Per capita annual income rises to $1044 in 2012-13

[Ayush]

^^ well said

 

[eastwatch]

So the truth comes out. This isn't about economic development or wanting poor people to do better for you.

Instead this is a pissing contest between Bangladesh and India for you, totally forgetting that "keeping India weak and poor" means millions of child deaths, poor sanitation, poor education etc for a billion people.

And nevermind that if India stays poor, that'll slow down growth in Bangladesh. You will to shoot yourself in the foot to see your neighbor fail.

These nothing to say but "You're an idiot."

Bold part: A poor and mismanaged India is a problem of the Indians only. It is certainly not a problem of BD, a poor country itself. So, what is your logic of your above saying? Is it BD that kept India poor when BD imports $4.5 billion worth of goods from that country? Ask your Indian friends about why they keep themselves poor.

 

[PlanetSoldier]

Give it a break dude.. We want to be the Japan of south asia and eventually rule over India. So keeping India weak and poor will eventually help our cause.

Anything else?

No one needs to keep india poor, it by its very nature will remain poor. If you really think of the poor and establishing peace in the neighborhood, think of breaking it in pieces. I see lots of prospect in SA after the state india dissolves and around 30 new states like Assam, Maharashtra etc. independently stand there.

 

[PlanetSoldier]

So the truth comes out. This isn't about economic development or wanting poor people to do better for you.

Instead this is a pissing contest between Bangladesh and India for you, totally forgetting that "keeping India weak and poor" means millions of child deaths, poor sanitation, poor education etc for a billion people.

And nevermind that if India stays poor, that'll slow down growth in Bangladesh. You will to shoot yourself in the foot to see your neighbor fail.

These nothing to say but "You're an idiot."

Saying others idiot you prove yourself one such. Show us the proof how Bangladesh will stay behind if india doesn't develop. Among 20/22 $ billion garments export, the main export products of Bangladesh what's the percentage we export to india? Based on textbook nothing develops but based on reality it does. There is good example of regionalism, again there is example of developing fast exceeding all neighbors. So, if india stands behind, it's not necessary Sri Lanka has to stand behind and wait. Besides, partnering with india many Bangladeshi (I believe other neighbors as well) found that they actually never want their neighbors to grow...there are many proofs.

 

[flame_retardant]

Bold part: A poor and mismanaged India is a problem of the Indians only. It is certainly not a problem of BD, a poor country itself. So, what is your logic of your above saying? Is it BD that kept India poor when BD imports $4.5 billion worth of goods from that country? Ask your Indian friends about why they keep themselves poor.

I didn't say that "keeping India poor" is possible for Bangladesh. Iajdani said thats what he wants. He totally forgets the implications of that: very hard lives for almost a billion Indians.

India is 10 times the size of Bangladesh, and their population is growing at a faster rate; they have more economic power even based on sheer size alone.

And yes, I agree India's beaurocracy is extremely inefficient. But that's south Asia as a whole, with the possible exception of sri Lanka which continues to get control of corruption

 

[UKBengali]

You're missing the general principle here.

Geographic regions establish trade agreements with each other. The current successful example is ASEAN (which includes the SE Asian countries). While SE Asian countries are developing successfully indepently, its a huge help to their cause that their neighbors are also doing well.

If you want to go back in history, after WW2, Europe was giving Germany huge loans. Was it because they loved the Nazis n Germany and wanted them to do well after that brutal war? No. It was because it was sound economic policy for their neighbor to do well.


There's also a SAARC trade agreement, between South Asian countries. Its currently failing and its part of the reason why India will continue to do poorly if it doesn't change. And India is doing poorly now, extremely inefficient beaurocracy.

Honestly, this emotional bs like "I hate Indians so I don't see the point in India doing well economically" is pointless. No one is telling you not to hate Indians. But it is better for them if Bangladesh does well and vice versa.

BTW, just on a humanitarian note: India has the biggest number of poor in the world. Do you really want to see hundreds of millions of people continue to suffer?

You are right that if India was a "normal" state then more economic integration would be beneficial for BD.

The problem is that the Indian government is composed of politicians that make even Awami-League look like competent economists

It has borrowed so much money that it has just over 6 months to pay back nearly 200 billion dollars!!!

Granted, it does have 300 billion dollars in foreign reserves but the current government has been downright criminal in it's economic management to get to this situation.

This is not the first time that India has got itself into a right mess, it nearly went bankrupt in 1991 and does not seem to have learnt anything from that.

