BRICS, E7 Economies, and IBSA

[santosh10]

Average GDP Growth Rate of Asian Industrialized Countries Since 1981

My this post is just to keep a record of the comparative 'Average' Growth rate of India with "Newly Asian Industrialized" countries, along with the Matured Industrialized Asian countries like Korea, Japan, Singapore as below.

this effort is just to keep an eye on the Average Growth Rate of India since 1981 to 2013, as compare to other 'Asian' Industrialized Countries :thumb:

Select Country or Country Groups

Newly industrialized country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


=> Growth Rate Comparison since 1980 to 2013, for the 34 years

1st, China: 9.89% since 1980

2nd, India: 6.1% since 1981

3rd, Philippines: 3.5% since 1980

4th, Thailand: 5.4% since 1980

5th, Indonesia: 5.2% since 1980

6th, Malaysia: 5.8% since 1980

7th, Singapore: 6.4% since 1980

8th, Korea: 6.0% since 1980

9th, Taiwan: 5.5% since 1980

10th, Japan: 2.1% since 1980

Select Country or Country Groups

Newly industrialized country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


=> here, we generally know 1991 Economic Reform as the year, till then Per Capita Income of India was higher than that of China. and this comparison clearly tells us, how population growth rate of around 2% since 1981, with 500mil extra people this way, has covered every success of India since 1947. while total number of Middle Class of India is itself more than total population at the time of freedom, 1947

=> we also have a comparison of India and China's Per Capita Income on PPP since 1990 as below, telling us the difference between Indian Open Market strategy with Chinese one since 1990...... India could have only around 5.3% growth rate for the 12 years in between 1991 to 2001, because of failing to even 'copy' the Chinese Economic Reforms in 1991

India GDP - real growth rate - Economy


=> BRITAIN GDP PER CAPITA PPP at 1991, $23,924.22
United Kingdom GDP per capita PPP | 1990-2014 | Data | Chart | Calendar

RUSSIA GDP PER CAPITA PPP at 1991, $15,625.62
Russia GDP per capita PPP | 1990-2014 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast

INDIA GDP PER CAPITA PPP at 1991, $1,812.36 :ranger:
India GDP per capita PPP | 1990-2014 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast

CHINA GDP PER CAPITA PPP AT 1991, $1,554.01
China GDP per capita PPP | 1990-2014 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast


=> while Average Growth Rate of India since 1951 itself stands at around 5.81% to date.....

GDP Annual Growth Rate in India averaged 5.81 Percent from 1951 until 2013, reaching an all time high of 11.40 Percent in the first quarter of 2010 and a record low of -5.20 Percent in the fourth quarter of 1979.

India GDP Annual Growth Rate | 1951-2014 | Data | Chart | Calendar

=> with that, there was a 'plagiarism case' on Indian Economic Reform in 1991 too

India copied Pak reforms in 1990s: Nawaz Sharif

Sharif was the prime minister in October 1990 and initiated an ambitious economic programme. In June 1991, Rao became the Indian prime minister and appointed Manmohan Singh as the finance minister.

India copied Pak reforms in 1990s: Nawaz Sharif | Zee News

 

[santosh10]

Outward FDI Exceed Inward Flows
NEW DELHI, MAY 22

India's overseas investments reached close to 27 billion dollars, exceeding the inflows on equity account of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in fiscal 2012-13, ASSOCHAM findings revealed here today. :ranger:

The study said India's overseas investment, comprising loans, equity and loans guaranteed aggregated to 26.83 billion dollars in financial year 2012-13, with maximum outflows taking place in October-January. However, the maximum outflow took place in June touching 3.53 billion dollars, the study said.

It said overseas investments would exceed the FDI inflows on account of equity capital which totalled nearly 21 billion dollars between April- February of the fiscal 2012-13, the latest period for which data is available. Unlike in March, 2012, when one or two big ticket investments had pushed the monthly figure to a new high, there was no major inflow during March, 2013, the study said. :coffee:

The study says in so far as the outward investments from India are concerned, they have mostly gone to Singapore, the Netherlands and a significant amount to the tax haven of Cayman Islands. For instance in March, out of the 1.88 billion dollars of total overseas investments, close to one billion dollars went to Cayman Islands.

The study said although India's overseas investment is higher than the inward inflows, the overall investment climate in most parts of the globe is a dampener. "Risk aversion and lack of investment appetite is seen all through. It is not that only India is losing its position as an investment destination, but there is a demand slowdown and over capacity in many parts of the globe," according to the findings.

The study reveals that investment from Indian companies abroad has gone in areas relating to manufacturing, trade, restaurants, agri business and mining businesses. :Thumbsup: On the other hand, recent bullish trends in the global stock markets are seen riding on quantitative easing and printing of money by central banks, mainly in the United States, some European countries and significantly in Japan. UNI

http://mg.glpublications.in/epaperpdf//2352013//2352013-md-hr-2.pdf

 

[santosh10]

here, we have some statistics about Inward FDI and Outward FDI from India as below. here we find Outward FDI from India for the first 10 months of the financial year 2013-14, is higher than the total Inward FDI for the whole 2013-14 financial year :ranger:

also here, the data's as below confirms decline in outward FDI from india, in fact, with an increase in FDI investment during last 2 years

total FDI investment made by domestic companies between April-January 2013-14 stand at $29.34 billion; investment declined had declined the previous two years

business - News - msn

FDI inflows to India increased 17 per cent in 2013 to reach US$ 28 billion, as per a United Nations report.

FDI in India, Foreign Direct Investment, About, Policy, Advantages

 

[santosh10]

.
i have prepared a post regarding changing India as below, which may have a place here too, i think :thumb:


=> Literacy Rate

here the comparison is based on 347 million population in 1947 to 1.25 billion people by 2013. here we find, Youth Literacy Rate might have reached 90%+ by 2014, as we had almost 95%+ attendance of kids in schools since 1997

When the British rule ended in India in the year 1947 the literacy rate was just 12%. Over the years, India has changed socially, economically, and globally. After the 2011 census, literacy rate India 2011 was found to be 74.04%. Compared to the adult literacy rate here the youth literacy rate is about 9% higher.

