BRICS, E7 Economies, and IBSA

[santosh10]

@Averageamerican

further to the above post, the current state of UK's economy, the leader of Commonwealth is as below:

1st, GDP per Capita is still around 2% lower than its pre crisis level of early 2008. (even if GDP size is bit above to early 2008, the population increase has kept its per capita level still below to its early 2008 level.)

2nd; Public Debt to GDP has risen from 38% in early 2008 to above 80% to date, more than double while GDP per capita level is still below its early 2008 level....

3rd; with other indicators of UK's economy as below:

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

Soaring UK personal debt wreaking havoc with mental health, report warns | Money | The Guardian

=> Almost 90% would 'consider moving abroad' for better financial prospects - Telegraph

Argentina opens doors to migrants, but settling elsewhere is harder

As growing numbers of Europeans leave the continent and its economic woes, how easy is it to go and live in a new country? :coffee:

Ipanema beach in Rio de Janeiro. Some European immigrants work in Brazil illegally by repeatedly renewing 90-day tourist visas. :coffee:

Argentina opens doors to migrants, but settling elsewhere is harder | World news | guardian.co.uk

In an overtly patriotic speech filled with big conservative ideals, David Cameron called for Britain to sink or swim in a tough global world
Cameron leans on cliches to avert British decline (Op-Ed) — RT News

One in five workers in the UK is paid less than required for a basic standard of living, a report has said.

The proportion is much higher among waiters and bar staff, at up to 90% of workers, the research for accountants KPMG suggested.

It said that nearly five million people failed to command the living wage - a pay packet that enabled a basic standard of living.

BBC News - Five million paid less than living wage, says KPMG

 

[santosh10]

@Ray

further to the above post, discussing Per Capita Income of UK adjusting inflation still around 2% lower than its early 2008 level, pre-crisis level, along with more than twice debt since then. we have a picture of growth of the countries like India, Vietnam, Philippines, CHina type economies as below, how their economic size change every year. we find growth rate of India down to 5% by 2013, which then rose to 6.5%+ by the financial year 2014-15...

http://www.thehindu.com/business/Ec...wth-pegged-at-49-in-201314/article5664790.ece

 

[santosh10]

@Ray

As the fellow said that jumped of the high building as the passed the 10th floor on the way down, Good so far.

further to the above post, following the 2008 recession, the current state of struggle of Single Mothers of UK-US is once explained as below: whose single mother kids nowdays fight in India type progressive society, simply because their 10th-12th fathers, boyfriends of mother, dont care of these shiits of US-UK-Aus, who are now left free of any control to fight in India nowdays

=>

Prostitution and Poverty in the UK

In Britain, the recession has left many people struggling to make ends meet,:coffee: but reports have shown that young people – young single mothers in particular, are feeling the worst of austerity, and many are turning to prostitution in pursuit of financial security.

Things are likely to get worse. In 2013-2014, a lone parent would receive on average £46.80 a year less in benefits due to governmental changes, while a couple with children would miss out on £52 a year. In 2014-2015, the projected figures are £260 less for single parents and £156 less for couples with children. In short, single parents – often the most financially vulnerable – are facing the harshest cuts in benefits.

This has led to an increase in prostitution, which has affected the industry’s economy; many sex workers are reducing their charges (sometimes as much as 50 per cent) in order to beat competition from other sex workers. This contributes to a viscous circle; more single parents – usually women, enter prostitution out of financial desperation. Due to the increase in sex workers, they need to engage in the industry more to acquire the money they need. This in turn leads to a further increase in active sex workers and a further devaluation of prostitution ad infinitum.

One thing is clear – tough policing and stricter legislation is not the solution. Ukraine’s capital – Kyiv has struggled with high prostitution levels since it gained independence in 1991, after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In 2005, it introduced more rigorous legislation to try to combat the problem, to little effect. The country co-hosted the Euro 2012 football tournament with Poland and prepared itself for the explosion in sex tourism. Kyiv alone has an estimated 50,000 sex workers, twice that of the whole of Holland, despite prostitution being illegal in Ukraine and legal in Holland. And some suspect that this figure is even higher, with many young Ukrainian sex workers not wanting to come forward due to fear of shaming and imprisonment.

