Italy aims to expand G8 to include China, India, Brazil

[maqsad]

Maqsad. You seem to be thoroughly confused about what is being discussed.

I don't understand why you are so keen to discuss Chinese productivity here. That is not what my post was about.

That is what your graphs are about though. Everyone knows China's GDP per capita is more than twice that of India's therefore the graph of GDP per capita index should have that reflected, it does not. If India is 100 on the index then China should be more than 200 on the index yet it is clearly not. The chinese line does not reach 1/5th into the 1,000 bar. Anyone can tell. This is why I am keen to discuss China, to prove that your second graph is skewed. Explain to me why China does not show up 1/5th of the way to the 1,000 bar because 200 is 1/5th of 1,000 right?

It was just to emphasize that the world economic balance is changing and the graphs just depict that. I am not interested in any India Vs. China thing here. That is just not the point even if you are so desperate to make it one.

The two graphs don't contradict each other. They just compliment each other. One is about per capita income, the other is the GDP of the countries. They were published in a reputed business magazine.

I am not making it a point, I clearly only used it to illustrate how nonsensical the first graph is in it's present stats as well as how nonsensical the graph is in it's future trends. Sorry but it is very relevent.

Just read the BRIC report from:

http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ideas/brics/book/99-dreaming.pdf

And now try to understand what the graphs represent.

I already understand what the graphs represent why do you keep going over them over and over. I am DISPUTING the predictions of the graphs they are just too nonsensical to believe and I showed exactly why.

There is no sudden jump in the graph. It just looks that way because of the scale/resolution. Just smoothen out the curve for your understanding.

You are totally wrong about the per capita income of India Vs. USA in 2050. The USA will still be 5 times India in 2050 and the graph clearly shows that. The USA was about 100 times India 2 decades back and is almost half now. So no need to be so startled by that.

That made no sense whatsoever.

Why would India start catching up with China in 2030? May be due to the aging Chinese population, may be India would have increased their HDI by then and have a more productive population. Let's wait and see. I have not created the graph, just posted them. But I do believe India will be there much before 2050, may be 1 decade earlier at least.

The second graph flows naturally from the current growth rates of the concerned countries. There is nothing incomprehensible about it. That is if one is willing to comprehend in the first place and has an IQ > 90.

No it is incomprehensible because:

1) India and China are both 1 billion+ in population. China has zero poverty and malnutrition while India by comparison is cursed with half the people not properly fed, housed etc.

2) China educates everyone and has 90+ literacy and an average IQ of 105 while Indians are barely half literate and have an average IQ of 83 or so. China also produces more than twice as many scientists and engineers as India and exports a lot less.

3) It takes at least 3 or 4 generations for people to recover from the physical and social traumas of malnutrition, disease, physical degeneration etc. And that is only IF they are provided with proper amenities, nutrition and education. This is not been seen to happen to Indias 600 million semi literate block.

So whether a person has an IQ >90 or IQ>190 it is still incomprehensible how India will catch up with China when in reality all figures show it is slipping behind. How many times do I have to repeat this, it is slipping behind according to all current stats so if you claim it will catch up by 2030 or 205 you have to produce solid proof or even decent evidence as to HOW.

 

[Neo]

Russia was inducted in to the G8 in 1998, at this point of time the Russian economy was completely collapsed and in chaose. their per capita was also on a lower site. and according to your defination Russia should not be inducted in G8.

Russia was qualified enough to be a member long before 1998 but could not join the pretigious group due Communist Regime. Even after USSR desintegrated in 1991 it took almost seven years for her to reform and revitalise the economy and infrastructure to become the 8th member of G8.
It has nothing to do with the per capita income, rather with the economical and technological weight and potential she carried with her.

 

[Vinod2070]

Expansion of G8 to G14 will reult in liberalisation of global economy whereas sxpansion of UNSC will only empower members states, there's a huge difference and Italy won't acept it.
Don't forget that it was Itraly who initiated anti expansion compaign, later joined by Pakistan.

I guess, Italians are only opposed to the Germany's inclusion as a permanent member. If the EU gets the permanent membership replacing the current European members, their opposition will melt away.

That is going to happen in the foreseeable future.

The opposition of the "coffee club" is typically pique for their neighbors and not based on any ideology. But then, it is only understandable.

 

[Vinod2070]

That is what your graphs are about though. Everyone knows China's GDP per capita is more than twice that of India's therefore the graph of GDP per capita index should have that reflected, it does not. If India is 100 on the index then China should be more than 200 on the index yet it is clearly not. The chinese line does not reach 1/5th into the 1,000 bar. Anyone can tell. This is why I am keen to discuss China, to prove that your second graph is skewed. Explain to me why China does not show up 1/5th of the way to the 1,000 bar because 200 is 1/5th of 1,000 right?

