Is India really over populated?

[Peter]

Yes now bow out of argument after being debunked that population rise causes lower wages

Oh BTW did I tell you I got state first in my medical and entrance exams? May be that would make you think past my handle

Yeah I am no state first boy but I do think ISI is a tough nut to crack. However a state first medical student should think in a more logical way rather than posting "bookish" logic and comments.

Anyway on topic check out US oil policy.

 

[amoy]

For your ref.

Check who's got high fertility rate.

 

[Mad Indian]

I don't think anyone seriously believes that all of India's problems relating to poverty can be boiled down to overpopulation. If so, that individual needs a serous reality check. Of course it is harder to increase the living standard of a densely populated nation because a higher population means more mouths to feed - for this, you need to create a bigger economy than you would if the population was small, in order to achieve the same living standard. That is why even after 30 years of 10 % growth, the average Chinese remains much poorer than the average German despite the former having a total GDP many times that of Germany. A large population can also create some unique social problems in a country where the economic outlook remains bleak.

Did you see the Steven landburg video on population posted by @Sakal Gharelu Ustad ?

The problem with your argument that half the population will lead to higher average income is that when you are hypothetically halving the population , you are as likely to eliminate the high earning ones as likely as you eliminate the low income ones and hence the average income before and after halving remains the same. Got the point?

 

[Mad Indian]

Yeah I am no state first boy but I do think ISI is a tough nut to crack. However a state first medical student should think in a more logical way rather than posting "bookish" logic and comments.

Bookish logic what I proposed has nothing to do with any books

 

[Mad Indian]

You know nothing of US oil policy and how it is saving now so it will sell its oil later at a higher price to the world. The US has one of the largest oil reserves in the world yet it does not export it. Check out the reason behind this.

You are missing the point

 

[Mad Indian]

For your ref.

Check who's got high fertility rate.

Chinese GDP growth has nothing to with single child policy. In fact now that the demographic divident is evaporating the one child policy has actually worked in a negative way for your economy. But any way when free thinkers can't look past their govt spewed crap I doubt that a Chinese can so whatever

 

[PredictablyMalicious]

Ask any one who knows Indian geography and ask them if we have lower natural resources per capita or more compared to say south Korea ,Netherlands,or even Japan. It requires 10th standard knowledge of geography really.


Oh BT US was a net importer of oiltill recently and it didn't stop it from becoming the richest nation on the planet. As I said, drop the socialist min set and start thinking outside the propaganda.

Dude it depends on what kind of resources you are talking about. Some are more lucrative than others. Oil alone can shore up a country's economy in a way that agricultural resources can not. Nations with a lot of lucrative resources like oil and gas have higher living standards without the need for industrial diversification. Japan needed to excel in manufacturing technological goods in order to enjoy the kind of living standard the Japanese do. In the end, the average productivity of a given population size (whether large or small) makes all the difference in living standards.

 

[Peter]

@Mad Indian

I rest my case. I have no intellectual capacity as I am a WB chap. As per you India can have 3.6 billion population.

 

[Mad Indian]

Dude it depends on what kind of resources you are talking about. Some are more lucrative than others. Oil alone can shore up a country's economy in a way that agricultural resources can not. Nations with a lot of lucrative resources like oil and gas have higher living standards without the need for industrial diversification. Japan needed to excel in manufacturing technological goods in order to enjoy the kind of living standard the Japanese do. In the end, the average productivity of a given population size (whether large or small) makes all the difference in living standards.

Note that you have not mentioned the population any where.

Actually population has no correlation with development and that's my point. India would have sucked no matter how low the population was with the govt policies it had in the 1947-1990 and it would have been a way far ahead if it had embraced a centre right market economics approach off the bat.


That's my whole point.

 

[Peter]

Bookish logic what I proposed has nothing to do with any books

You missed the irony. Anyway let`s not argue and fight here.

Which state are you from anyway--Kerala or Tamil Nadu?

 

[PredictablyMalicious]

Note that you have not mentioned the population any where.

Actually population has no correlation with development and that's my point. India would have sucked no matter how low the population was with the govt policies it had in the 1947-1990 and it would have been a way far ahead if it had embraced a centre right market economics approach off the bat.


That's my whole point.

If India had a smaller population (say 150 million) and embraced the right economic policies conducive to growth, India's average living standards would rise faster than if she had a large population (say 1 billion).

 

[Mad Indian]

@Mad Indian

I rest my case. I have no intellectual capacity as I a WB chap. As per you India can have 3.6 billion population.