The only way to tackle the exploitation of young women is to tackle its root cause – poverty. To do otherwise would be like treating a disease with tissues instead of medicine. This can be achieved without reversing the entire austerity program (which no UK government is realistically likely to do).

Firstly, the government could take up Ed Miliband’s living wage proposals. The introduction of this policy – providing tax incentives to companies who pay a living wage instead of a minimum wage to their employees (£7.45 per hour outside London and £8.55 in London, compared to the £6.19 minimum wage) would save the taxpayer £2.2bn,according to the think tank Resolution Foundation. It would also help to minimise in-work poverty, which would help single parents make ends meet without turning to prostitution.

Another step would be to reintroduce the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA), as many of the hardest hit are young people – this includes students. The Women’s National Commission (a UK women’s issues pressure group) claim the shocking statistic that “50-75% of women in prostitution entered before they were 18” and that many of these had been absent from education throughout this time. Reconsidering the £9,000 tuition fee would also help to reduce the number of students turning to the sex industry out of fear of mountainous debts.

Of course, this article does not intend to argue for or against sex work as a career choice. There is a persuasive case made by libertarians and some sex-positive feminists that willing engagement in prostitution is a matter of personal liberty for those involved and not the concern of third parties. Without divulging into a philosophical discussion about such liberties, it is worth mentioning the statistic that in a study on feminism and psychology, 92 per cent of sex workers said that they wanted to leave prostitution “immediately”. In a different study, 74 per cent of women cited “poverty”, paying “household expenses” and supporting children as a “primary motivator” for involvement in the industry. It should be clear by now that the vast majority of European sex workers are exploited out of economic desperation and are not pursuing a career that they necessarily consider legitimate, empowering or advisable – whatever one’s position on such political theory.

“She was too ignorant as yet to know that the chances of her finding work unaided were practically nil; but the next four days gradually enlightened her”, read the pages of A Clergyman’s Daughter – George Orwell’s understated and second novel. The book is an exploration of poverty in the 1930s, in which the protagonist, Dorothy, is swept away by the cruel realities of homeless men and women, some of whom become sex workers for mild reprieve. She is bailed out by a rich relative while being “on the very verge of becoming one” – a prostitute. Unfortunately – even in the 21st century, not everybody is that lucky.

http://www.leftfootforward.org/2013/08/prostitution-and-poverty-in-the-uk/

 

[santosh10]

hmmm, simply because "unskilled jobs are less paid", and skilled jobs are mainly occupied by immigrants professionals :...

and now the new generation of these unskilled people exercising in India at present..

 

[santosh10]

@Ray

A Major Difference Between Indian and American Culture

also, there is a major difference between Indian and US's culture, that is, "Indians pay for their kids while American kids grow on the tax money/welfare of high tax paying migrants, as they fall in high income bracket."

Indian Americans are the highest-income and best-educated people in the United States and the third largest among Asian Americans who have surpassed Latinos as the fastest-growing racial group, according to a new survey. :tup:

The share of unmarried mothers was much lower among Indian Americans (2.3 per cent) than among all Asian Americans (15 per cent) and the population overall (37 per cent).

Indian-Americans top in income and education

and im scared for that certain state, the Indian Society will reach one day, when Indian women too will start getting kids without marriage, but no Welfare/free medical to feed these kids as India is a developing country
.

=>

My Statement

its simple that a nation is made by its people, who may develop new technologies and improve the existing ones. nothing came from sky and nothing will ever come from sky, and we need those people who may make the nation proud from their knowledge/talent/ performance.

Indian migrants are those who pay very high tax as they fall in very high income bracket, least dependent on the Welfare and the least crime rate is registered from this community living in US/EU. many Indians came under business visa after investment in US/west itself, while most of them are very high qualified and are part of developing technologies to run the US's firms, and are doctors/ CA/ including business professionals (MBAs) too, to help them run businesses etc.:cheers:

the meaning of high end educated people is much more than the amount of tax they pay

 

[santosh10]

first here, the Table by World Bank as below clearly tells us the dominance of China on the side of High Tech Productions, the real Rise of China

also its good to see India exporting more High Tech Products than Brazil, as below. it does says that India is somewhere, but yes, far behind China :ranger:

even if High Tech business of China has a share of imported component too, but we do know that it would only rise :ranger:

=> High-technology exports (current US$) | Data | Table

.
Indian Economy on PPP would come closed to $11.0trillion, if we include 'undocumented' part of GDP too

we find on PPP, Indian economy closed to $8.0trillion by end 2015, more than total of UK+Canada+Australia+Pakistan+Bangladesh+NewZealand+other Commonwealth countries...

on PPP basis, we find Indian economy closed to $8.0trillion by end 2015...

