In the end, India will still be trapped in debt

[EndangeredSpecies]

Now I see that you are making things up to prove your point.

The author never said anything as such on India paying back its loan in USD.
It is not possible, because the author himself has said in the beginning that India has borrowed locally as well from overseas.

So how will the author commit such a blunder to say that the national debt needs to be paid in USD?

This is falsehood coming from you.
He never said it.
He can not.
If he would lie this way, then his profession is finished.
He is balanced because he has also blamed the previous government.
So you accusing the author of misleading puts your own credibility at stake if any.

I reiterate, he never said it, and you never proved it.
Period.

Everything can be examined.
Its in black & white.

Actually my gentle sir, Author conveniently forgot to mention different ways in which debt can be sourced. Externally or domestically. The only differentiation he makes is that of debt between state governments and central government. He then jumps to how this is a debt trap and how unlike USA India cannot fund her debt at lower rate of interest and how India does not have luxury of getting a debt in USD implying that India debt needs to be in USD in the first place.

As you stated

It is not possible, because the author himself has said in the beginning that India has borrowed locally as well from overseas.

May I ask you to show where the Author clarifies about the sources of debt? Where he gives a break-up of our debt domestically and overseas?

 

[protest]

@EndangeredSpecies

Show me where did the article say as above?

Ashok, clearly you have no understanding of economics, yet you argue anyways.

 

[Nilgiri]

Its funny when you go to the actual website of the article:

http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/in-the-end-india-will-still-be-trapped-in-debt

Comments are there from 3 years ago, I will let the false flagger figure out the signficance of that if someone who he doesn't have on ignore can quote me/screen cap me

I certainly did find the date of July 10th to be an odd one for an Indian budget

"If he would lie this way, then his profession is finished."

Ouch yes lots of integrity and knowledge in the field of journalism these days for sure!

Oh look, maybe he was fired for his stupidity after all:

http://www.sunday-guardian.com/profile/jehangir-s-pocha

Not a peep since july 2014

 

[ashok321]

May I ask you to show where the Author clarifies about the sources of debt? Where he gives a break-up of our debt domestically and overseas?

The Centre's total debt is now a staggering Rs 4,700,000 crore. Include the states' debt and India's total government debt is Rs 6,500,000 crore, approximately 65% of its GDP.


State debt means what, dollar denominated?
Of course its always in Rupees.

Don't you even understand this small thingy?

Ashok, clearly you have no understanding of economics, yet you argue anyways.

You are ignored.

 

[Nilgiri]

A little music to keep you all entertained as you watch Ashok squeal and put people on ignore:

The valuation of Aramco is more than South Korean economy, what's your point?

False Flagger Idiot has no concept of the difference between that which is accumulated (wealth, valuation etc) and that which is produced/spent in a time period (GDP, budget etc).

Literal definition of copying pasting from clickbait that pops in front of his bobblehead.

 

[ashok321]

http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/india

 

[EndangeredSpecies]

The Centre's total debt is now a staggering Rs 4,700,000 crore. Include the states' debt and India's total government debt is Rs 6,500,000 crore, approximately 65% of its GDP.


State debt means what, dollar denominated?
Of course its always in Rupees.

Don't you even understand this small thingy?

Dear Learned Sir, to the best of my understanding this is 'Centre' and 'States'. As in Federal government and state government. Please read it in the context it is given.

Let us for the argument's sake take that it is external debt. so state debt from the figures comes about 1,800,000 crore (65 - 47 = 18). This taking a currency rate of about 60 INR to USD -- which is what was prevlent in Jul 2014 http://www.x-rates.com/average/?from=USD&to=INR&amount=1&year=2014 -- this yields about 300 billion USD debt.
Now here is the problem. India's external debt never was below 400 billion in entire period of 2013 onwards. In 2014 it was close to 440 billion USD (https://tradingeconomics.com/india/external-debt).

These numbers do not add up. So state debt as mentioned in this article is certainly not external debt of India. Otherwise we will have to assume that exchange rate was round 45 INR to dollar in 2014. Which is simply false. It never went below 55 in that time frame.

I guess, this corroborate my understanding of 'this small thingy'. Neh?

 

[ashok321]

Per capita wise also the Indian debt has grown:

 

[ashok321]

Dear Learned Sir, to the best of my understanding this is 'Centre' and 'States'. As in Federal government and state government. Please read it in the context it is given.

Let us for the argument's sake take that it is external debt. so state debt from the figures comes about 1,800,000 crore (65 - 47 = 18). This taking a currency rate of about 60 INR to USD -- which is what was prevlent in Jul 2014 http://www.x-rates.com/average/?from=USD&to=INR&amount=1&year=2014 -- this yields about 300 billion USD debt.
Now here is the problem. India's external debt never was below 400 billion in entire period of 2013 onwards. In 2014 it was close to 440 billion USD (https://tradingeconomics.com/india/external-debt).

These numbers do not add up. So state debt as mentioned in this article is certainly not external debt of India. Otherwise we will have to assume that exchange rate was round 45 INR to dollar in 2014. Which is simply false. It never went below 55 in that time frame.