Literacy Rate of India - Population Census 2011

=> Per Capita Income of India

Considering the method which was in application till 2006, by both World Bank and IMF

British Left around 2% to 5% rich and rest poor in 1947, out of total 347 million population in 1947, while we now have around 350 million Middle Class of India whose Per Capita Income is well over $20,000+ on PPP now, similar to Very High HDI countries like Argentina, Poland, Saudi Arabia etc

We have new GDP Per Capita on PPP calculation for India by 2013, as below:

now poverty of India is because of its over population. Most of the problems of India is because of its Over Population and India has to reduce its population only. otherwise India has around 350mil Upper Middle Class, more than total population in 1947, whose per capita income on PPP is similar to the Very High HDI countries like Argentina, Poland, Saudi Arabia etc. one day I calculated as below:-

first, we find GDP on PPP of India was $5.2tn in 2013 but its still manipulated by the US/UK since 2007. as, till 2006, we had a different way of measuring GDP on PPP which used to include estimated undocumented part of GDP also. and I remember, this way GDP of high population 'developing' countries was around 50% to 80% higher, and for the middle order countries like Brazil/Turkey it was around 10% to 25% higher. and for the developed nations, the difference was hardly around 1% to 3% by that "Old Method" which was in application till 2006, by IMF and World Bank both. like as below:

"There are, however, practical difficulties in deriving GDP at PPP, and we now have two different estimates of the PPP conversion factor for 2005, India's GDP at PPP is estimated at $ 5.16 trillion or $ 3.19 trillion depending on whether the old or new conversion factor is used," it said.

It's official: India's a trillion-$ economy - The Times of India

means, GDP of India on PPP was already $5.16tn in 2007, higher than Japan that year, making it the 3rd Largest Economy on PPP by 2007 itself this way.

again we have India's growth rate since 2007 as below:

India GDP Annual Growth Rate | 1951-2014 | Data | Chart | Calendar

here we find, "Average Growth Rate" of India from first quarter of 2008 till the December quarter 2012, stood at around 7.6%, on 'annual' basis. hence considering GDP on PPP of India at $5.16tn in 2007 by Old Method as above, with the estimated 5.0% growth by 2013, we may calculate its value by 2013, after 6 years since early 2008, as below:

GDP on PPP of India by end 2012 = 5.16*1.076*1.076*1.076*1.076*1.076*1.05= $7.81 trillion on PPP

but we would also get to know that PPP value consider value of goods and services in US$ term, means we would also include the factor of inflation of United States also. and if we consider average 2.0% inflation of US for these 6 year in between early 2008 to 2013, with considering an overall factor of just 1.12 this way, then GDP on PPP of India comes around = 7.81* 1.12= $8.75tn by 2013. and it still hasn't included 'Value Added' effects........

again, we know that share of agriculture would be around 17.0% in India's GDP in 2013. therefore, we find share of agriculture in indian economy, 0.17 * 8.75= $1.5 trillions (around), on which 50% population of india is dependent. means around 600mil people based on agriculture in india have per capita income around = $2,500 on PPP by 2013 this way, which is itself similar to the better side of Lower Order Countries like Bangladesh.....
this way, 8.75 - 1.50 = $7.25tn is left for rest of 600mil people based in industry and service in India, with per capita income of around $12,100 on PPP which is higher than Middle Order Countries like Brazil, South Africa etc..........

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook//rankorder/2004rank.html


again, we have news that 25% of the population of cities are either in slum or in bit better condition only. so we would consider per capita income of 300mil living in cities in low condition at hardly $3,000 which takes a share of $900 billion from its GDP. hence we are then left with around 7.25 - 0.9 = $6.35 trillions for the rest of 300 mil people living in cities, the so called Middle Class of India with per capita income around $21,166 on PPP this way.

but it is estimated that out of total 600mil people based in agriculture sector, it also has around 50mil Lower Middle Class with Per Capita Income around $15,000 on PPP. (as we know that agriculture has higher share of 'undocumented' part of GDP. with that, Agriculture also has higher share of non-taxable business of India.) Hence, we find total middle class of India around 350mil with per capita income around $20,000+ on PPP which is similar to Very High HDI countries like Argentina, Poland etc, which is more than total population of India at the time of freedom in 1947 :thumb:

Most Expansive Places of World

5th Moscow $17,566 per sq.m.

7th Singapore $16,350 per sq.m.

10th Mumbai $11,306 per sq.m. :ranger:

12th Sydney $8,774 per sq.m.

20th Shanghai $6,932 per sq.m.

29th Istanbul $4,569 per sq.m.

47th Dubai $3,393 per sq.m.

54th Bangkok $2,996

68th Kuala Lumpur $2,182 per sq.m.

73rd Jakarta $,2099

World's most expensive cities

Mumbai, Delhi office rentals top Shanghai, New York

MUMBAI: Office rentals in Mumbai and Delhi continue to be among the highest in the world, beating the likes of New York, Washington or Shanghai despite a depreciating rupee. Renting office space in Mumbai and Delhi costs over $65 and nearly $73 per square meter a month, while the same costs $63 in New York $48 in Washington and $41 in Shanghai, property consultancy firm DTZ said in a report.

Mumbai, Delhi office rentals top Shanghai, New York - Economic Times

 

[santosh10]

double post

 

[santosh10]

The Industrialized India

; India has now entered among the Newly Industrialized nations as below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newly_industrialized_country#Current_NICs

India had overall 5.81% growth rate since 1951.....

India GDP Annual Growth Rate averaged 5.81 Percent from 1951 until 2013

India GDP Annual Growth Rate | 1951-2014 | Data | Chart | Calendar

We now have Industrialists as below too, who are building the nation. as we do know that our these honored Super Riches/ Billionaires don't have money in pocket, but they are Industrialists/ billionaires in terms of the industries they have to provide employment, generating taxes for the government which government use to help the common public itself, along with improving production line hence reducing cost of products, with introducing new technologies too through their industries, hence building the nation this way....

The report as below, mention around 115 Billionaires in India, as compare to hardly around 60 by Forbes. its because Forbes estimate only Share values, while the report as below includes, "shares in public and private companies, residential and investment properties, art collections, planes, cash and other assets, according to Wealth-X...".
World's Billionaire Club Grows; Ultra Millionaires Lose Money - WORLD PROPERTY JOURNAL Global News Center

and here is the main report, as below.....
Wealth-X World Ultra Wealth Report 2011-2012 | Wealth-X


Further to the above talks, BRIC economies as whole have their UHNWI estimate, with India's at around 8,200, is given in the article as below: :thumb:


=> BRIC Country Super-Rich Worth $4 Trillion

The future of wealth will be built with BRICs.

