What's new

India to catch up with China? Stop deluding yourselves!

The dollar economy is not a very good indicator of GDP for India where currency fluctuation is the norm. Our main interest with the dollar economy should be maintaining a 0% CAD or a surplus, but that will take time.

China's forex in 2006 was $1T while India's in 2016 is less than 400B. If we don't focus on trade, then dollar inflow and outflow will obviously be lesser. And our currency can appreciate or depreciate anytime while the Chinese currency is constrained within a 2% mark during one session. There are greater chances of depreciation because investors can withdraw forex investment anytime. For three years, our economic growth and currency depreciation were at the same rate, so it doesn't show economic growth, but that's obviously wrong.

But I agree that we need to catch up on HDI. China's literacy rate was always high, even in the 90s it was near 80%. In India, some large states are lagging behind in all economic indicators, which brings down the overall education rate, unlike China.

You mean the Nominal GDP as compare to PPP. If you wish to compare the GDP as per PPP, then India will fare better than china.

China GDP (as per PPP) in 2005 = 5.1 Trillion $
China GDP (as per PPP) in 2008 = 7.5 Trillion $

India GDP (as per PPP) in 2015 = 7.4 Trillion $



There is no use comparing the forex, because chinese growth was based on export and Indian economic growth is based on internal consumption. That is why our GDP in PPP will appear much stronger than chinas.

This means our Forex will be smaller than china, but our economy is much more stronger than china to face a global economic meltdown.

Chinese Currency is pegged to the USD, while Indian INR is fully convertible and is not pegged to any other global currency. That is why our currency fluctuates wildly but the advantage is that when the economy strengthens our currency will also strengthen that much faster.

Finally, with the global economy in a tailspin, where can the FDI escape if they withdraw ? :lol: ..... they have no choice but to remain invested in India.

Our currency depreciation is a result of our oil and gold imports and weak exports due to global economic depression. Again with the growth of alternate fuels like solar and strategic alliance with Iran and Russia for oil, AND the depressed oil prices , our currency will now remain stable.

In any case the strength of the currency is secondary to the strength of the overall economy. It is a parameter for GDP calculation which you just recently dismissed.

The only place we lag behind in china and need to catch up in the Average Literacy rate. We take care of that and we will grow faster than china on any given day.
 
Last edited:
Dream on, cos its free:sarcastic:
SZfOhiB.gif
 
You mean the Nominal GDP as compare to PPP. If you wish to compare the GDP as per PPP, then India will fare better than china.

China GDP (as per PPP) in 2005 = 5.1 Trillion $
China GDP (as per PPP) in 2008 = 7.5 Trillion $

India GDP (as per PPP) in 2015 = 7.4 Trillion $



There is no use comparing the forex, because chinese growth was based on export and Indian economic growth is based on internal consumption. That is why our GDP in PPP will appear much stronger than chinas.

This means our Forex will be smaller than china, but our economy is much more stronger than china to face a global economic meltdown.

Chinese Currency is pegged to the USD, while Indian INR is fully convertible and is not pegged to any other global currency. That is why our currency fluctuates wildly but the advantage is that when the economy strengthens our currency will also strengthen that much faster.

Finally, with the global economy in a tailspin, where can the FDI escape if they withdraw ? :lol: ..... they have no choice but to remain invested in India.

Our currency depreciation is a result of our oil and gold imports and weak exports due to global economic depression. Again with the growth of alternate fuels like solar and strategic alliance with Iran and Russia for oil, AND the depressed oil prices , our currency will now remain stable.

In any case the strength of the currency is secondary to the strength of the overall economy. It is a parameter for GDP calculation which you just recently dismissed.

The only place we lag behind in china and need to catch up in the Average Literacy rate. We take care of that and we will grow faster than china on any given day.
Number of economy tells nothing.
One trillion dollars in 2016 clearly means differently in 2000 and 1980.
In PPP term, you have reached US decades ago.
But US decades ago had very few malnutrition, very low infant mortality, and had 80,000km expressway.
China in 2008 could handle a successful Olympics games and had just launched a 350km/h high-speed rail.