Why you are taking refuge in exchange rate now?
India pays in tranches whenever the amount due to the ADB/WB/IMF. The rate of exchange is applicable then & there.

Bottom line:
India's total debt is 68%
Yes or not?

India pays 25% Interest
Yes or not?

This is the bottom line that I am emphasizing upon.

 

[EndangeredSpecies]

A little music to keep you all entertained as you watch Ashok squeal and put people on ignore:

Wonderful music! reminds me of old Charlie Chaplin movies. Tramp and Modern Times are my favorite.

Why you are taking refuge in exchange rate now?
India pays in tranches whenever the amount due to the ADB/WB/IMF. The rate of exchange is applicable then & there.

Bottom line:
India's total debt is 68%
Yes or not?

India pays 25% Interest
Yes or not?

This is the bottom line that I am emphasizing upon.

I am not taking refuge anywhere, I was merely examining your point that does 'State' as mentioned in the article mean State government or 'State' as in Nation. It comes out that author indeed didn't distinguish between domestic and external debt.

Why you are taking refuge in exchange rate now?
India pays in tranches whenever the amount due to the ADB/WB/IMF. The rate of exchange is applicable then & there.

Bottom line:
India's total debt is 68%
Yes or not?

India pays 25% Interest
Yes or not?

This is the bottom line that I am emphasizing upon.

India's total debt is 68% of GDP indeed but it is not bad or harmful or whatever. India is an emerging economy and such debt level are expected.

Indian government pays 25% of its revenue in servicing its total debt and there is nothing wrong with it. If Indian government wants, it can reduce it drastically but at a cost of screwing the savings of common men/women. I am glad government is instead focusing on increasing tax collection as an alternative.

 

[ashok321]

Wonderful music! reminds me of old Charlie Chaplin movies. Tramp and Modern Times are my favorite.


I am not taking refuge anywhere, I was merely examining your point that does 'State' as mentioned in the article mean State government or 'State' as in Nation. It comes out that author indeed didn't distinguish between domestic and external debt.

Is it not a common sense when two set of numerical figures are given by the author?
If this was only nation, why would he furnish 2 sets of numbers?

BTW, re-read the article which says states....NOT ESTATE.

The Centre's total debt is now a staggering Rs 4,700,000 crore. Include the states' debt and India's total government debt is Rs 6,500,000 crore, approximately 65% of its GDP.

He has written an article - not book.

Is it clear now?

I have a no nonsense attitude, in that, I don't want to be taken for a ride, neither would I take you for a ride.

The founder of this weekly; Sunday Guardian, one who is a Rajya Sabha BJP MP, was the one under whose watch this article was released into mainstream.

Therefore the common sense says it that the author would not have been in any position to lie on figures or otherwise.

So people who question the motive of a writer, they should use little prudence before even speaking against the same.

 

[EndangeredSpecies]

Is it not a common sense when two set of numerical figures are given by the author?
If this was only nation, why would he furnish 2 sets of numbers?

BTW, re-read the article which says states....NOT ESTATE.

The Centre's total debt is now a staggering Rs 4,700,000 crore. Include the states' debt and India's total government debt is Rs 6,500,000 crore, approximately 65% of its GDP.

He has written an article - not book.

Is it clear now?

I have a no nonsense attitude, in that, I don't want to be taken for a ride, neither would I take you for a ride.

The original article, IMHO, was using the word 'state' as in UP MP Maharashtra etc and NOT external debt. The author was talking about state and centre to bifurcate debt based on who is taking the debt. He certainly didn't classify the debt into domestic and external debt.

My entire calculation was to show that India's external debt was never 1,800,000 caror or 300 billion USD in 2014. It was about 400 billion USD. Hence the number cannot be 1,800,000 caror and hence the author never meant National debt (external or otherwise) when he said 'State' in the article.

In a nutshell, author never cared to classify debt as external or domestic.

BTW, why did you bring the word ESTATE?

 

[ashok321]

The problem here on PDF being; When these right wingers see anything bad on India, they come running to defend it, by hook or crook. They must do that, whether they have to lie in the process. This is the psyche here.

 

[EndangeredSpecies]

The problem here on PDF being; When these right wingers see anything bad on India, they come running to defend it, by hook or crook. They must do that, whether they have to lie in the process. This is the psyche here.

Well, I do not know about right winger but the facts are clearly not with author and those who follow that author.

 

[ashok321]

The original article, IMHO, was using the word 'state' as in UP MP Maharashtra etc and NOT external debt. The author was talking about state and centre to bifurcate debt based on who is taking the debt. He certainly didn't classify the debt into domestic and external debt.

My entire calculation was to show that India's external debt was never 1,800,000 caror or 300 billion USD in 2014. It was about 400 billion USD. Hence the number cannot be 1,800,000 caror and hence the author never meant National debt (external or otherwise) when he said 'State' in the article.

In a nutshell, author never cared to classify debt as external or domestic.

Its a common sense.
I understood from the word states & center that he means two numbers, even he furnished two sets of numbers.
As I said, its an article and not a book.

2014 is inconsequential and even dishonest to speak of or mention, because its the present situation thats being talked about. The peril is even bigger now. The per capita debt load/burden is growing.