According to new data from Wealth-X, the wealth research and consulting firm, Brazil, Russia, India and China now have a combined 25,600 people with $30 million or more in net worth (which includes shares in publicly traded and closely held companies, residential and investment real estate, art, planes, cash and other investible assets).

That is about half the number of ultra-high-net individuals in the U.S., according to Wealth-X.

The BRIC ultrarich have a combined net worth of $4.125 trillion, compared to $6.4 trillion for the U.S.

What is most interesting about the BRIC data is the concentration of wealth at the very top of the wealth pyramid. In Russia, the nation's 80 billionaires account for 7% of the total population of people with a net worth of $30 million or more, but they own 84% of that group's $640 billion in wealth.

In Brazil, the nation's 50 billionaires account for less than 1% of the ultrarich population but a third of the group's $890 billion in wealth. India's 115 billionaires represent 1.4% of the total ultrarich population and 20% of the group's wealth of $945 billion.

China's billionaires account for 1% of the ultrarich and about a third of their wealth of $1.65 trillion.

The U.S., of course, isn't exactly a model of equity when it comes to billionaires and the ultra-rich. Its 450 billionaires account for less than one percent of the ultra-rich population but control 25% of the group's $6.4 trillion wealth.

But the fastest global growth in billionaires and their lesser ultra-rich aspirants will likely be from the BRICS rather than the U.S. or Europe.

"In Russia, as in other emerging markets"¦.billionaires and near-billionaires, followed in aggregate by the mass of ultra-high-net-worth will dominate wealth," according to Wealth-X.

Which country would you want to live in if you had a net worth of $30 million or more?

BRIC Country Super-Rich Worth $4 Trillion - The Wealth Report - WSJ


=> along with the fact that all the growth of India has been covered up due to high population growth. we generally remember 1991 Economic Reform of India, as the year till then per capita income of India was higher than that of China, as below. as discussed in the last post#8 too, Middle Class number of India at 350million+ stands well over its total population at 1947 itself, and its only the over population why India is a poor country :ranger:

BRITAIN GDP PER CAPITA PPP at 1991, $23,924.22
United Kingdom GDP per capita PPP | 1990-2014 | Data | Chart | Calendar

RUSSIA GDP PER CAPITA PPP at 1991, $15,625.62
Russia GDP per capita PPP | 1990-2014 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast

INDIA GDP PER CAPITA PPP at 1991, $1,812.36 :ranger:
India GDP per capita PPP | 1990-2014 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast

CHINA GDP PER CAPITA PPP AT 1991, $1,554.01
China GDP per capita PPP | 1990-2014 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast

.

 

[santosh10]

now poverty of India is because of its over population. Most of the problems of India is because of its Over Population and India has to reduce its population only. otherwise India has around 350mil Upper Middle Class, more than total population in 1947, whose per capita income on PPP is similar to the Very High HDI countries like Argentina, Poland, Saudi Arabia etc. one day I calculated as below:-

Over-Population Notes

World is changing and few points everyone knows on the world platform in today's world, no need to read articles, as below:

1st; High Population means high consumption of resources, and hence its higher prices for the people of whole world.

2nd; high energy consumption and hence higher green house gas emission, hence increasing Climate Change threats this way

3rd; High Subsidy to feed poor below poverty line, especially in case of India. which is possible only until its Middle Class may afford it. and we must avid that breaking point :tup:

4th; and, we also encourage a "Population Tax" on every second kid taking birth in a family, which may be denoted to World Bank/ Climate Change Organizations to reduce its effects. i mean, if you can't reduce population then at least pay something to reduce its effects on the world's Climate Change. and yes, this "Population Tax" on the 'non-first' child would be same for the people of whole world. :coffee:

.
Few Key Points I always mention on this Topic as below:

these are my own ideas so it does require criticism by other members to make the topic interesting :thumb:

1st; if the poor of India ask the Western nations to share the burden of subsidies then they will simply kick these shiits of India, isn't it? and if its only Indian Middle Class who is generating money and running government and also paying heavy price for the welfare/subsidies for poor, then they do have a right to ask the Indian Government, "to what extent they will have to bear this burden of tax just to feed poor, and whether they will remain capable enough in future also to bear this burden on long run if the government doesn't control the population?????"

like the news as below, around 50% indian population is based in agriculture only, around 600mil, while even 200mil population may produce the same agriculture output? and the same in cities of India, around 50% people just try to earn a decent salary which they can't, simply because too many mouths and limited resources. and Indian Middle Class is just paying high price to feed these around 600mil 'excess' population, but still there is no effort to have a control on this growing population????

"As per statistics, India provides around Rs855 billion subsidy to its farmers to reduce their production cost, whereas Pakistan hardly spends Rs8 billion in this regard. India's agriculture production cost was around two to three times lower than Pakistan due to these subsidies," agriculture expert and Agri Forum Pakistan chairman, Ibrahim Mughal said.

MFN status to ruin agriculture, industry alike | Agriculture Corner

2nd; here for example of Pakistan and Bangladesh, right now overly populated Pakistan is full of target killings, simply because too many mouth and no resources to feed them. its also similar to 'genocide' itself?????? and Bangladeshis just want to run from Bangladesh, mainly to India. its the worse to see people dying without dignity than controlling population by force........

Don't hold your breath: during a recent DPC rally in Karachi, speaker after speaker made it clear that their real enemies are India and America. This assembled galaxy clearly failed to notice the uncomfortable fact that over the last decade, well over 30,000 innocent civilians and 5,000 security personnel have been killed in terrorist attacks launched by jihadi militants.Such mundane truths often escape our religious brigade.

Save us from our defenders - DAWN.COM

3rd; many economists of India advocate "food security"/ "free medicines"/ "right to get a job" etc in India which is not possible until the Indian government may control its population. they simply can't feed 1.25bil population from the limited natural resources they have . USA is 3 times bigger in area than India but population of India is 4 times to USA? and on the top of that, Indian government wants to give welfare/ heavy subsidies to its people? if India face a sudden fall like ASEAN in late 90s and South America like in 80s, all these they will have to withdraw after that so better they keep habit to live in less and get rid off the unnecessary subsidies/welfares . for example, we always find Pakistan increasing petrol and diesel prices as per market prices as they can't afford to give subsidies while the people of Pakistan are poorer than India, but Indian government always hesitate to do so? but the day India will reach level of Pakistan, just one good economic fall is required, and India will learn all by themselves.