BD should hold off on deeper economic ties with India till it proves that it is serious about running a stable economic policy for the LONG-TERM.

Such a shame as I was as happy as any Indian when the Indian economy looked like it would sustain 8-9% GDP/growth for decades to come.

 

[flame_retardant]

Saying others idiot you prove yourself one such. Show us the proof how Bangladesh will stay behind if india doesn't develop. Among 20/22 $ billion garments export, the main export products of Bangladesh what's the percentage we export to india? Based on textbook nothing develops but based on reality it does. There is good example of regionalism, again there is example of developing fast exceeding all neighbors. So, if india stands behind, it's not necessary Sri Lanka has to stand behind and wait. Besides, partnering with india many Bangladeshi (I believe other neighbors as well) found that they actually never want their neighbors to grow...there are many proofs.

I didn't say Bangladesh will stay poor. I said growth rate in Bangladesh will be slower if India and south Asia doesn't get its act together compared to if South Asia does better. Frankly, if I were a poor person in Bangladesh, I would want to develop as quickly as possible so that my life would improve.

Try to see the subtleties.

 

[flame_retardant]

You are right that if India was a "normal" state then more economic integration would be beneficial for BD.

Right now India is protecting its own young industries & not maintaining free trade. Protectionism can be good - that's what President Park did in South Korea in the 1960s to build up the electronics sector, which ultimately led to SK becoming the powerhouse it is today.

But right now, protectionism on India's part is coming at the expense of trade relations with the other SAARC nations. That's why China's been able to establish such strong ties in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka. the Maldives etc etc, which is really weakening India's position in South Asia & is going to have a huge positive impact on China.

But just because the Indian government is too short-sighted to see what it's doing, it doesn't mean Bangladeshis should be that short-sighted as well.

Just as a start: India almost surrounds Bangladesh - that is geographic reality. To establish trade routes to Bangladesh, the easiest way is through India. Do you think it's easier to establish those routes if India & Bangladeshi relationship is good or bad?

I'm not an economist but I do read & I do have a brain. These things are obvious if you just stop to think about it instead of emotional bullcrap like "Bangladesh can **** further than India! HAHA!"

 

[Maira La]

Just as a start: India almost surrounds Bangladesh - that is geographic reality. To establish trade routes to Bangladesh, the easiest way is through India. Do you think it's easier to establish those routes if India & Bangladeshi relationship is good or bad?

We can't become buddies with India even if we tried, with hate for Muslims deeply ingrained in the Indian psyche. Hang around in the forum a bit longer and follow their posts.

 

[cloud_digger]

Right now India is protecting its own young industries & not maintaining free trade. Protectionism can be good - that's what President Park did in South Korea in the 1960s to build up the electronics sector, which ultimately led to SK becoming the powerhouse it is today.

But right now, protectionism on India's part is coming at the expense of trade relations with the other SAARC nations. That's why China's been able to establish such strong ties in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka. the Maldives etc etc, which is really weakening India's position in South Asia & is going to have a huge positive impact on China.

But just because the Indian government is too short-sighted to see what it's doing, it doesn't mean Bangladeshis should be that short-sighted as well.

Just as a start: India almost surrounds Bangladesh - that is geographic reality. To establish trade routes to Bangladesh, the easiest way is through India. Do you think it's easier to establish those routes if India & Bangladeshi relationship is good or bad?

I'm not an economist but I do read & I do have a brain. These things are obvious if you just stop to think about it instead of emotional bullcrap like "Bangladesh can **** further than India! HAHA!"

What you have said is mostly true, a strong Indian economy is good for BD and vice versa. As much as some of the other BD posters like to claim that ASEAN should be the primary trading partner for BD, they dont realize that it is India (and Myanmar) that border her and have a greater chance of establishing better trade relations. It is mutually beneficial if BD and India get stronger. China-Japan trade is the best example. A closer example to home is India-China trade. Besides, a strong economic neighbor has the effect of developing your own economy and a weak unstable economy has the potential to bring down the neighborhood. The reasons can be many, for example - unstable Indian economy could lead to massive influx of immigrants to BD and too many immigrants is never a good thing (in my opinion). It might even create a refugee situation and that is a huge burden on any country. So yes, a strong Indian economy is ultimately good for the entire neighborhood.

