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

[Skies]

@flame_retardant

Experience says, if India gets more rich, it will be more arrogant, unfriendly, hegemonic to its little neighbors. If India was sincere and friendly, together we could do many batter things at batter pace. But the this not the reality.

You are talking like: suppose in a Dell Laptop, the motherboard and RAM are Taiwanese, Display and HDD are South Korean, Battery and assembly are in China. Since Dell has a factory in China, China has to depend on the RAM, HDD, Display and motherboard suppliers from Taiwan and Korea. Here their demand and supply are interdependent. Therefore, their growth rate is more because of a compound effect.

But this is not that case between IN-BD, India is not dependent on BD, no parts of their auto/bikes/machinery are supplied from BD irrespective of the condition that India is poor or rich. But we buy raw materials from India like cotton for garments, so if India gets more rich, their labor costs will be increased, and then we have to buy their raw material at higher cost, and our garment factory may suffer.

Here the main thing you have missed is: like in China, Korea, Taiwan where they are interdependent, India and BD is not interdependent; we depend on India, and India does not depend on BD as much we do on them, so if they become rich, we have to pay more to them to buy raw material from them. So I do not want that India becomes very rich till we are dependent on them, not interdependent.

So if India becomes very rich, they will manipulate our market, but if India does not get rich more, then BD will get advantage like buying their raw materials at lower cost.

Plus, suppose, NE is cut from India, then that will help our economy, as NE states will use our routes to reach the sea. And the NE and BD economy will be more interdependent unlike IN and BD.

Remember, the route BD wanted to India to reach Nepal/Bhutan, but India did not give us. We are not interdependent, but dependent, so our negotiation power will fall if India gets more rich.

 

[flame_retardant]

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.

This is what I mean - Bangladesh is starting to develop its market in other sectors like plastics, ship-building, some electronics (refrigerator, LCDs, A/Cs etc), bicycles. These are very young markets right now & Bangladesh needs to protect its own interests - what it doesn't need is competition from India on its main product (RRMG - 70% of Bangladesh exports).

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

India's economic boom started earlier than Bangladesh's. It's had more time to develop - so Bangladesh would be competing against a country who has been playing the game longer. Not good.

 

[flame_retardant]

@flame_retardant

But we buy raw materials from India like cotton for garments, so if India gets more rich, their labor costs will be increased, and then we have to buy their raw material at higher cost, and our garment factory may suffer.

I accept this part of your argument.

By the way, I never thought it was realistic for India to hope to become China overnight. They're not that efficient and no where ear that infrastructure or education level.

Plus, suppose, NE is cut from India, then that will help our economy, as NE states will use our routes to reach the sea. And the NE and BD economy will be more interdependent unlike IN and BD.

You've lost me here. Yes, NE India will have to use Bangladeshi route to the sea. But NE India will not separate from India without a war - which means, Bangladesh would have a country of 1billion people next to them in civil war.

That's not a good thing.

 

[flame_retardant]

@flame_retardant

Experience says, if India gets more rich, it will be more arrogant, unfriendly, hegemonic to its little neighbors. If India was sincere and friendly, together we could do many batter things at batter pace. But the this not the reality.

You've presented your point of view convincingly in the rest of your post but I wanted to address this separately. Countries are selfish. ESPECIALLY developing countries. Expecting wonderful hand-holding, everybody's nice, sincere, friendly is just not realistic. They're going to want to come out on top.

That's why India's not been honoring the SAARC trade agreement and placing quotas/taxes on import goods from other SA countries.

But the free market is at work - China's taking this opportunity to strengthen ties within South Asia. This article explains it better than I could. It also explains why India is worried.

Is South Asia Moving into the Chinese Orbit and Setting Off Alarm Bells in New Delhi? | Foreign Policy Journal

India might take the opportunity to become more compliant with SAARC terms - it's the smarter way to do it, especially since it's important for India to maintain a good relationship with its neighbors as potential buyers considering the slump in USA/Europe.

But we'll see - either way, it's pretty immoral to wish for abject poverty to remain on almost a billion people.

 

[eastwatch]

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.

One small correction. The garment export in 2012-13 fiscal year was $22.46 billion.

 

[eastwatch]

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.

Bold part: India's present $274.8 billion reserve is a kind of hoax because it includes all the foreign money it borrowed and then used to buy and eat Ghee.

It will have to pay back a staggering $172 billion by March next year. So, how much will remain in India's Hoax Reserve? Just a pitiful $102.8 billion. What a poor and impossible country is this Suppa Pawa India!!!!

More to the above, the external commercial borrowings are now 31 per cent of the country’s total external debt of $390 billion as of 31 March 2013.

It means, in effect this Suppa Pawa India has no foreign exchange reserve at all. If it pays back all its debt, India's reserve falls to ($274.8b - $390 b) = -$115.2 billion. Note that it is a big MINUS reserve.

I believe, more rainy days are waiting ahead if China does not help its poor neighbour out with at least $100 billion immediate loan.

 

[animelive]

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

Look at the former chaotic decade of SA. You will find that religious hatred and india is connected to it, even when its not. Take pilkhana coup as example.

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.

Your text book economics is very different from reality, unfortunately. It is a very complicated subject

 

[PlanetSoldier]

One small correction. The garment export in 2012-13 fiscal year was $22.46 billion.