4th; here we have report from world bank that around 60% people of India are living with income less than $2.0 per day, as below

here, how is it wise to have high population if you can't give them good life? how is it advisable to have more population this way???

=> Poverty headcount ratio at $2 a day (PPP) (% of population) | Data | Table

5th; Population of India was hardly around 341 million at the time of freedom, in 1947, and we can't have more than 700 million people, and we need a national consensus on it.

and as Overpopulation of India is directly related to consumption of natural resources of the world, high pollution and hence Climate Change due to high consumption of energy. reduced water level has also been caused in India due to the same high population and hence high demand reasons, hence India is directly answerable to the rest of the world about the measures it is adopting to reduce its population to 700 million, say by 2050

we can't let India become one of the reason for the destruction of this world, as the Earth belongs to every person of the world, regardless any nationality

6th; and here, first there is no control on the population, as much as India can have, and on the top of that, they want to feed them for nothing too

=> At Rs 1,25,000 cr, Food Security Bill largest in world: Implementation a challenge, says Morgan Stanley - Economic Times

This topic is also discussed int he thread as below

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...source-sufficiency-evaluation.html#post955536

 

[santosh10]

Foreign cos pulling more money out of India

May 25 (Reuters) - Foreign direct investment, the sort of sticky long-term money India craves to fund its current account deficit and build up its infrastructure, may not be so stable after all.

According to a Nomura report, multinational companies have been pulling money out of India at an accelerating rate, moving $10.7 billion out of the country in 2011, up from $7.2 billion in 2010 and just $3.1 billion in 2009. :ranger:

Outward flows are bad news for a country that this week saw its rupee currency hit a new record low as investors worry about its hefty fiscal and current account shortfalls, slowing economic growth and policy gridlock.

Still, corporate funds continue to enter India even as existing investors exit. Inbound foreign direct investment surged 88 percent to a record $36.5 billion in the fiscal year that ended in March, according to official data.

"Global deleveraging may have forced companies to sell their Indian assets and repatriate funds to their home country," Nomura analysts wrote in the Friday note.

"At the same time, domestic push factors such as slowing potential growth, the high cost of doing business and regulatory uncertainty have weakened the investment climate, likely causing this erosion. This is not a good sign."

Telecoms companies Etisalat of Abu Dhabi and Bahrain Telecommunications Co are leaving India after their mobile phone licences were among those ordered cancelled by an Indian court amid a corruption probe.

New York Life recently exited its 26 percent stake in an Indian insurance venture with Max India for $530 million, while U.S. mutual fund giant Fidelity Worldwide Investment recently struck a deal to unload its India unit to local company L&T Finance Holdings.

Foreign companies have been increasingly frustrated by regulatory uncertainty and a lack of reforms. Rules that would allow foreign companies into the supermarket and airline industries are stalled.

Vodafone, the world's biggest mobile carrier, has repeatedly clashed with authorities in India, which is trying to collect more than $2 billion in taxes from it through a retroactive law change, even after India's highest court ruled in the company's favour.

Vodafone, the biggest overseas corporate investor in India, has said it will not walk away.

The Nomura report said the services, manufacturing and real estate sectors probably saw "the maximum outflow".

Foreign cos pulling more money out of India-Nomura | Reuters

 

[santosh10]

Debt crisis has left Germany vulnerable

During her successful re-election campaign, Chancellor Angela Merkel's message was that Germans were living in a prosperous, recession-proof economy and the eurozone problems were contained. But Germany's economic power and financial strength is overstated.

Germany remains dependent on its neighbours, with 69 per cent of total exports going to European countries, including 57 per cent to the member states of the European Union.

In 2012, Germany ran a trade deficit of €27bn with Russia, Libya and Norway, mainly for energy imports. Germany also had trade deficits with Japan (€4.7bn) and China (€11.7bn). In contrast, Germany had a trade surplus with the eurozone (France, Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal, Cyprus and Ireland) of €54.6bn.

Continued weakness in these troubled countries will affect German economic prospects. High energy prices and increasing stresses in emerging markets will exacerbate its problems.

Eurozone members remain committed to avoiding the unknown risks of a default and departure of countries from the euro.

Governments in the at-risk economies are unlikely to meet agreed budget deficit or debt level targets. Banks will face rising bad debt losses and require capital infusions. For both weaker sovereigns and banks, access to financial markets will remain restricted. Cost of commercial funding will remain above affordable levels, meaning that assistance will be needed.

Greater reliance on ESM

Peripheral countries will be forced to rely on the European Stability Mechanism and European Central Bank to provide financing directly or indirectly via cheap funds to banks to purchase government bonds which will be used as collateral for the central bank loans.

National central banks will also use the "Target 2" payment system to settle cross-border funds flows between eurozone countries financing peripheral countries without access to money markets to fund trade deficits and capital flight.

Over time, financing will become concentrated in official agencies, the ECB and national governments or central banks. Risk will shift from the peripheral countries to the core of the eurozone, especially Germany and France. :ranger:

For example, the ESM relies primarily on the support of four countries: Germany (27.1 per cent), France (20.4 per cent), Italy (17.9 per cent) and Spain (11.9 per cent). If Spain or Italy needs assistance, then the contingent commitment of the remaining countries, especially France and Germany, would increase. :ranger:


This reflects the reality that the stronger countries stand behind each of the support mechanisms.

German guarantees supporting the existing bailout fund are €211bn. The ESM will require a capital contribution from Germany. If the ESM lends its full commitment of €500bn and the recipients default, Germany's liability could be as high as €280bn. There is also indirect exposure via the ECB and the Target 2 claims.

The size of these exposures is large, in relation to Germany's GDP of around €2.5tn and German household assets estimated at €4.7tn.
Germany also has substantial levels of its own debt (over 80 per cent of GDP). German demographics, with an ageing population and deteriorating dependency ratios, compound its problems.

If unfunded social security liabilities are taken into account, then the level of German debt increases to over 190 per cent of GDP.

