Why classify us with Somalia and Pakistan on visa policy system, China asks India

[livingdead]

It's not about club stuff. You Indians never learned anything useful from your British masters. Go and read Mike2000‘s post.

we do things our way... do you copy japan in everything?

who knows.. chinese might get lucky and get visa on arrival but americans may not.
Govt of India works in very mysterious ways.

 

[jeypore]

India is only the third largest economy based on PPP which is especially irrelevant in this case. Is China investing 25 billion measured by PPP? In which case, that would be around 5 billion actual dollars.
View attachment 148485

I knew very well not to post here, but today I really have time to kill, so I am dealing with great minds like yours. Anyways, India's GDP is 7+ trillion dollars, and I am not talking of PPP, you really must educated me on what is PPP and what it does....

 

[AgentOrange]

I knew very well not to post here, but today I really have time to kill, so I am dealing with great minds like yours. Anyways, India's GDP is 7+ trillion dollars, and I am not talking of PPP, you really must educated me on what is PPP and what it does....

India: $2.047 trillion (nominal: 10th; 2014); $7.277 trillion (PPP: 3rd; 2014) Economy of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're wrong. India is a 2 trillion dollar economy based on real, actual dollars. You know what PPP is and you know you're purposefully being deceptive. Are all Indians liars like you or just most of them?

 

[jeypore]

India: $2.047 trillion (nominal: 10th; 2014); $7.277 trillion (PPP: 3rd; 2014) Economy of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're wrong. India is a 2 trillion dollar economy based on real, actual dollars. You know what PPP is and you know you're purposefully being deceptive. Are all Indians liars like you or just most of them?

NO, NO, do not get me wrong here. I would really like to understand your PPP representation, and what it really means. For example Japan nominal is much higher today, but PPP is 4th how so...

 

[AgentOrange]

NO, NO, do not get me wrong here. I would really like to understand your PPP representation, and what it really means. For example Japan nominal is much higher today, but PPP is 4th how so...

"The concept of purchasing power parity allows one to estimate what the exchange rate between two currencies would have to be in order for the exchange to be at par with the purchasing power of the two countries' currencies. Using that PPP rate for hypothetical currency conversions, a given amount of one currency thus has the same purchasing power whether used directly to purchase a market basket of goods or used to convert at the PPP rate to the other currency and then purchase the market basket using that currency. Observed deviations of the exchange rate from purchasing power parity are measured by deviations of the real exchange rate from its PPP value of 1."

Here's an example:

"First suppose that one U.S. Dollar (USD) is currently selling for ten Mexican Pesos (MXN) on the exchange rate market. In the United States wooden baseball bats sell for $40 while in Mexico they sell for 150 pesos. Since 1 USD = 10 MXN, then the bat costs $40 USD if we buy it in the U.S. but only 15 USD if we buy it in Mexico."

The main issue with PPP is that it doesn't translate into all facets of the economy, hence it is hypothetical. Even though you can get a baseball bat in mexico for the equivalent of 1 USD, when talking about international trade such as the import of arms, oil, natural gas, or goods from overseas, PPP doesn't work. Russia isn't going to sell China 400 billion dollars of gas in Yuan. Even though you can get a candy bar in the US for 1 dollar and a candy bar in China for 1 yuan (6.5 yuan = 1 dollar). Russia is going to stick with dollars since it's worth more and that's the world's reserve currency. Everything is measured in dollars. That's why PPP is bogus because it falsely equates every nation's national currency to 1 dollar (within their own borders) even though 1 rupee and 1 yuan aren't going to buy jack schitt in the US.

Nominal GDP is the true measure used by everyone with regards to economic indicators.

 

[jeypore]

Nominal GDP is the true measure used by everyone with regards to economic indicators.

I know the definitions and what they represent, but you still have not answered my question. Again, Japan's nominal GDP is higher then India today's, so why India's PPP higher then Japan's?

Also, if Indian Rupee was considered as trading value, would that help India's GDP nominal to be increased?