Sorry...I can never remember the exact figure...my bad .

 

[PlanetSoldier]

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.

I don't think it's Hindu/Muslim problem, it's their effort to make them suppa powa which they are not and will never be. I'm saying this because they have border/bilateral tension with Nepal too which is constitutionally only Hindu country in the world. Just google india Nepal border and see the anger of Napalese people to them.

 

[PlanetSoldier]

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.

Regional peace is more important than economy. If it breaks in many pieces, it will not be able to make the enmity with neighboring countries like it has now with almost every in the neighborhood. If that peace is established, economy will stand bypassing the initial turmoil. Also all independent states can take responsibility of small population which will be more effective than now.

 

[Skies]

Bold part: India's present $274.8 billion reserve is a kind of hoax because it includes all the foreign money it borrowed and then used to buy and eat Ghee.

.

But why would the borrowed foreign money be considered/remained as reserve, is not it investment? I mean, India has bought foreign money for investment, not reserve. Right?

I don't think it's Hindu/Muslim problem, it's their effort to make them suppa powa which they are not and will never be. I'm saying this because they have border/bilateral tension with Nepal too which is constitutionally only Hindu country in the world. Just google india Nepal border and see the anger of Napalese people to them.

their dream to be a supa pawa is actually a product of their religious hatred, I think.

 

[PlanetSoldier]

@flame_retardant

Experience says, if India gets more rich, it will be more arrogant, unfriendly, hegemonic to its little neighbors. If India was sincere and friendly, together we could do many batter things at batter pace. But the this not the reality.

You are talking like: suppose in a Dell Laptop, the motherboard and RAM are Taiwanese, Display and HDD are South Korean, Battery and assembly are in China. Since Dell has a factory in China, China has to depend on the RAM, HDD, Display and motherboard suppliers from Taiwan and Korea. Here their demand and supply are interdependent. Therefore, their growth rate is more because of a compound effect.

But this is not that case between IN-BD, India is not dependent on BD, no parts of their auto/bikes/machinery are supplied from BD irrespective of the condition that India is poor or rich. But we buy raw materials from India like cotton for garments, so if India gets more rich, their labor costs will be increased, and then we have to buy their raw material at higher cost, and our garment factory may suffer.

Here the main thing you have missed is: like in China, Korea, Taiwan where they are interdependent, India and BD is not interdependent; we depend on India, and India does not depend on BD as much we do on them, so if they become rich, we have to pay more to them to buy raw material from them. So I do not want that India becomes very rich till we are dependent on them, not interdependent.

So if India becomes very rich, they will manipulate our market, but if India does not get rich more, then BD will get advantage like buying their raw materials at lower cost.

Plus, suppose, NE is cut from India, then that will help our economy, as NE states will use our routes to reach the sea. And the NE and BD economy will be more interdependent unlike IN and BD.

Remember, the route BD wanted to India to reach Nepal/Bhutan, but India did not give us. We are not interdependent, but dependent, so our negotiation power will fall if India gets more rich.

You can't stop others from being richer or poorer. Based on the points you noted down I think it's better we gradually cut all our dependency from them because we know an interdependent one is not in their view. Suppose for cotton many say we can easily move to Uzbekistan, their cotton is better in quality and also the price is reasonable and they won't play game with us once a trust based business relationship does grow. With india it'll never happen. I know about one who started Garment business in Dhaka and at the beginning got an indian client. At the beginning that indian got products from him in small amount several times with cash. Later one day he ordered a big amount and demanded it without cash money. That guy thought that this guy had been doing business with him for someday with cash, now he could consider him for once. He also needed to grow his business. It was his last deal with that guy, he never repaid the money of this small businessman and ultimately he had to stop garment business. That indian guy spent lots of time with this Bangladeshi in Dhaka when he entertained the indian with his own money and he thought that they had been friend. He was shocked when he went to india to get the money from him waiting long in Dhaka. The indian guy behaved with him like an unknown guy and he had to get back empty handed.

 

[livingdead]

@Skies .. you get cheap raw material irrespective of whether India is rich or poor. It depends on global supply/demand and price.

 

[PlanetSoldier]

But why would the borrowed foreign money be considered/remained as reserve, is not it investment? I mean, India has brought foreign money for investment, not reserve. Right?



their dream to be a supa pawa is actually a product of their religious hatred, I think.

Well...could be but why indian border guard recently entered in a Nepalese village and ousted the villagers without any notice saying that area belonged to india later which was proved false...they were Hindu people? Isn't it hegemonic by them? Trying to be powerful is an addiction as well, think of that.

 

[Skies]

You've lost me here. Yes, NE India will have to use Bangladeshi route to the sea. But NE India will not separate from India without a war - which means, Bangladesh would have a country of 1billion people next to them in civil war.

That's not a good thing.

The war between BD and PK in 71 has been giving India both strategical and economical benefit for 40+ years. It's a long term investment.

Generally, many Indian products like auto/machines are not exported to PK, so if we were PK today, India would not be able to export its such products to BD too. I am not saying that if we were with PK, BD's economy were more strong, but definitely India would not get such a big big market of 160 bn people in BD if we were PK today.


Plus, you must know how USA gets benefited from war/civil wars in other countries.