The World Factbook

but it still doesn't includes the 'undocumented' part of GDP, the share of GDP of developing countries, which doesn't come in light, remains undocumented. which estimated over 30% in case of developing countries like India, Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, China, Sri Lanka etc.

and its not just the "non-Taxed" or "black money", but, more than half of the people of India aren't even aware that they would pay tax on the salary they earn....

The World Factbook

hence, i would say, by end of 2015, Indian economy would come closed to $11.0trillion on PPP term, if we consider the undocumented part of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) also.

nowdays UK and their allies are hopeful to maintain food supply for their coming generation through India only, have bet theri every credibility to get this "Elephant", whose economy size is bigger than the total Commonwealth Economies as whole. with dreams of source of money and power from this country,only, by using Bangladeshi souls to occupy bodies of Indian govt-military-political people, including businessmen too...
(the technologies of NASA-US, which were developed by the Indian immigrant professionals there itself, with immigrant professionals of other developing countries and Japan etc..... and this is the final outcome of these US's technologies, which is being used for every form of crimes in the countries like India... a disaster on this world as whole by UK and their allies...)

 

[santosh10]

11 October, 2012, 05:42

In an overtly patriotic speech filled with big conservative ideals, David Cameron called for Britain to sink or swim in a tough global world – but failed to say in any detail how it should be done. :coffee:

**Cameron urged Britain to “sink or swim,” telling delegates that the UK faced an “hour of reckoning.” He insisted that only “effort and aspiration” can stop the UK from becoming a second-tier economy, which, like many countries in Europe, would be tied down by “fat welfare systems” and “unreformed public services.”

He hammered home his message that only the coalition policy of economic prudence could pull Britain out of recession, while Labour’s increased borrowing would be nothing short of economic suicide.

The welfare system formed a key part of his speech. The UK spent £90 billion a year on welfare, and a key policy of Cameron’s coalition government has been to reduce this bill come what may.

And he was blunt at first glance with the facts, telling the country that more British children live in households where no one works than almost any other nation in Europe.

But Cameron didn’t mention that over one million people in Britain are unable to find work, the highest figure in almost a generation.

On the economy, the prime minster was adamant that the austerity program his party has prescribed the UK is the right medicine. He insisted that Britain is “on the right track,” but didn’t mention that the UK is in a double-dip recession and has among the lowest growth rates of any developed country. Instead, he blamed the last Labour government, saying, “It’s worse than we thought but we are making progress.”

Cameron reiterated that the deficit had come down under his leadership, but he didn’t explain why borrowing had gone up instead of down.

Nor did he mention the banks, which stood out against Ed Miliband’s promise last week in his speech to the Labour Party, that if the banks don’t regulate themselves, the government will step in and do it for them.

On taxes he went into attack mode. Rather than defend his government’s policy of cutting taxes for 8,000 millionaires by 40,000 a year by next April – while forcing pensioners to pay more – he hit back at Labour’s plans to spend more to create jobs, and in a quip at Miliband’s rallying call that Labour is a party of "one nation," called them the party of “one notion – borrowing.”

Cameron was clear about what he believes will get Britain out of the mess it’s in: aspiration, entrepreneurial spirit and private enterprise. Here the PM had some cause for celebration, as last year more businesses were created than in any other year in Britain’s history.

But he also skated over some of the more unpleasant facts about employment in the UK. His claim to have created up to one million jobs in the private sector is only true because of a change in how new jobs are classified.

He also claimed that the UK is first in the world in offshore wind power. Yet about 90% of the £1.5 billion spent building the massive London Array wind farm off the Kent coast went to foreign corporations.