 

[jeypore]

@AgentOrange

Here another thing that you also need to gloat about you will love it even more since PPP is dollar based, like you have said:

China Economy Surpasses US In Purchasing Power, But Americans Don't Need To Worry

The International Monetary Fund announced Wednesday that China's economy, when measured by purchasing power parity (PPP), surpassed that of the United States to become the world's largest. It's a significant milestone in China's evolution into a global economic power. For the U.S., which has occupied the top slot since 1872, the news may cause some alarm: American politicians, including 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, have periodically worried about the consequences of China's future economic superiority. But while PPP presents an intriguing snapshot into China's economy, a closer look at what the numbers mean should lessen American alarm.

The central utility of PPP is that, unlike conventional GDP, it accounts for national differences in the cost of living. For example, men can obtain similar haircuts in both China and the United States; but in China, where labor and rent are lower, haircuts cost much less than they do in the U.S.. Put another way, a man in China can obtain more haircuts with $30 than he could in the U.S. The PPP takes that differential into account and thus tends to present developing countries like China as having more wealth than normal GDP indicates.

However, PPP is less useful when measuring goods and services, like air-craft carriers or international shipping rates, that cannot be adjusted for cost of living. For a broader look at an economy's health, nominal GDP -- which represents the sum total of goods and services produced in a country -- is more useful. By this measurement, the U.S. continues to hold a significant advantage: In 2013 the U.S. GDP was $16.72 trillion, whereas China's GDP equaled a mere $9.33 trillion. Considering that China has used its growing wealth to, among other things, greatly improve its military capacity, conventional GDP remains significant.

In addition, economists have argued that neither nominal nor PPP forms of GDP can adequately describe the overall strength of China's economy. Leland Miller, whose China Beige Book surveys firms to measure China's economy, believes that the country's statistics are largely inaccurate, as political and logistical considerations preclude accuate data collection. And according to Bao Beibei, a China analyst at Rhodium Group, a New York-based consultancy, GDP's deficiencies -- including its failure to measure environmental and social costs -- have led economists to seek alternative tools for measuring the country's economic wellbeing.

"It's increasingly controversial to use GDP as a measurement of a country's power and productivity," she said.

In any case, distinguishing between PPP and nominal GDP in comparing the Chinese and American economies will soon be moot: The Economist has projected that in nominal terms China's GDP, buoyed by still-fast annual growth, will surpass that of the United States by 2020. But even then, the United States will remain far wealthier in per capita terms: In 2013, the average American was more than five times as wealthy than his Chinese counterpart.

However politicians may spin today's IMF announcement, news that China has surpassed the U.S. in GDP is unlikely to cause much surprise in the U.S. population: a Pew Research "Global Attitudes" survey conducted in 2014 found that a majority of American citizens believed that China was already the world's largest economic power.

China Economy Surpasses US In Purchasing Power, But Americans Don't Need To Worry

 

[AgentOrange]

I know the definitions and what they represent, but you still have not answered my question. Again, Japan's nominal GDP is higher then India today's, so why India's PPP higher then Japan's?

Also, if Indian Rupee was considered as trading value, would that help India's GDP nominal to be increased?

Because there are 1 billion people in India. And 1 dollar in India goes farther than 1 dollar in Japan. In fact, 1 dollar in India could hypothetically buy 3 meals whereas it's not enough to buy 1 meal in Japan. And then, factoring PPP, which roughly attempts to equate goods/services between nations without factoring actual dollar value, you now have an Indian worth "3 meals" whereas you have one Japanese worth "barely 1 meal." That's the best I can explain it and I hope that's not too confusing. This is all without factoring the obviously higher quality of life in Japan vis a vis India.

And hence in terms of PPP, especially with 1 billion people, India will be ranked higher. Now if India and Japan were to both try to buy gas from Russia, who wants actual dollars (and not "3 indian meals") obviously Japan would have a lot more money to spend since Japan is the world's #3 while India is merely #10.

Nominal GDP is actual exchange rate GDP - what really matters in terms of comparing two economies.

 

[AgentOrange]

@AgentOrange

Here another thing that you also need to gloat about you will love it even more since:

China Economy Surpasses US In Purchasing Power, But Americans Don't Need To Worry

The International Monetary Fund announced Wednesday that China's economy, when measured by purchasing power parity (PPP), surpassed that of the United States to become the world's largest. It's a significant milestone in China's evolution into a global economic power. For the U.S., which has occupied the top slot since 1872, the news may cause some alarm: American politicians, including 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, have periodically worried about the consequences of China's future economic superiority. But while PPP presents an intriguing snapshot into China's economy, a closer look at what the numbers mean should lessen American alarm.