Dream on, cos its free:sarcastic:
SZfOhiB.gif
Their comparison of economic number was faulted and ridiculous.
Japanese in the era of $2000 per capita GDP had higher life expectancy than indians.

At last, it is inclusive growth that counts.

Life expectancy at birth 1990-2013.png
 
Dream on, cos its free:sarcastic:
SZfOhiB.gif

So in some HDI parameters we are 30 years behind, but in terms of the actual economy, we are only a few years behind. 9 years behind in GDP. 5 years behind in higher education and internet penetration. Only 2 years behind consumption of cars.
 
And health.

Health is part of social parameter that increases with literacy. You can watch the Kerala example to understand the direct correlation.

Also our dietary habits after a few hundred years of occupation and starvation can only improve with time.

Number of economy tells nothing.
One trillion dollars in 2016 clearly means differently in 2000 and 1980.
In PPP term, you have reached US decades ago.
But US decades ago had very few malnutrition, very low infant mortality, and had 80,000km expressway.
China in 2008 could handle a successful Olympics games and had just launched a 350km/h high-speed rail.

Their comparison of economic number was faulted and ridiculous.
Japanese in the era of $2000 per capita GDP had higher life expectancy than indians.

At last, it is inclusive growth that counts.

View attachment 343939

All that is pure rubbish.

Our per capital income continues to remain low due to a larger population base. If our population reaches the level of US income then the Indian economy will be worth 70 Trillion $ , not 7 Trillion $.

So in some HDI parameters we are 30 years behind, but in terms of the actual economy, we are only a few years behind. 9 years behind in GDP. 5 years behind in higher education and internet penetration. Only 2 years behind consumption of cars.

HDI is a social parameter, not economic.

But this is a parameter that can make inorganic growth and non linear growth due to technology and urbanisation. So a 30 year gap can be closed in 10 years.
 
Number of economy tells nothing.
One trillion dollars in 2016 clearly means differently in 2000 and 1980.
In PPP term, you have reached US decades ago.
But US decades ago had very few malnutrition, very low infant mortality, and had 80,000km expressway.

I'm so happy that people have now stopped comparing GDPs and are now comparing HDI. It shows that India has been improving drastically.

China in 2008 could handle a successful Olympics games and had just launched a 350km/h high-speed rail.

Irrelevant. Both are based on priority.

Japanese in the era of $2000 per capita GDP had higher life expectancy than indians.

This is again determined by priority. Some states in India have very high HDI, some states very low, which drags the average down. For example, the literacy rate in Kerala is 94% while in Bihar it is less than 65%.

Education is primarily a state subject in India.

HDI is a social parameter, not economic.

No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
The Human Development Index (HDI) is a composite statistic of life expectancy, education, and per capita income indicators, which are used to rank countries into four tiers of human development.
 
In the era of the new technological revolution, old development models are dead.


Made in China?

Asia’s dominance in manufacturing will endure. That will make development harder for others

BY MAKING things and selling them to foreigners, China has transformed itself—and the world economy with it. In 1990 it produced less than 3% of global manufacturing output by value; its share now is nearly a quarter. China produces about 80% of the world’s air-conditioners, 70% of its mobile phones and 60% of its shoes. The white heat of China’s ascent has forged supply chains that reach deep into South-East Asia. This “Factory Asia” now makes almost half the world’s goods.

China has been following in the footsteps of Asian tigers such as South Korea and Taiwan. Many assumed that, in due course, the baton would pass to other parts of the world, enabling them in their turn to manufacture their way to prosperity. But far from being loosened by rising wages, China’s grip is tightening. Low-cost work that does leave China goes mainly to South-East Asia, only reinforcing Factory Asia’s dominance (see article). That raises questions for emerging markets outside China’s orbit. From India to Africa and South America, the tricky task of getting rich has become harder.