Transfer of risk

At best, increased commitments to support its European partners will absorb German savings, crippling the economy. At worst, default of one of the weaker countries or a restructuring of the euro will result in large losses to Germany; the best estimates are in the range of €750bn to €1,500bn.

Voters seem unaware that each step in the crisis has resulted in a transfer of risk, liability and losses to Germany. Given strong opposition to debt pooling and institutionalised structural wealth transfers, their reaction to eventual revelation of this increasing commitment and their status as the "permanent creditor" within Europe is unknown.

Germany's history is one of monumental reverses and extremes. Miscalculations and errors in the handling of the eurozone debt crisis have left it vulnerable to another one of these events.

Anxious to maintain their relative prosperity and central place in Europe, Germans have sought to avoid the reality of their predicament. But as C.S. Lewis advised: "If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth, only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair."

Debt crisis has left Germany vulnerable - FT.com

Debt crisis has left Germany vulnerable - FT.com

Debt crisis has left Germany vulnerable - FT.com

 

[santosh10]

as in the above FT's news, in place of discussing, who buy German products, who has deficit with Germany and who maintain surplus over them, and whether this means for sharing debt of each others too, to help them keep buying German products this way



=> also, we find India also having high trade deficit with EU28 as below :ranger:

India's exports to European countries increased by about 16 per cent to USD 57.7 billion in 2011-12, while imports rose by about 29 per cent year-on-year to USD 91.5 billion.

Exports to Europe up 16%; imports 29% - Financial Express

 

[santosh10]

@Ray

also, sir its interesting to see that UK was the largest source of import for India till 2001, while its not even in top 10 at present. as in the news of WSJ as below :ranger:

we would bring them back to top 5 at least, say by 2020 :thumb:

New Delhi is frustrated that trade talks launched when Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao visited India in late 2010 haven't yielded significant benefits.India's trade deficit with China jumped 42% to nearly $40 billion in the last fiscal year ended March 31, and was the largest contributor to the country's overall gap between exports and imports.

Trade Gap Strains India-China Ties - WSJ

=>

further to the above post of FT, and details of Trade Balance between India and EU, the largest trading partner of India, we find India registering highest trade gap with China, as below . estimated at around $40billion+ for the financial year 2012-13 :ranger:

here its really funny to see India exporting less than $20billion to China with over $40billion+ trade deficit with China

 

[santosh10]

overall Trade Balance of India stands as below, just on the 3rd place following US, UK, as of 2012 :ranger:

figure of China and Germany only look good here :thumb:

List of sovereign states by current account balance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

in fact, having competent production lines to have Competitive Advantage, marketing and selling products on the world market place is a very tough task, you do need to have enough to beat your competitors. hence these data's speak more about the success stories of the companies of China, Germany over their rivals like US, UK

 

[santosh10]

The E7

The E7 is a group of seven countries with emerging economies. The E7 are predicted to have larger economies than the G7 countries by 2020. The term was coined by the PricewaterhouseCoopers in the Stern Review report, which was published on 30 October 2006. The E7 represents the seven major emerging economies.

E7 (countries) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

E7 Growth Performance Trumps G7
January 2012

It is now three years since the Great Recession ended and profound changes are underway in the world economy. The global economic axis which had been shifting fundamentally away from the advanced economies of Europe and North America to the world's emerging economies has accelerated sharply over the past four years. Moreover, living standards are rebalancing across the world, rising in the emerging countries but falling in the advanced countries.

The global economy has been severely buffeted in the past few years as it lurches from one crisis to yet another. The bursting of the US housing bubble, the meltdown of the sub-prime mortgage market, the freezing of credit markets, the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the sovereign debt crisis, credit rating downgrades, and the very survivability of the eurozone, have all contributed to the unprecedented battering that is plaguing the global economy.

It's little wonder that the fallout from these crises has had a profound effect on the structure of the world economy. Interestingly, a comparison between the major advanced economies of the G7 and the seven largest emerging economies – the E7 – reveals some startling differences. Collectively, the E7 bloc which includes China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Russia, Turkey and Mexico now accounts for close to 31% of world GDP, up from 19% twenty years ago. During this same time period, the G7 has seen its share of world output fall from 51% to 38%. :ranger:

The impact of the global recession on the G7 and E7 economies has been quite varied. In a nutshell, while the recession and the ongoing economic malaise have knocked the wind out of the G7 economies, the impact on most of the E7 countries has been relatively muted. Five of the G7 economies – Britain, France, Italy, Japan, and the United States – all suffered back-to-back declines in GDP both in 2008 and 2009. Canada and Germany, however, posted declines in GDP on a calendar year basis only in 2009.

In contrast, four members of the E7 group – Brazil, Mexico, Russia, and Turkey – experienced declines in economic activity only in 2009 with the fall in GDP ranging from a low of -0.6% in Brazil to a high of -7.8% in Russia. Moreover, the economies of China, India, and Indonesia rode out the financial storm and sailed through the global recession without posting a single negative year of growth.

Since climbing out of the Great Recession, the recovery has been weak across the board for all the G7 economies and there are growing fears that another economic downturn may be unavoidable. For example, for the G7 group as a whole, growth in GDP averaged 2.7% in 2010 but weakened to 1.3% in 2011 and is expected to slip even further and average just 0.6% this year. In contrast, while a slowdown is also anticipated in all the major emerging economies because of the global inter-linkages, there is no talk of recession. Economic growth in the E7 averaged 7.5% in 2010, 6.0% in 2011 and is projected to slip to 5.2% this year.

It is these divergent trends in growth that have significantly altered the global economic landscape. To put things in perspective, over the four year period from the end of 2007 through to 2011, only four of the G7 economies have regained their pre-recession levels of output. Canada has been the best performer in this group but despite that it is still only 3.1% larger than it was in 2007. The size of Germany's economy, the second best performer, is 1.8% larger while the United States and French economies have just managed to move ahead of where they were in 2007.

Three of the G7 economies – the United Kingdom, Japan, and Italy – have failed to recover the output lost from the 2008-09 recession and find themselves essentially stuck in what amounts to a long drawn-out economic slump. The UK economy is 2.6% smaller than it was in the pre-recession peak year of 2007, Japan's is 4.2% smaller, and Italy's is 4.7% smaller (see Table 2).