The central utility of PPP is that, unlike conventional GDP, it accounts for national differences in the cost of living. For example, men can obtain similar haircuts in both China and the United States; but in China, where labor and rent are lower, haircuts cost much less than they do in the U.S.. Put another way, a man in China can obtain more haircuts with $30 than he could in the U.S. The PPP takes that differential into account and thus tends to present developing countries like China as having more wealth than normal GDP indicates.

However, PPP is less useful when measuring goods and services, like air-craft carriers or international shipping rates, that cannot be adjusted for cost of living. For a broader look at an economy's health, nominal GDP -- which represents the sum total of goods and services produced in a country -- is more useful. By this measurement, the U.S. continues to hold a significant advantage: In 2013 the U.S. GDP was $16.72 trillion, whereas China's GDP equaled a mere $9.33 trillion. Considering that China has used its growing wealth to, among other things, greatly improve its military capacity, conventional GDP remains significant.

In addition, economists have argued that neither nominal nor PPP forms of GDP can adequately describe the overall strength of China's economy. Leland Miller, whose China Beige Book surveys firms to measure China's economy, believes that the country's statistics are largely inaccurate, as political and logistical considerations preclude accuate data collection. And according to Bao Beibei, a China analyst at Rhodium Group, a New York-based consultancy, GDP's deficiencies -- including its failure to measure environmental and social costs -- have led economists to seek alternative tools for measuring the country's economic wellbeing.

"It's increasingly controversial to use GDP as a measurement of a country's power and productivity," she said.

In any case, distinguishing between PPP and nominal GDP in comparing the Chinese and American economies will soon be moot: The Economist has projected that in nominal terms China's GDP, buoyed by still-fast annual growth, will surpass that of the United States by 2020. But even then, the United States will remain far wealthier in per capita terms: In 2013, the average American was more than five times as wealthy than his Chinese counterpart.

However politicians may spin today's IMF announcement, news that China has surpassed the U.S. in GDP is unlikely to cause much surprise in the U.S. population: a Pew Research "Global Attitudes" survey conducted in 2014 found that a majority of American citizens believed that China was already the world's largest economic power.

China Economy Surpasses US In Purchasing Power, But Americans Don't Need To Worry

PPP Is meaningless and only matters to people with inferiority complexes (like Indians who like to brag that they're #3 but are barely in the top 10). In fact, the Chinese government has been very forcefully against the publication of articles like the one you posted because it draws negative attention to China, who is still a developing country. In real dollar terms, China probably won't be close to the US economy for another 2 decades.

 

[AgentOrange]

Put another way, a man in China can obtain more haircuts with $30 than he could in the U.S. The PPP takes that differential into account and thus tends to present developing countries like China as having more wealth than normal GDP indicates.
However, PPP is less useful when measuring goods and services, like air-craft carriers or international shipping rates, that cannot be adjusted for cost of living. For a broader look at an economy's health, nominal GDP -- which represents the sum total of goods and services produced in a country -- is more useful.

You should read the article yourself. I've highlighted a snippet that explains why India is number 3 in PPP while Japan is 4 in PPP and how that's incredibly inaccurate assessment of economic strength because, per the article, it doesn't reflect "the sum total of goods and services produced in a country" and is "less useful when measuring goods and services like aircraft carriers and international shipping rates."

 

[jeypore]

Because there are 1 billion people in India. And 1 dollar in India goes farther than 1 dollar in Japan. In fact, 1 dollar in India could hypothetically buy 3 meals whereas it's not enough to buy 1 meal in Japan. And then, factoring PPP, which roughly attempts to equate goods/services between nations without factoring actual dollar value, you now have an Indian worth "3 meals" whereas you have one Japanese worth "barely 1 meal." That's the best I can explain it and I hope that's not too confusing. This is all without factoring the obviously higher quality of life in Japan vis a vis India.