Unsurprisingly, Cameron was big on the NHS. But a recent Tory-inspired shake-up of the health service has left critics arguing that GP’s (family doctors in the UK) will be “suffocated, not liberated” by the changes.

Cameron praised the armed forces for their role in Afghanistan, asking everyone in the hall to stand to show their gratitude. But it is the armed forces that will bear the brunt of the government’s spending cuts, while many senior figures in the military are warning that Britain will no longer be able to carry out such missions in the future.

On the police, in stark contrast to Miliband, Cameron didn’t say a word. Twenty-four thousand police jobs have been written off because of austerity, including 6,800 front line officers. A poster outside the conference hall read “say hello to Dave, wave goodbye to your police service.” :no:

The Libdems, a vital part of his coalition government, were left out altogether. Instead, the PM decided to pan Labour while talking up his aspirational version of conservatism.

Subjects causing any deep divisions in the Conservative Party were also omitted. There was no mention of an EU referendum, something that many in the party are calling for, and none either of the thorny issue of marriage equality.

Cameron, backed by the Libdems, has tried to push for gay marriage as consistent with his conservative values of fairness, commitment and the importance of the family. But it hasn’t gone down well with the traditional grassroots Tory activists.

On Scotland, Cameron was also reticent. He talked a lot about the Olympics and the enormous pride he felt in our athletes, and that they draped themselves in the union flag, regardless of whether they were from England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, saying that as one nation, Britain would rise together. His speech provoked outrage from the SNP (Scottish National Party), which labeled his backing to keep the union a “campaign that is all about what is best for Westminster.”

On education, the PM was passionate. He cited plans for up to 79 new free schools – independent but funded by the state – and the 2,000 academies (schools responsible for their own management and budget) that have already been created while the collation government has been in power. Cameron himself went to Eton, one of the country's most expensive and prodigious fee-based boarding schools.

But his plans drew criticism from Christine Blower, the NUT (National Union of Teachers) general secretary. She commented in The Guardian that the academy program is developing a fragmented and unaccountable education system, and that secondary school places are being set up where primary places are needed most.

The PM was firmly businesslike, appealing to the “aspiration nation,” and unlike Miliband – who last week memorized his speech to the Labour party – Cameron read from an autocue, saying that as prime minister he was too busy to memorize a speech.

He was defensive about comments that he was from the party of privilege and that he went to a ‘posh school,’ and fought back with: “I went to a great school and I want every child to have a great education. I'm not here to defend privilege; I'm here to spread it.”

Cameron leans on cliches to avert British decline (Op-Ed) — RT

sink or swim....... there is a certain sign of an organization/ person/ nation etc, when its fall is near. we then find that certain form of organization/ person/ countries adopt all the right and wrong techniques to get something done, before an expected fall. and as per my 7-8 years of experience of geo-politics, when they never hesitated to use all the wrong techniques to get something done by this or that way, like lies/bluffs/wrong information to common public etc. hence its very easy for me to say, this gentleman and his commonwealth followers are very right with their worries :coffee:
.

 

[santosh10]

British Slave Mentality

Interfering in a country like India, which is growing with a healthy pace, only state "Slave Mentality" of British and British Origins . that is, they will either make slave or will become slaves, but certainly they can't build their society by themselves.....

using technologies of US's labs, which were developed by the immigrant professionals of developing countries like India, which are being used for every form of crimes in world at present. a certain fall of this British society as whole, which is ready to destroy whole world at present, a crisis on the world society as whole....

Indian Tax Payers pay hefty subsidy for the people below poverty line, spend heavy money to build infrastructure of this country, not because others may destroy it. food subsidy, cooking oil/cooking gas is sold for the price below half of its international price from the pocket of Indian Tax Payers, over a Trillion dollar is spent to build infrastructure of this country for the current 5 years plan, which only has a rising trend. and its has no space for the beggars of British terrorists, who are using spies of Bangladesh to help UK's coming generation maintain food supply some how....

Indian economy till the 18th century was bigger than the EU as whole, which helped past generation of UK fed on Indian money. and now these falling economy, UK, has again come to India to help their coming generation fed on the India's Tax Payers money

the beggars remained beggars, whether in past or the current state of their generations, the UK...

=> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)#World_1.E2.80.932003_.28Maddison.29

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/bharat-ek-khoj-the-discovery-of-india.64568/#post-963673
.
=>

The Planning Commission is aiming at a total outlay of Rs 51.46 lakh crore in the infrastructure sector during the 12th Plan (2012-17), short of the earlier projection of
$1 trillion (about Rs 55 lakh crore).

http://profit.ndtv.com/news/politic...ed-for-infrastructure-during-12th-plan-310726
.

 

[santosh10]

India failed to copy Chinese Economic Reform in 1991

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 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 5.4% growth rate for the 12 years in between 1991 to 2001, because of failing to even 'copy' the Chinese or ASEAN region Economic Reforms in 1991. even during 80s, the growth rate of India was at around 5.8%, before 1991 economic reform, which pulled India's growth rate down to 5.4% during the 12 years time since 1991 to 2002
)

first 8.0%+ groath rate was achieved by 2003-04, under Vajpayee government, and then he retired by June 2004. and it was mainly because of the investment initiatives, he adopted since 1997, and its effects we saw since 2003-04 onwards...
even MBA degree expires in every 10 years time, clearly stating, 1991 economic reform failed to copy those like China or ASEAN region, and the blame goes to the concerned government departments as whole....

India GDP - real growth rate - Economy

(and yes, India then became an "investment driven growth" economy since the Vajpayee government, similar to CHina-ASEAN region, true. higher the investments in infrastructure, higher the growth rate achieved....)

=> 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]

@Ancient Indian

Comparison of 10 years of 1981-90 to 1991-2000, considering early 1991 "Economic Reform" of India

considering even MBA degree expires in 10 years time

sir, further to the above post, we have some fundamental analysis of India's "Economic Reform" in early 1991 as below:

1st; we have Excel Sheet Calculation of 10 years of 'Average Economic Growth Rate of India, for 1981-90 and 1991-2000, considering early 1991 as the year of Economic Reform. and 1981-90 10years, just before 1991 Economic Reform.

Average Growth Rate 1981-90 = 5.58%
Average Growth Rate 1991-2000= 5.57%
(considering, even a MBA degree expires in 10 years time, and 2001+ of India belongs to the steps taken by Mr Vajpayee government during 1998-2004 periods....)

India GDP - real growth rate - Economy

Select Country or Country Groups

.

2nd; while comparing with China, its 'Excel Sheet' calculation of the 10 years of 1991-2000 as below:

Average Growth Rate of India for the 10years 1991-2000 = 5.57% (or 55.7% marks for Mr Manmohan Singh, "passed".)
India GDP - real growth rate - Economy

Average Growth Rate of China for the 10years of 1991-2000 = 10.4% (or, 100%+ marking for Chinese Economic Reform...)
China GDP - real growth rate - Economy

3rd; we just discussed, if India suffered with Asian Economic Crisis during the 1998+, then the same is true for China also???? and if India's Economic Reform occurred by early 1991, you have no discount of leaving the year 1991 or 1992, when the growth rate of India was lower....

4th; Chinese Economic Reform occurred by early 80s, following ASIAN economic reforms too, which resulted in 8.0%+ average growth rate of Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore etc during the whole 80s, check. and there was always a joke stating, "Per Capita Income of India was higher than that of China till 1991, as they couldn't even 'copy' Chinese or ASEAN Economic Reform of early 80s.

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

and we are discussing, why the 10years period of 1991 to 2000 Economic Reform of India had 'bit' lesser growth rate than the 1981-1990 10 years period, the 10 years of just 1991 Economic Reform? (5.57% average growth rate during 1991-2000, as compare to 5.58% average growth rate of 1981-1990 period? on this Excel Sheet Calculation)

5th; even till the period of 1991-97, the Rao government with the Finance minister Mr M.M.Singh, the Excel Sheet calculation of India's growth rate is "5.24%", much lower than 1981-90 10years period of 5.58% average growth rate..

