You just made one comment about the productivity of the Chinese Vs. the Indians on the graph which is not what the graph is about. I am willing to answer any question that you want answered with a clear neeyat.
Productivity = what a person can produce. Large countries like India and China cannot afford to be vampire states like Dubai, Switzerland, Israel, Bahrain, Luzemburg etc because of the vast size of their population. Hence, their productivity = their consumption per capita for the most part. So once again when the GDP per capita of a Chinese is more than TWICE that of an Indian that means:
The productivity of a chinese worker is more than twice that of an Indian ON AVERAGE. This is because a Chinese is generally better nourished, better educated, better trained, faster, has a higher IQ, is more motivated and better organized than an Indian. Hence the real dollar value of what an average Chinese produces is more than twice that of an Indian. Hence the per capita GDP of a Chinese is more than twice that of an Indian so the chart is about productivity--about economic productivity. Do you understand now?
Productivty = GDP per capita when you talk about economies. It's not just used to measure factory efficiency.
I will attempt to answer your queries still assuming that you want to really understand. If that is not the case, I am making a futile attempt.
The first graph is the total GDP of the 5 countries mentioned (Germany, Italy, France, US and UK) Vs. the other 4 countries mentioned (China, India, Japan, Brazil).
I know exactly what the first graph is and since you mentioned the first graph please take a look at the RIGHT END of the charts you produced. You see in the last two decades the GDP of Chine has slipped from being about equal to that of India to being TWICE that of India's. Since they have almost exactly the same population it is plain obvious that the productivity of the Chinese is soaring in relation to that of the Indian and the gap is growing, not closing.
Do you comprehend that? The gap has been growing steadily for the last two or three decades and is consistently growing and not closing. Which means India is not catching up but slipping behind. It's a trend which anyone can see(holding the populations of India and China constant) and extrapolating the results it is obvious that the GDP of China will be at least 4 times the GDP of India by 2050.
Yet your second chart totally contradicts your FIRST chart both in past statistics, present data as well as future trends. This is why I picked the second chart out because it looks like total nonsense. According to you the productivity of the AVERAGE Indian and hence their GDP per capita will be about equal to that of an American in 40 years? That is ridiculous.
What is also odd about that chart is it shows a sudden leap in the chinese GDP per capita starting around 2010 when the truth is the chinese have been increading their productivity lead steadily and not haphazardly over the last 3 decades and are continuing to do so. That second graph is nonsensical in more than one way.
No unforeseen circumstances like the ones you mention are anticipated. It is just the result of the anticipated growth rates of these countries over the next 3-4 decades. Again this is just a continuation of something that is already happening in the last few decades. Nothing dramatic.
No it is dramatic. There is no way India can suddenly Industrialize and develop that way in the next 40 years without a radical revolution and even that is being very optimistic. You have nothing to back that, look at the HDI index of India and compare it with China, Japan and the US. And for the umpteenth time you are not catching up with the Chinese in any way but they are catching up to Japan, the US etc while India is actually slipping further behind. Statistics prove it.
So you seem to have confused the first graph to be about the per capita income. It is not about that.
I haven't even produced the first graph in my other posts so I have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe you have problems reading simple english. Show me where I even mention the first graph as being skewed.
The second graph (per capita income) does not show that the per capita income of China will equal India in 2010. In fact it shows that the gap will increase till late into the 2030 before starting to converge.
I dunno how you managed to misquote me there. I clearly said that the gap is widening and has been widening for the last 20 or 30 years. Why does the graph show a sudden jump in 2010? What is the explanation? And why would India suddenly start to catch up in 2030--by magic? That graph puzzles me. Historically it is incorrect as can be proved by looking at the first graph. Both your graphs contradict each other, do you even realize that?
India is the base in the second graph (100) against which all these countries are projected over the next 40 years or so.
I hope I made it clear enough. Let me know if you still have questions that you want answered. I will be happy to answer.
You don't have to explain how per capita calculations work I know that already. But you seem to be unable to grasp anything beyond division and percentage calculations. I already showed you in more than one post how you two graphs contradict each other and I also showed you that China is already twice as productive as well as twice as big in output as India and the gap is growing not closing. This is what you have to address--stop acting as if I don't understand those graphs. I am disputing the second graph it is just too mind boggling to comprehend and assing any credibility to.