In contrast to the G7 countries, the production of goods and services is bigger today in all the E7 economies than it was in 2007. China's economy is 44.6% larger than it was before the crisis and despite a slowing down of growth its GDP is likely to expand by another 8.2% this year. Similarly, India's economy is 34.6% larger, Indonesia's is 25.2% and Brazil's is 16.5% bigger. Even Mexico's economy, which is 3.9% larger and, therefore is the E7's worst performer, has outperformed every single member of the G7. :coffee:

The major advanced economies now face years of struggle and none of them are likely to see a return to pre-crisis rates of growth for the next few years. Indeed, several of the G7 economies including Britain, France, Germany, and Italy could be heading back into recession as the recovery is increasingly showing signs of coming unstuck. Unemployment is rising again in Europe, retail sales are falling, and although inflation has started to edge down it still remains above central bank targets. Moreover, the need to reduce budget deficits and reign in unsustainable debt-to-GDP ratios – which are at alarmingly high levels in all the G7 economies – risks further entrenching the recessionary conditions in which these economies find themselves stuck.

With the outlook for growth diverging sharply, the G7 countries are split into two camps – the United States and Canada are expected to grow at around 2% in 2012 and Japan's economy is also likely to see its output rise by a similar amount as the country rebuilds from last year's devasting tsumani and earthquake. On the other hand, the outlook for European economies is darkening. With the debt crisis in the eurozone countries continuing to swirl and showing no sign of easing, the IMF in its latest forecast expects the region's GDP to contract by 0.5% this year. Italy, the regions third largest economy is projected to decline by 2.2%, by far the worst performer of any G7 economy.

It is now abundantly clear that, more than two years after the end of the Great Recession, a sustained recovery remains stubbornly elusive for the major advanced economies. Despite massive amounts of monetary and fiscal stimulus, the rate of growth in all of the major advanced economies has been sharply below their respective long-term averages. Moreover, constrained by large debts and deficits, not a single G7 country is expected to achieve growth rates above, or even at, its long-term average for several more years.

In contrast, since 2007, growth in the economies of the E7, despite the ongoing global turbulence, has not deviated much from their long-term averages. By 2020 this bloc, given the current trends, will surpass the G7 and account for a greater share of world output. This, in turn, will lead to a shift in the current geo-political power structure. Whether this will be muted or more pronounced remains to be seen. :ranger:

E7 Growth Performance Trumps G7 / Ranga Chand - International Economist and Financial Author

 

[santosh10]

BRICs Share Of World Economy Up Four Times In 10 Years
7/04/2012

The economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China account for 20 percent of the world economic output, and rising. That's up four fold in the last decade, according to a report released yesterday by the International Monetary Fund. :ranger:

Despite the growth, problems in the core economies had made the post-2008 world a difficult one for the big four emerging markets.

Their combined stock-market value has dropped to a three-year low of 16 percent of the total invested in global equities, according to data compiled by Bloomberg . Jim O'Neill , the chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management who came up with the term BRIC in a November 2001 research report, said that the pull back in equity values makes BRIC market stocks "irresistible," Bloomberg reported him saying on Wednesday. The last time the gap was this wide, in 2005, the MSCI BRIC Index jumped 53 percent in 12 months, more than double the gain in the MSCI All-Country World Index.

"Unless we are seeing a major collapse of those economies, it's a huge opportunity for investors," O'Neill told the newswire.:thumb:

Audrey Kaplan, a fund manager at Federated InterContinental (RIMAX) said on Monday in an interview with Forbes that she had started investing in China for the first time in nearly years in the first quarter and is now overweight China and Brazil within the BRICs.

"You want to own a lot of these big names when they're cheap," Kaplan said about Brazil's large cap stocks which have underperformed the local BM&F Bovespa index all year. "We're getting back into these names because they are very attractive at their recent price levels."

According to Bloomberg, BRIC equity value, which includes locally-traded shares and ADRs, has dropped to $7.6 trillion from $9.5 trillion a year ago, when they made up 18 percent of the global total. Petrobras (PBR), Brazil's state run energy company, fell to the world's 39th-largest company by value from the 10th-biggest in July 2011. China Construction Bank's rank dropped to 20 from 12 while Rosneft , Russia's largest oil producer, sank to 106 from 70. India's ICICI Bank (IBN) has lost 17 percent of its market cap during the past year, compared with an average gain of 9 percent for global peers.

The long term trend of rising standards of living remains in place for the BRICs, but investors still have to contend with market volatility related to problems in the advanced economies.

Allan Conway, head of emerging markets at Schroder Investment Management, said the market still needs clarity on Europe. There's no clear direction yet in global equities as a result.

"In 2008, we beat the MSCI emerging markets index. The period we suffered most was 2010 when the market had no clear trend. Since then we've clawed back and are ahead by about 300 basis points over the MSCI EM and this year as of end of June up 250 basis points over MSCI EM. The challenge for us has been to stay ahead of the curve. If we wait for some incredible plan to come out of Europe, we miss 30 percent of the rally," he said. "The trick in the coming months are to look for the sign points that show we have moved away from kicking the can down the road and are moving to more long lasting structural changes."

Dedicated emerging market investment funds that have a heavy weighting in the BRICs have posted 16 straight weeks of withdrawals , losing a net $5.3 billion, according to Cambridge, Mass based fund tracking firm EPFR Global.

The BRIC economies are slowing. They've expanded by 4.8 percent on average during the first quarter, but that's down from nearly 7 percent last year.

BRICs Share Of World Economy Up Four Times In 10 Years - Forbes

 

[santosh10]

How Russia And The United States Have Fared Since The Great Recession - Forbes

@Ray

as in the above curve, we find Per Capita Income of US hardly around at its Pre-Crisis level by 2013, which might be because of the fact that population growth rate of US is well closed to 1.0% a year, hence GDP level at 5-6% higher than its pre-crisis level still keep it's Per Capita Income on the same level, along with hefty debt borrowing making its national debt well closed to 110% to date. while national debt of Russia is well below 10% to GDP, hence leaving enough space to borrow in future for infrastructure investments etc......

here we just discussed, as in the previous posts too, even if UK's economy has recovered its pre-crisis level after 6 years, its Per Capita Income adjusting inflation is still around 4.5% less than its early 2008 level, considering around 0.7% population growth rate since then.....

here we give example of Asian Emerging Economies like Philippines, Vietnam, India, Indonesia etc, whose average growth rate was well over 6.5% a year since early 2008, hence increasing per capita income by over 50%+ during this 6 years period, adjusting inflation :ranger:

we find growth rate of India doing good during 2008 to 2011, and then it came down since 2012....