Work to rule

China’s economy is not as robust as it was. The property market is plagued by excess supply. Rising debt is a burden. Earlier this month the government said that it was aiming for growth of 7% this year, which would be its lowest for more than two decades—data this week suggest even this might be a struggle (see article). Despite this, China will continue to have three formidable advantages in manufacturing that will benefit the economy as a whole.

First, it is clinging on to low-cost manufacturing, even as it goes upmarket to exploit higher-value activities. Its share of global clothing exports has actually risen, from 42.6% in 2011 to 43.1% in 2013. It is also making more of the things that go into its goods. The World Bank has found that the share of imported components in China’s total exports has fallen from a peak of 60% in the mid-1990s to around 35% today. This is partly because China boasts clusters of efficient suppliers that others will struggle to replicate. It has excellent, and improving, infrastructure: it plans to build ten airports a year until 2020 (see article). And its firms are using automation to raise productivity, offsetting some of the effect of higher wages—the idea behind the government’s new “Made in China 2025” strategy.

China’s second strength is Factory Asia itself. As wages rise, some low-cost activity is indeed leaving the country. Much of this is passing to large low-income populations in South-East Asia. This process has a dark side. Last year an NGO found that almost 30% of workers in Malaysia’s electronics industry were forced labour (see article). But as Samsung, Microsoft, Toyota and other multinational firms trim production in China and turn instead to places such as Myanmar and the Philippines, they reinforce a regional supply chain with China at the centre.

The third advantage is that China is increasingly a linchpin of demand. As the spending and sophistication of Chinese consumers grows, Factory Asia is grabbing a bigger share of higher-margin marketing and customer service. At the same time, Chinese demand is strengthening Asian supply chains all the more. When it comes to the Chinese market, local contractors have the edge over distant rivals.

Deft policy could boost these advantages still further. The Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) is capable of snapping up low-end manufacturing. China’s share—by volume—of the market for American shoe imports slipped from 87% in 2009 to 79% last year. Vietnam, Indonesia and Cambodia picked up all the extra work. But ASEAN could do far more to create a single market for more complex goods and services. Regional—or, better, global—deals would smooth the spread of manufacturing networks from China into nearby countries. The example of Thailand’s strength in vehicle production, which followed the scrapping of restrictions on foreign components, shows how the right policies can weld South-East Asian countries into China’s manufacturing machine.

Unfortunately, other parts of the emerging world have less cause to rejoice. They lack a large economy that can act as the nucleus of a regional grouping. The North American Free-Trade Agreement has brought Mexican firms into supply chains that criss-cross North America, but not Central and South American ones. High trade barriers mean western Europe will not help north Africa in the way that it has helped central and eastern Europe.

And even when places like India or sub-Saharan Africa prise production from Factory Asia’s grasp, another problem remains. Manufacturing may no longer offer the employment or income gains that it once did. In the past export-led manufacturing offered a way for large numbers of unskilled workers to move from field to factory, transforming their productivity at a stroke. Now technological advances have led to fewer workers on factory floors. China and its neighbours may have been the last countries to be able to climb up the ladder of development simply by recruiting lots of unskilled people to make things cheaply.

Exports still remain the surest path to success for emerging markets. Competing in global markets is the best way to boost productivity. But governments outside the gates of Factory Asia will have to rely on several engines of development—not just manufacturing, but agriculture and services, too. India’s IT-services sector shows what can be achieved, but it is high-skilled and barely taps into the country’s ocean of labour.

Put policy to work

Such a model of development demands more of policymakers than competing on manufacturing labour costs ever did. A more liberal global regime for trade in services should be a priority for South America and Africa. Infrastructure spending has to focus on fibre-optic cables as well as ports and roads. Education is essential, because countries trying to break into global markets will need skilled workforces.