Some posted earlier that breaking India into multiple independent countries is the best for the neighborhood. Do you realize the implications of such a statement? With in the Indian Republic, when a state divides into two, there is a huge upheaval. Take for instance the case of Telangana in Andhra Pradesh. Economy almost came to a halt, there are daily protests against the division. That too for something that will remain within the Republic. Can you imagine what will be the situation when the country breaks up (not that there is any sort of such danger)? The economy will collapse and guess where the Indians will turn to to escape the hardships? To its border nations, and BD shares India's largest border. So think for once what will happen before making such absurd statements. When countries break, there is almost always a big hit to the economy and it effects the neighboring nations.

 

[animelive]

I didn't say that "keeping India poor" is possible for Bangladesh. Iajdani said thats what he wants. He totally forgets the implications of that: very hard lives for almost a billion Indians.

India is 10 times the size of Bangladesh, and their population is growing at a faster rate; they have more economic power even based on sheer size alone.

And yes, I agree India's beaurocracy is extremely inefficient. But that's south Asia as a whole, with the possible exception of sri Lanka which continues to get control of corruption

a weak India will help stabilize the whole SA both militarily and economically. regional powers try to limit their neighbours. not to mention, Muslims are despised in India

 

[flame_retardant]

What you have said is mostly true, a strong Indian economy is good for BD and vice versa. As much as some of the other BD posters like to claim that ASEAN should be the primary trading partner for BD, they dont realize that it is India (and Myanmar) that border her and have a greater chance of establishing better trade relations. It is mutually beneficial if BD and India get stronger. China-Japan trade is the best example. A closer example to home is India-China trade.

Besides, a strong economic neighbor has the effect of developing your own economy and a weak unstable economy has the potential to bring down the neighborhood.

I'm glad you seem to have some understanding of the crux of the matter.

The Indian government on the other hand hasn't been able to figure it out. GoI isn't honoring the free trade agreement between other South Asian countries & themselves - it's leading to India facing a lot of competition from China in it's own neighborhood. As far as the rest of the South Asian countries are concerned, that's not a bad thing because it's two big global economies competing for their business, which increases their choices. But it's bad news for India, especially when India has tried & failed to compete with China in Africa.

The reasons can be many, for example - unstable Indian economy could lead to massive influx of immigrants to BD and too many immigrants is never a good thing (in my opinion).

An interesting example to bring up here on your part. If you're trying to say that you don't like 20million Bangladeshis working in India, you should come out and say it instead talking around the subject. Being disingenuous is the way to make enemies.

Some posted earlier that breaking India into multiple independent countries is the best for the neighborhood. Do you realize the implications of such a statement? With in the Indian Republic, when a state divides into two, there is a huge upheaval. Take for instance the case of Telangana in Andhra Pradesh. Economy almost came to a halt, there are daily protests against the division. That too for something that will remain within the Republic. Can you imagine what will be the situation when the country breaks up (not that there is any sort of such danger)? The economy will collapse and guess where the Indians will turn to to escape the hardships? To its border nations, and BD shares India's largest border. So think for once what will happen before making such absurd statements. When countries break, there is almost always a big hit to the economy and it effects the neighboring nations.

I agree - India breaking up is disaster for South Asia.

a weak India will help stabilize the whole SA both militarily and economically. regional powers try to limit their neighbours.

Should I ask you to prove why or are you just so special that you say it & suddenly it's true?

Muslims are despised in India

I keep saying it & no one on this forum is smart enough to believe me. Religion doesn't matter in economics. It's all about money & power.

 

[cloud_digger]

I'm glad you seem to have some understanding of the crux of the matter.

The Indian government on the other hand hasn't been able to figure it out. GoI isn't honoring the free trade agreement between other South Asian countries & themselves - it's leading to India facing a lot of competition from China in it's own neighborhood. As far as the rest of the South Asian countries are concerned, that's not a bad thing because it's two big global economies competing for their business, which increases their choices. But it's bad news for India, especially when India has tried & failed to compete with China in Africa.



An interesting example to bring up here on your part. If you're trying to say that you don't like 20million Bangladeshis working in India, you should come out and say it instead talking around the subject. Being disingenuous is the way to make enemies.



I agree - India breaking up is disaster for South Asia.



Should I ask you to prove why or are you just so special that you say it & suddenly it's true?



I keep saying it & no one on this forum is smart enough to believe me. Religion doesn't matter in economics. It's all about money & power.