And hence in terms of PPP, especially with 1 billion people, India will be ranked higher. Now if India and Japan were to both try to buy gas from Russia, who wants actual dollars (and not "3 indian meals") obviously Japan would have a lot more money to spend since Japan is the world's #3 while India is merely #10.

Nominal GDP is actual exchange rate GDP - what really matters in terms of comparing two economies.

You keep equate everything to GAS purchase because it is traded internationally only in US Dollars, but what about other goods.... What if there was this scenario, where Pakistani currency was accepted to purchase any goods in the world, and not be subject to currency exchange rates, to make that purchase, of; for example, Dollar, Yen, or Euro for the purchase.

 

[AgentOrange]

You keep equate everything to GAS purchase because it is traded internationally only in US Dollars, but what about other goods.... What if there was this scenario, where Pakistani currency was accepted to purchase any goods in the world, and not be subject to currency exchange rates, to make that purchase, of; for example, Dollar, Yen, or Euro for the purchase.

I keep equating everything to GAS purchases because it's an easy to grasp example. To fully represent the full productivity and strength of an economy, you *must* take into account trade and transactions that occur across borders. And that's where PPP falls flat because ultimately the world's reserve currency, the dollar (against which all other currencies are measured) will be taken into account.

Your hypothetical regarding Pak currency doesn't fly because for that to be the world's reserve currency, we would have to assume that Pakistan was the world's number one economy and all that would entail. In which case, you would have to give me some numbers like how big their economy was, their per capita GDP, and the exchange rates of other currencies vs Pak currency. etc etc etc. And I'm not an economist by any means so it's not my job to explain why your hypothetical is a waste of time.

 

[Aepsilons]

NO, NO, do not get me wrong here. I would really like to understand your PPP representation, and what it really means. For example Japan nominal is much higher today, but PPP is 4th how so...

The two most common ways to measure GDP per capita are nominal and purchasing power parity (abbreviated PPP). Nominal is an attempt at an absolute measure, a sort of immovable standard that remains the same from country to country. It is the original concept of GDP. In contrast, PPP is an attempt at a relative measure, taking factors of each country into consideration in order to put a number on a person’s standard of living within that country.

A rule of thumb for understanding GDP’s PPP and nominal is that PPP is how much of a local good (like real estate, labor, or locally grown produce) a person can buy in their country, and nominal is roughly how much of an internationally traded good (diamonds, DVD players, Snickers bars) a person can buy in their country.

Thus, developing countries tend to have a higher (better) PPP than nominal, while developed countries have higher nominal than PPP. You can get dinner for $10 or a DVD player for $100 in the US, or you can get dinner for $2 or a DVD player for $100 in China. If you compare a Chinese making $20 a day to an American making $150 a day, the Chinese is slightly poorer in dinners than the American (1/10 of income versus 1/15), but is a lot poorer in DVD players than the American (5x income versus 2/3 of income). See how that works?

Nominal and PPP are identical in the US, because USD is used as the benchmark. But in all of the most developed countries except the US, the nominal is higher.

Another way to think about this is that, as a country’s citizens get richer and richer, they are more easily able to acquire international goods, but any good that must be provided by others of its own rich citizens, like college education, health care, taxis, etc. is going to get more expensive.

 

[jeypore]

You should read the article yourself. I've highlighted a snippet that explains why India is number 3 in PPP while Japan is 4 in PPP and how that's incredibly inaccurate assessment of economic strength because, per the article, it doesn't reflect "the sum total of goods and services produced in a country" and is "less useful when measuring goods and services like aircraft carriers and international shipping rates."

So you are saying that India has more Aircraft Carriers or ships then Japan, or even better the cost of International shipping in Japan is higher then India's, keep in mind people are paying in Rupees here for that shipping...... I just opened up another can of worms here, Does it matter who controls the vessels and the containers, and I believe Japan has the advantage overr India in this case, don't you think...

 

[AgentOrange]

So you are saying that India has more Aircraft Carriers or ships then Japan, or even better the cost of International shipping in Japan is higher then India's, keep in mind people are paying in Rupees here for that shipping...... I just opened up another can of worms here, Does it matter who controls the vessels and the containers, and I believe Japan has the advantage overr India in this case, don't you think...

I'll let Nihonjin take over on this one. He's more of an academic than I am so he may be able to explain things more clearly.