No. You just seem to be stuck at the India-China ratio. The point is that the economic balance is shifting out from the West to the East.

If China is doing better than the graph predicts, good for them. Same is true for India also. May be China is further ahead, it takes nothing away from the basic premise of the change in economic balance towards the East.

You are just nitpicking without understanding what is being sought to be conveyed. The graphs are very clear and China and India are voth doing better than the predictions said. May be China is doing better than India and that doesn't change anything.

As far as I can see, the graph does show that the Chinese have a per capita GDP ratio >2, not sure why you can't see it. Shall I set up a live meeting and explain to you?

I am not making it a point, I clearly only used it to illustrate how nonsensical the first graph is in it's present stats as well as how nonsensical the graph is in it's future trends. Sorry but it is very relevent.

I already understand what the graphs represent why do you keep going over them over and over. I am DISPUTING the predictions of the graphs they are just too nonsensical to believe and I showed exactly why.

It is your lack of understanding of the graph, not the fault of the graphs themselves. They are very clear and very relevant.

That made no sense whatsoever.

It was OBVIOUS. The per capita income of USA will be 5 times of India in 2050. We were discussing per capita income there, weren't we?

No it is incomprehensible because:

1) India and China are both 1 billion+ in population. China has zero poverty and malnutrition while India by comparison is cursed with half the people not properly fed, housed etc.

2) China educates everyone and has 90+ literacy and an average IQ of 105 while Indians are barely half literate and have an average IQ of 83 or so. China also produces more than twice as many scientists and engineers as India and exports a lot less.

3) It takes at least 3 or 4 generations for people to recover from the physical and social traumas of malnutrition, disease, physical degeneration etc. And that is only IF they are provided with proper amenities, nutrition and education. This is not been seen to happen to Indias 600 million semi literate block.

So whether a person has an IQ >90 or IQ>190 it is still incomprehensible how India will catch up with China when in reality all figures show it is slipping behind. How many times do I have to repeat this, it is slipping behind according to all current stats so if you claim it will catch up by 2030 or 205 you have to produce solid proof or even decent evidence as to HOW.

You and your useless statistics. Even Chinese are not so disillusioned about the challenges they face as some of their lackeys are.

But this is not about India Vs. China. Get out of that. It just sounds pathetic.

take a chill pill and try to understand the reasoning behind why G8 is doing what it is doing.

 

[Vinod2070]

Russia was qualified enough to be a member long before 1998 but could not join the pretigious group due Communist Regime. Even after USSR desintegrated in 1991 it took almost seven years for her to reform and revitalise the economy and infrastructure to become the 8th member of G8.
It has nothing to do with the per capita income, rather with the economical and technological weight and potential she carried with her.

That is 100% correct.

It is about the economic weight the nations carry as a whole. Per capita income is only part of the story.

The two were one and the same few decades back, not any longer.

 

[Neo]

Thank you!

And going by this creteria All G 14 and even some of the top N 11 will claim and deserve their place in the prestigious group. This is step forward towards global economic freedom and we should embrace it.

 

[Contrarian]

Personally, i dont understand how does it make a single difference if India/Brazil/China were to make G-8 to G-11.

 

[Vinod2070]

Thank you!

And going by this creteria All G 14 and even some of the top N 11 will claim and deserve their place in the prestigious group. This is step forward towards global economic freedom and we should embrace it.

That is going to happen. Just a matter of time.

 

[Vinod2070]

Personally, i dont understand how does it make a single difference if India/Brazil/China were to make G-8 to G-11.

Well it will broadbase the decision making progress and take into account the concerns of the emerging economies.

The G8 wants to influence the world economic, climate and social policies. Can they realistically do that without the BRIC and some of the N11 countries and hope to be successful?

 

[maqsad]

No. You just seem to be stuck at the India-China ratio. The point is that the economic balance is shifting out from the West to the East.

If China is doing better than the graph predicts, good for them. Same is true for India also. May be China is further ahead, it takes nothing away from the basic premise of the change in economic balance towards the East.

You are just nitpicking without understanding what is being sought to be conveyed. The graphs are very clear and China and India are voth doing better than the predictions said. May be China is doing better than India and that doesn't change anything.

As far as I can see, the graph does show that the Chinese have a per capita GDP ratio >2, not sure why you can't see it. Shall I set up a live meeting and explain to you?



It is your lack of understanding of the graph, not the fault of the graphs themselves. They are very clear and very relevant.

I know that, and my point was that firstly the technological balance is NOT shifting towards India by any stretch of the imagination and secondly when it comes to brute economic output the shift is more towards, much more towards china than to India.

It was OBVIOUS. The per capita income of USA will be 5 times of India in 2050. We were discussing per capita income there, weren't we?