These are tall orders for developing countries. But just waiting for higher Chinese wages to push jobs their way is a recipe for failure.

Do quote me after 28 years.
Doubt life expectancy in india can survive that long.
 
The Human Development Index (HDI) is a composite statistic of education, and per capita income indicators, which are used to rank countries into four tiers of human development.

I am not talking about the parameters used to measure HDI, I am talking about the parameters that actually affects HDI in a real sense. The most important and overwhelming parameter is literacy.

When women are educated, they know how to feed their baby better, take care of their health better, feed their family better and even how to earn more money to keep their family healthy.

On do no need wikipedia for this.
 
So in some HDI parameters we are 30 years behind, but in terms of the actual economy, we are only a few years behind. 9 years behind in GDP. 5 years behind in higher education and internet penetration. Only 2 years behind consumption of cars.


:omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha:

You can do some basic math, right?

To reach where China is today in 9 years, Indian GDP needs to grow around 20% every year for each of the next 9 years.

In 2015, Chinese bought 24.6 million automobiles, more than 23 times higher than what Indians bought. So to catch up with Chinese auto sales in 2 years, Indians need to buy 490% more cars each year for the next two years.

Of course, talk is very easy because that's all you Indians can do. Keep talking.
 
Last edited:
In 2015, Chinese bought 24.6 million automobiles, more than 23 times higher than what Indians bought.
The thing is, they need to have proper roads to drive.
I find it weird that they spend billions in building highways, as opposed to the real road for car drivers, "control-accessed expressways".

China started to build expressways in 1980s.
In 1990s, more than 10,000km expressways were being built at the same time....
I really think they should not just build highways but at least, Preserve some land for future expressway construction.
I'm not saying highways are not needed, actually we are still massively building highways today.

National highways in China
Roads are good, but not control-accessed, thus not high-speed
普通国道布局.jpg


National expressway in China (provincial expressway not shown).
Lorry drivers can fly! Carrying fresh veggie from several thousand kilometres away to my city!
国家高速布局.jpg


I think, for high-speed transport of both passengers and freight, india should also build a network of expressways (not some isolated expressways but a closed system linking all lines together). Geographically, india is smaller and has less geologically complicated land such as China's Guizhou Province....There is no reason India has not started massive construction of expressways from now. China planned to build a network in 1970s. The cost will be much smaller now, otherwise, after 1-2 decades when you realise normal highways are not enough, it'll be too late facing the astronomical figures.

@Nilgiri @Echo_419 @anant_s @litefire Your thoughts?
 
Last edited:
I am not talking about the parameters used to measure HDI, I am talking about the parameters that actually affects HDI in a real sense. The most important and overwhelming parameter is literacy.

When women are educated, they know how to feed their baby better, take care of their health better, feed their family better and even how to earn more money to keep their family healthy.

On do no need wikipedia for this.

Of course. Literacy solves a lot of problems. But without access to health, no amount of education will save you from diseases.

The fact is we have a huge problem with infant mortality, that's more to do with access to affordable health care than literacy. Any woman with common sense would prefer to give birth around professionals.

:omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha:

You can do some basic math, right?

To reach where China is today in 9 years, Indian GDP needs to grow around 20% every year for each of the next 9 years.

In 2015, Chinese bought 24.6 million automobiles, more than 23 times higher than what Indians bought. So to catch up with Chinese auto sales in 2 years, Indians need to buy 490% more cars each year for the next two years.

Of course, talk is very easy because that's all you Indians can do. Keep talking.

Did your daddy drop you as a baby?

I quoted directly from the graph your friend posted. Read that first.

The thing is, they need to have proper roads to drive.
I find it weird that they spend billions in building highways, as opposed to the real road for car drivers, "control-accessed expressways".

China started to build expressways in 1980s.
In 1990s, more than 10,000km expressways were being built at the same time....

It depends on what you did to the people who lived on land replaced by expressways.
 
Back
Top Bottom