India will have a population of 1.6bn by 2050 but will be richer than present I did by twenty folds and am average Indian then will be richer than present Indian by sixteen fold. I want to see if the socialist dung heads give over population excuse then or to their audacity claim that Indian population growth lowering was what caused the economic growth

But remember this mad fellow when that happens as it happens:yoda:

 

[Peter]

If India had a smaller population (say 150 million) and embraced the right economic policies conducive to growth, India's average living standards would rise faster than if she had a large population (say 1 billion).

There is no use arguing with him mate. Mad Indian might suggest that India can have 150 billion population and still be on a good spot.

 

[Mad Indian]

If India had a smaller population (say 150 million) and embraced the right economic policies conducive to growth, India's average living standards would rise faster than if she had a large population (say 1 billion).

Not true. If so, then US would not the richest in the world but Vatican

Population has no impact on economic growth.its a big myth. Pls go through the whole thread before you raise any point already discussed

 

[PredictablyMalicious]

The crucial thing to understand is that unlike many other things, growth rate is capped. Whether you have a population of a billion or 100 million, the annual GDP growth rate will be capped at a certain percentage (say lower teens). Holding growth rate constant, a lower population will be able to increase its living standards (GDP per capita) much faster than a larger population. This is also why bigger nations take more time to industrialize than smaller nations.

 

[Mad Indian]

The crucial thing to understand is that unlike many other things, growth rate is capped. Whether you have a population of a billion or 100 million, the annual GDP growth rate will be capped at a certain percentage (say lower teens). Holding growth rate constant, a lower population will be able to increase its living standards (GDP per capita) much faster than a larger population. This is also why bigger nations take more time to industrialize than smaller nations.

WTF?

if the growth rate is the same, then both the big and small empires will have the same rate of per capita income growth. The key here is " growth rate" and not the absolute increase in GDP

In fact it is better for a bigger empire because it can afford to spend a lot less as % of their gdp on defence than a smaller empire and still have a competent army- India against Pakistan for instance...

 

[pmaitra]

As I said. Its probably beyond your capacity but there is such a thing called GDP at "constant prices" which does take inflation into account and which is what I provided in the link.

Index linked calculations, yes. There are various indices available, and I hope you know that. Which one to use? India uses one index. Other countries have their own indices.

It is a big debate, and we can dance Waltz over it all night long. I suppose we will never agree.

In any event, taking into account GDP at "constant prices," we still have inflation. Why?

The reason being, the commodity market itself is not particularly stable, and it is simply an impossible state to achieve.

 

[pmaitra]

For a boy who is in JU cse stream,got a rank in IIT(albeit poor one), got a call from ISI(did not pass interview) I think it is in my capacity to understand the thing you have posted here.

Anyway you are free to put your own opinion and your incredible theory on why India should have a 3 billion population.

Yes now bow out of argument after being debunked that population rise causes lower wages


Note that I din't insult you before you called me crazy

Oh BTW did I tell you I got state first in my medical and entrance exams? May be that would make you think past my handle

Both of you, no matter how good an (to be) engineer or (to be) doctor you might be, if you continue to write "English" that way, you are not likely to be taken seriously by certain people. Inculcate some discipline in what you write, and how you write. It is not that difficult. Once you do that, you can resume insulting each other. Keep this in mind, when you resume, and when you write your résumé.

 

[Mad Indian]

Index linked calculations, yes. There are various indices available, and I hope you know that. Which one to use? India uses one index. Other countries have their own indices.

It is a big debate, and we can dance Waltz over it all night long. I suppose we will never agree.

In any event, taking into account GDP at "constant prices," we still have inflation. Why?

The reason being, the commodity market itself is not particularly stable, and it is simply an impossible state to achieve.

Techno babble which means nothing really.


Seriously are you suggesting Indians are poorer today per capita than they were in 1990s?

 

[PredictablyMalicious]

WTF?

if the growth rate is the same, then both the big and small empires will have the same rate of per capita income growth. The key here is " growth rate" and not the absolute increase in GDP

In fact it is better for a bigger empire because it can afford to spend a lot less as % of their gdp on defence than a smaller empire and still have a competent army- India against Pakistan for instance...

LOL what? By growth rate, I meant annual total GDP growth rate of a nation. If India experiences 10 % growth rate in a given year, the per capita GDP growth rate will be much smaller - it won't be 10 % because the population size isn't staying constant or decreasing; it's increasing. If the population was growing at 10 % annually, then the per capita GDP would remain the same and if it was growing any faster, the average GDP per capita would still decrease that year. The second point has no relevance to the topic at hand.