India GDP Annual Growth Rate | 1951-2014 | Data | Chart | Calendar

Indonesia GDP Annual Growth Rate | 2000-2014 | Data | Chart | Calendar

Philippines GDP Annual Growth Rate | 2001-2014 | Data | Chart | Calendar

Vietnam GDP Annual Growth Rate | 2000-2014 | Data | Chart | Calendar


=> also, when a developed economy like OECD members reach 90%+ Debt/GDP level, it has to make many expenditure cuts, which then reduce its further growth in future.and the way UK's National Debt is well over 95%+ to date, it itself states that any further growth prospects have been undermined by a big margin.......

Britain's debt mountain reaches £1.39TRILLION, equivalent to 90% of the entire economy, ONS reveals | Daily Mail Online

 

[santosh10]

India must prepare ground for a post-taper world

=> Economic Times | Blogs

as per what i understand, if United States stop borrowing debt, the world economies would fall by at least 10%+ as whole, at least :coffee:

and i must say that there is an enough role of Oil-Gas pumping by US since 2009 itself, and the established oil prices during last 5-6 years. i mean, the oil prices are maintained at around $100/ barrel for last 5-6 years, then its mainly because of the hefty oil pumping by US since 2009.......

US does pay a price to keep the world economies standing as it is. National Debt of US was closed to $9.0trillion before September 2008, and now its well closed to $18.0trillion, to date, then it did have a role in keep the world economies run during last 5-6 years...... they simply borrow debt to buy foreign products

and hence, i do support the advise of the above article, India must prepare itself for the circumstances when US stop borrowing anymore. the currency may even fall to Yen-US$ level, to INR 100/ US$, within just few months if US shows any determination in this regard.

and thats how trade balance stands in world. US borrows around $1.0trillion+ debt a year and almost this much trade deficit they have from others countries.

=> List of sovereign states by current account balance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

also, the same table as below does state difference between Chinese and Indian "Trade Deficit" this way, the difference between the best and the 3rd worst in world, as below. as of 2012 data's :ranger:

around $2.0trillion+ import and trade deficit at more than 60% to export

in the above list, only UK's economy looks in similar shape as that of US. and Yes, UK is then followed by India on the 3rd place :ranger:

 

[santosh10]

India Needs a 10 Years City Infrastructure Development Plan

first, there is a book knowledge that, "for every dollar invested, you get 66cents, 66% return through Direct and Indirect taxes." and this definition is mainly applicable if the investments are done on Infrastructure.

(for example, if you build a road of $5.0billion, then the employers paying taxes on their salaries, the companies supplying products/materials also paying taxes, and the sources of supplied materials also have to pay taxes on the products/material supplied. which all fall in Direct Taxes. and then we use our 'after tax' salaries/profits in market to purchase daily uses products, buy cars/home/products etc, which all again result in generating Indirect taxes as even the shops pay taxes, you buy daily usage products...... its all good if the money is kept within the country, specially while investment on Infrastructure.

this way, more and more you do investment in Infrastructure, better it is. and don't forget that China is still a developing country, they first have to have high investment in electricity, roads, bridges, metro trains etc, which all means for basics of life in a developed country :thumb:

and as India type developing country will grow by at least 6%+ by the next 30years+, we expect it to have higher expanses on Infra projects. even if it reach Public Debt at 120%+ to GDP by 2020, for example, and it borrows $2.0trillion extra by 2020 this way, along with the existing $1.0trillion plan for the next 5 years, its still very good considering its effects on accelerating growth due to high investments and the positive effects of well developed infrastructure on growth from 2020+, hence reducing debt level since then onward :India:

I would advise a 10 Years City Infra Development Plan, along with the existing 5 years plan which mainly covers investment in power projects/ regional developments like roads, ports etc. and this 10 years plan would mean to develop infrastructure in the cities, in terms of metro trains, bridges, expressways, parks etc. and it would have at least double expenditure to that of 5 years plan. for example, say $3.0trillion infra development in 20 major cities by 2025

(and considering 7%+ growth due to higher investments in Infra Projects, along with 7% inflation too, we find "Nominal GDP" of India reaching at least $6.0trillion+ by 2025 itself.....)

with that, i strongly favor SEZ development to be categorized as Infrastructure Projects, giving more strength to the SEZ developers in acquiring lands by paying 5-6 times to the land prices too, if required. similar to how roads were laid down in 50s and 60s by forceful way to acquiring lands, with paying higher price to the farmers that time too, true :thumb:

 

[santosh10]

True Value of Indian Rupees, INR, stands at around 63-65/USD "by 2014"

with our experience of July-August 2013, when INR fallen to 69 per US$, i would say that true INR value would stand somewhere at 63-65 per US$ "till end 2014", (which would further depreciate by coming years due to higher inflation in India which always make manufacturing products in India more expansive than its rivals like China/ASEAN).

here, with my knowledge of reading economic news for years, i would say, "if INR is currently at 61 per US$, then it means it keeps risk to fall to 68 per US$. if its maintained at 62/US$ then there is a risk that it may fall to 66/US$, when market is destabilized. and if RBI keeps its value at 63/USD, then it would vary till 65/USD when market fluctuates, while considering 64/USD as the baseline........"

we always notice foreign investors withdrawing money when market fall and they again re-invest when INR value get established. the similar comment i made during mid 2013, when BSE was on free fall, that, "the Investors are now withdrawing money, hence BSE is falling (during mid 2013). and would back again when rupees fall to INR 70+/USD. as, it does make sense to sell shares at 57/USD and buy at 69+/USD within just 2-3 months....."

(and once BSE falls on the hands of gamblers, whether home investors or the foreign investors, all start selling their shares and wait for the shares to reach their lowest value to buy it again with profits....... and the same about the Forex traders, once they find Rupees falling, all start selling INR to buy USD, to have the least value of INR versus US$, to buy Rupees again with profits.)