1) I don't think India is loosing to China because of FTAs, rather due to the slow nature of Indian diplomacy. And is is not just FTAs or with South Asian or African countries. It is the trend with all Indian Foreign relations. Fortunately or Unfortunately. I am a strict adherent of slow yet steady development rather than super fast, especially since India is a billion people country. The numbers and logistics involved are mind numbing all the more since being a democracy means even small regional players can throw a spanner in the gears. That is what been really holding Indian diplomacy back. China is more quick to reaching decisions and they hold the upper hand there. Besides, China has lot more money to invest in Africa. Most Indian involvement in Africa is via private companies.

2) About the immigrant part, you had a perfectly good flow going there untill you brought up BD immigrants in India. My intention was not at all to raise the often discussed (and disputed topic). It was simply to show the greatest effect a collapsing economy has on its neighbors. Infact I wrote it from an Indian immigration POV. I do not know where you took the interpretation of BD immigrants.

a weak India will help stabilize the whole SA both militarily and economically. regional powers try to limit their neighbours. not to mention, Muslims are despised in India

As I said in my earlier post, a weak, or worse a broken India will bring down the whole area. What do you think will happen if the Indian economy collapses? Where will the Indians turn to for food and work? USA or neighbor BD? Think before you post such statements.

 

[flame_retardant]

1) I don't think India is loosing to China because of FTAs, rather due to the slow nature of Indian diplomacy. And is is not just FTAs or with South Asian or African countries. It is the trend with all Indian Foreign relations. Fortunately or Unfortunately. I am a strict adherent of slow yet steady development rather than super fast, especially since India is a billion people country. The numbers and logistics involved are mind numbing all the more since being a democracy means even small regional players can throw a spanner in the gears. That is what been really holding Indian diplomacy back. China is more quick to reaching decisions and they hold the upper hand there. Besides, China has lot more money to invest in Africa. Most Indian involvement in Africa is via private companies.

China has a lot more money to invest in Africa because China made more money than India in the last 30yrs. They started out on about even-keel in the mid 80s.

I agree that inefficient beaurocracy takes a huge hit on Indian economy. But maitaining good economic relationships with other countries is also important for India & China. China has excelled & India's mediocre at best.

2) About the immigrant part, you had a perfectly good flow going there untill you brought up BD immigrants in India. My intention was not at all to raise the often discussed (and disputed topic). It was simply to show the greatest effect a collapsing economy has on its neighbors. Infact I wrote it from an Indian immigration POV. I do not know where you took the interpretation of BD immigrants.

A lot of Indian posters do make those posts & I lumped you in with the majority. We'll be able to see going forward if you deserved the benefit of the doubt.

As I said in my earlier post, a weak, or worse a broken India will bring down the whole area. What do you think will happen if the Indian economy collapses? Where will the Indians turn to for food and work? USA or neighbor BD? Think before you post such statements.

I agree that a weak Indian economy isn't good for the region but I'm more worried about competition for low-skilled work (RMG, plastics).

Education in India is poor - so it's harder for India to move onto high-skills based products (electronics) like China's done. Which means, Bangladesh (much younger, much shorter time of economic growth compared to India, poor infrastructure) is going to have to compete with India for low-skilled products.

 

[cloud_digger]

China has a lot more money to invest in Africa because China made more money than India in the last 30yrs. They started out on about even-keel in the mid 80s.

I agree that inefficient beaurocracy takes a huge hit on Indian economy. But maitaining good economic relationships with other countries is also important for India & China. China has excelled & India's mediocre at best.



A lot of Indian posters do make those posts & I lumped you in with the majority. We'll be able to see going forward if you deserved the benefit of the doubt.





I agree that a weak Indian economy isn't good for the region but I'm more worried about competition for low-skilled work (RMG, plastics).

Education in India is poor - so it's harder for India to move onto high-skills based products (electronics) like China's done. Which means, Bangladesh (much younger, much shorter time of economic growth compared to India, poor infrastructure) is going to have to compete with India for low-skilled products.

Not exactly, large portion of the labor is definitely low skilled, but the sheer numbers are such that even though the skilled labor are a relatively small portion, the numbers are quite big, and high skilled labor does not necessarily concentrate in electronics, industrial manufacturing counts as high skilled, even construction has high skilled labor and India is doing quite well in these fields. Granted the MNCs that setup manufacturing in India dont manufacture the entire products, but a major portion of the components are manufactured in India. RMG is the only field in my knowledge that BD gives India a stiff competition, I dont know about Plastics.

Edit: What do you mean by "much shorter time of economic growth"?