database (April 2017): China and US grow the most' and should not be arbitrarily reduced to 'GDP Nominal' for the sake of one member's wish.

Agree, feel free to proceed with debate and justify your argument.

 

[Shajida Khan]

Read the original post. The citation and chart are both about nominal GDP.

It no where states that discussion is only limited to nominal GDP. Heck the word nominal even does not show up in your original post or topic.

Agree, feel free to proceed with debate and justify your argument.

Thanks a lot.

 

[Martian2]

It no where states that discussion is only limited to nominal GDP. Heck the word nominal even does not show up in your original post or topic.

Did you read the original post and look at the gigantic chart?

Did you read about the rankings of the increase in absolute NOMINAL GDP?

It is understood that comparing national GDPs is in nominal GDP. When you derailed the thread into bullshit PPP, I clarify that it is about nominal GDP. Yet, you persisted in discussion ridiculous PPP dollars that do not exist.

Compare the chart and the absolute GDPs figures. They do not match the IMF figures for PPP. They only match IMF figures for nominal GDP. The citation link would have confirmed that these are IMF nominal GDPs. I told you this over and over again. Yet, you kept trying to steer the discussion to nonsense PPP.
----------

The IMF has released its latest April 2017 WEO (World Economic Outlook) data set. It is the most up-to-date GDP data available.

We will look at the IMF data for the past eight years (2010-2017) to filter out yearly gyrations and examine the long-term trend.

When you look at the world's 11 largest economies, you will notice that only three countries experienced significant economic growth. China grew the most at nearly 100% and an absolute growth of $5.73 trillion ($11.79 trillion - $6.06 trillion).

The US came in second with $4.45 trillion of absolute growth at nearly 30% growth.

India's absolute growth was a meager $0.75 trillion at 44% growth.

All of the other world's-11-largest-economies showed little or negative growth.

Since China (+$5.73 trillion) and the US (+$4.45 trillion) produced the only truly significant economic growth in the world during the past eight years, it makes sense to only pay attention to China and the US. The other countries are stagnant.
----------

Primary source from the IMF: World Economic Outlook Database April 2017 | IMF

Wikipedia has arranged the latest IMF April 2017 WEO data into a well-organized chart.