RBI won't let Bombay Stock Exchange and the INR get converted into, similar to that helpless woman who would finally back on morning once caught by drunk rapist...... there is enough to learn from those Asian economies who keep their currency at a fix value to USD to keep maintaining investors confidence. just dont let the BSE become a gambling place where people sell shares in unity, as whole, when rupees and shares is on falling path, and again start buying it when its at the bottom side, like how we found foreign investors re-investing in BSE when INR started recovering by late 2013 :ranger:

in a lay man term, "if RBI needs to buy Dollar at 64/USD when BSE gets trouble, then keeping at least $50billion+ in safe for the purpose, would be the least required, as per the experience of late 2008, as discussed in the article as below too." if INR fallen to 69/USD in mid 2013 then its simply because you didn't have enough USD to buy INR that time :thumb:

In fact, often, hesitant and intermittent intervention strategy of the RBI — possibly arising out of its own assessment of inadequacy of reserves and the need to preserve for a rainy day — added to the volatility. Policy responses from both the ministry of finance and RBI also led to a lot of collateral damage as reflected, inter alia, in the sharp up-move in bond yields and diversion of gold import to unofficial channel. We also saw how the forex reserve of $320-plus billion got depleted to $265 billion in a matter of months.:ranger:

http://articles.economictimes.india...241_1_forex-reserve-liquidity-finance-and-rbi

 

[santosh10]

India Needs Free Floating Gold Business

we want "Market Determined Value of Gold"

further to the above news, when Foreign Reserve fallen by $50billion+ by the late 2008, we also remember that time of first quarter of 2009 when the gold was "EXPORTED", because of the fact that 25% fall of INR within just few months, had made the Gold value in Indian market Lower in Indian Rupees terms, hence it then resulted in its export during that time, as below. hence we always advise to keep Gold "free floating"/ a Market Determined Value of Gold, which did help India maintain respect on the Trade Deficit side during peak of that recession.

India gold investment turns negative for first time
May 21 2009

Singapore: Investors in India, the world's largest gold consumer, sold 17 tonnes of bullion in the first quarter of 2009, marking its first disinvestment ever, while investment demand plunged more than 70% in Vietnam on import restrictions, industry data showed on Thursday.

India gold investment turns negative for first time - Livemint

also, there is a Demand-Supply aspect of free floating gold. that is, if there is a demand, it will finally benefit the middlemen if you put restrictions on its import, which then means for higher price of gold for its Indian Consumers, going to the pocket of smugglers......... in short, people are already buying gold, no matter how much restrictions you put on its import, but for its higher price, and the difference is going to the pocket of its smugglers

 

[santosh10]

China Widens Lead as World's Largest Manufacturer
by David Sims | March 14th, 2013

According to the latest research from theUnited Nations, China has further outpaced its competitors in world manufacturing, generating $2.9 trillion in output annually versus $2.43 trillion from the U.S., the world's second-largest manufacturing economy. :ranger:

Over the last two years, China's manufacturing sector has made strong gains, while the U.S. has been mired in economic and political doldrums.

"In 2011, China's manufacturing output surged by 23 percent while manufacturing output in the U.S. only increased by 2.8 percent," the American Enterprise Institute explains. "That brought China's manufacturing output last year to more than $2.9 trillion, which was almost half a trillion dollars (and 20 percent) more manufacturing output than the $2.43 trillion of manufacturing output that was produced in the U.S. last year." :ranger:

America's trade gap with China also widened considerably over the same period. According to statistics from the Manufacturers Alliance for Productivity and Innovation (MAPI), the U.S. trade deficit with China rose by 8 percent to $498 billion in 2012, while the Chinese surplus increased 15 percent, to $755 billion.

MAPI officials point out that from 2009 to 2012, "the U.S. deficit rose by $172 billion, or 53 percent, while the Chinese surplus soared by $333 billion, or an extraordinary 79 percent."

In addition to striking a blow to national pride, the comparatively slower growth in U.S. production versus Chinese manufacturing has also cost many jobs. MAPI found that the three-year increase in the U.S. trade deficit resulted in the loss of 700,000 to 1.4 million American manufacturing jobs, including 140,000 to 280,000 jobs in 2012 alone. :ranger:

China's output gains have been driven primarily through domestic demand, as "gains in new business allowed manufacturers to step up production by adding jobs and making more purchases," the Associated Press reports.

HSBC's chief China economist, Qu Hongbin Qu, told AP that while external demand was still "tepid," the domestic-driven restocking process "is likely to add steam to China's ongoing recovery in the coming months."

However, many experts consider the rapid growth in Chinese manufacturing to be unsustainable unless the country begins to reorient its economy toward more advanced processes and complex products.

China is currently in an "edgy transition," the Financial Times notes. "As the country ages and reaches the limits of physical labor and capital accumulation, its growth model will have to shift towards transformative technology and innovation."

The factors putting stress on China's industrial economy include a downturn in overall productivity, which is a vital part of economic growth and depends on technological change and institutional efficiency. So while China might have produce a higher quantity of manufactured goods, the U.S. still leads in quality and advanced manufacturing, particularly aircraft and other specialized products.

Moreover, the costs of offshoring production are becoming increasingly onerous for U.S. companies. Given the insecurity of intellectual property in China and other factors, many businesses are discovering that it makes more sense to keep production capacity at home.

Last year, Manufacturing Trends and News concluded that "changes in the economic environment are making homeshoring more and more attractive, with a number of manufacturers actively moving their offshore operations back to the home turf."

Instead of simply looking at cheaper labor costs, manufacturers now look at the "total cost of ownership," or TCO. This relies on a comprehensive view of the manufacturing industry, taking into account the cost of quality, delivery, transportation, energy consumption, labor monitoring, carrying stock, freight, packaging, and all other aspects of production.

In addition, Chinese labor costs are rising an average 15 to 20 percent per year, compared to only 2 percent increases in the U.S. :coffee:

More importantly, the overall U.S. economy is considerably more diverse and less dependent on a handful of major industries than China's, meaning that growth can continue despite slowdowns in individual industries.

"America's household consumption alone generated $10.7 trillion of economic activity in 2011 – $3.5 trillion more than China's entire gross domestic product," the Atlantic observes. "This, despite the fact that our population is one quarter the size."

Despite China's accelerating growth, the U.S. continues to lead in top-end manufacturing and smart technologies. And if additive manufacturing, or 3-D printing, expands as forecast, America is likely to further solidify its position as the world's leader in advanced production capabilities.

China Widens Lead as World's Largest Manufacturer - ThomasNet News