We were, until you dropped this little gem reproduced in orange and red below. Your statement is not OBVIOUS but rather confused and muddled like most of your rantings are. The USA is half of India now?

The USA will still be 5 times India in 2050 and the graph clearly shows that. The USA was about 100 times India 2 decades back and is almost half now.

You and your useless statistics. Even Chinese are not so disillusioned about the challenges they face as some of their lackeys are.

But this is not about India Vs. China. Get out of that. It just sounds pathetic.

take a chill pill and try to understand the reasoning behind why G8 is doing what it is doing.

I am talking about the reasoning the G8 is doing what it is doing:

1) India has no "industrial prowess" as claimed here. Everyone knows that Indian technology does not produce a single item for export which anyone has a use for unlike technologically advanced countries such as Japan, the US, Germany etc etc. In fact India is a massive exporter of low-tech mass produced cheap goods and services for the most part.

2) India, despite tremendous investment in the hundreds of billions being thrown at it is still not producing world class technology. The only R&D hubs in India are just subsidiaries of global corps.

3) India is heavily dependent on importing technology from large technological powerhouses like Russia and even tiny Israel.

4) India does not dominate world trade nor project any power based on it's trade volume. In fact it is vulnerable to economic collapse if it's trade routes are blocked. Once again it doesn't produce or export anything which is critical for the economy or wellbeing of any other nation in the world.

Based on the above and many many other facts, as well as the direction that India is headed growth wise--it is obvious that there is not much India could offer the G8 in terms of economic clout in making the club stronger. So the reason for inviting a country such as India seems more to be political, as part of a plan where this is given to India as a carrot such as the nuclear deal was given to it.

 

[nitesh]

Expansion of G8 to G14 will reult in liberalisation of global economy whereas sxpansion of UNSC will only empower members states, there's a huge difference and Italy won't acept it.
Don't forget that it was Itraly who initiated anti expansion compaign, later joined by Pakistan.

Neo the thing goes like this, as the G 8 expansion paves the way for more people to engage constructively the same will happen with UN security council expansion will make the way, PROVIDED the veto power is gone otherwise nothing will change.

 

[Vinod2070]

The USA will still be 5 times India in 2050 and the graph clearly shows that. The USA was about 100 times India 2 decades back and is almost half now.

It was OBVIOUS. The USA'a per capita income was 100 times India in 1980s and is now ~50 times, so the ratio has reduced to half os what it was. You seem to have a big comprehension problem. The graph made it obvious enough.

Are we done with the shabby nitpicking and the useless attempts at India baiting or being lackey of China?

 

[maqsad]

It was OBVIOUS. The USA'a per capita income was 100 times India in 1980s and is now ~50 times, so the ratio has reduced to half os what it was. You seem to have a big comprehension problem. The graph made it obvious enough.

Are we done with the shabby nitpicking and the useless attempts at India baiting or being lackey of China?

You still haven't explained how the USA is half of India now. It makes no sense whatsoever, I keep asking you what you mean by "the USA is almost half now" and you keep avoiding it. This is nothing to do with China, just plain nonsense that came from you and fits in nowhere.

And you still have not explained what India has to offer the G8 vis a vis "technological prowess" or "industrial prowess". It has nothing to offer except brute force low level, low grade manufacturing and exports along with low grade servicing outsource.

So once again this proves that G8 membership is being extended to India as a favor, as a carrot as part of a bigger plan which is my main point all along so quit typing irrelevent nonsense and address the points rather than spinning off on straw man tangents trying to decieve everyone who reads your posts.

 

[Flintlock]

No I understand the graph perfectly which is why I pointed out how ridiculous it was. And I see you have not disputed any of the points I made regarding the graph, any reason?

Please use your IQ of > 90 to explain:

1) Why the GDP per capita of the entire industrialized world dips to almost less than that of India in the year 2050. A nuclear holocaust? Or does the entire world start to suffer from malnutrition and epidemic disease, wars and famine? Or do they just drop their current lifestyles and decide to move to huts in villages where they just raise cattle?

2) Why does the GDP per capita of India show up as amost equal that of China in 2010 when we know the exact opposite is true and the gap between China and India is growing? I mean we are sitting in almost 2009 right now and everyone who is educated and sober knows the per capita of China is more than twice of India's and shows no chance of "equaling" that of India anywhere close to 2010.

Man, you have serious trouble understanding graphs.

 

[maqsad]

Man, you have serious trouble understanding graphs.

No I don't. The second graph doesn't visually represent figures properly. India is supposed to be 100 while china is supposed to be about 200 so this means that the red line at 200 should be 1/5th of the way to the 1,000 bar. It is clearly not which is what I am pointing out. You and your friend have some serious trouble understanding simple english. I bet you didn't even understand what I said just now.