India GDP - real growth rate - Economy
.
6th; we find, total foreign investment in India during 1998-2004 period of Vajpayee government was much higher than 1991-97 period of Rao government. which does state more aggressive FDI policy of Vajpayee government than the Rao government. and yes, India too took the path of "Investment Driven Growth Rate", similar to China.... higher the investment in infrastructure, higher growth rate. for example of the current 5 years of plan, having around $1.0trillion investment in infrastructure, means for around $200billion a year in the $2.0trillion Indian economy on nominal terms, hence we would get at least 4%+ growth rate due to Investment in infrastructure only....

The Planning Commission is aiming at a total outlay of Rs 51.46 lakh crore in the infrastructure sector during the 12th Plan (2012-17), short of the earlier projection of
$1 trillion (about Rs 55 lakh crore).

http://profit.ndtv.com/news/politic...ed-for-infrastructure-during-12th-plan-310726

7th; and i repeat, the calculation of Indian Economic Reform 'includes' 1991, leaving no discount for manipulation of 10years growth rate comparison of 10 years of 1991-2000 to 1981-90, the 10 years of just before "early 1991 of Indian Economic Reform"... and yes, the strategic decision is taken by the concern departments as whole, so it was more the "Rao Government Economic Reform", in its true sense....
.
8th; The Share of Agriculture in GDP:- one more dominant factor in GDP calculation of Asian Economies, whats the share of agriculture which may hardly grow at around 2% on long run, mainly in case of Asian developing economies like India-ASEAN-China????? we find, GDP's overall growth rate is mainly determinant of Industrial and Service sector's contribution.

and for India, the 1981-90 10years time had around 35% share of Agriculture in Economy, 'on average for 1o years of 1981-90'.
while the 1991 to 2000 10years period had around 25% share of Agriculture in GDP, "on average" of 1991 to 2000.

means, 1981-90 period does suffer this dis-advantage too??? showing bit better performance of 80s as compare to India's Economic Reform period of 90s....

 

[santosh10]

.
9th; last but not least, first 8%+ growth rate of India was achieved by the year 2003-04,and then Mr Vajpayee retired by June 2004, after 12 years of Economic Reform of early 1991.
http://www.rediff.com/money/2004/jun/30gdp.htm

while, even before Vajpayee government which started since 1998, "the 7 years" of 1991 to 1997 of Rao led economic reform achieved hardly around 5.24 average growth rate, as per Excel Sheet calculation from the IMF's data's as below.

India GDP - real growth rate - Economy
.

10th; and what the "economic reform" really means for? check the growth rate of China, including ASEAN region like Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore, since their early 80s economic reform, as below. over 8.0%+ growth for these economies was a news almost every year during the 80s, while this happiness India achieved after 12 years of 1991 economic reform, by the financial year 2003-04

India is best comparable to CHina+ASEAN region 'only'. and its very true that first India had a 'late' Open Market Strategy, and also we got no learning of early 80s economic revolution in China+ASEAN.... just have a look on the 80s growth rate of China and ASEAN region as below, who had these open market strategy mainly since the early 80s..... and compare to first India's 8.0%+ growth rate by 2003-04,after 12 years of 1991 economic reform....

Malaysia: http://www.indexmundi.com/malaysia/gdp_real_growth_rate.html

China: http://www.indexmundi.com/china/gdp_real_growth_rate.html

Thailand: http://www.indexmundi.com/thailand/gdp_real_growth_rate.html

Indonesia: http://www.indexmundi.com/indonesia/gdp_real_growth_rate.html

Singapore: http://www.indexmundi.com/singapore/gdp_real_growth_rate.html

 

[santosh10]

=>
Income-Debt-Buying Power comparison of Indians, British and Americans
(in exchange rates terms)

Per Capita income of US = $50,000 (around)
Per Capita Income of UK = $38,000 (around)
Per Capita Income of India = $2,000 (around)

25 times difference
.

=> Government Debt
Government Debt per Capita in US = $18.5trillion for 310 million population = $60,000

Government Debt per Capita in India = $1.2trillion for 1.25billion population = $1,000

Government Debt per Capita in UK = $2.2trillion for 64million population = $34,000


=> "Total Debt" Per Capita of US = $60.5trillion for 310million population = $190,00 per person (around)

"Total Debt" Per Capita of India = $2.8trillion for 1.25billion population = $2,500 per person (around)

Total Debt Per Capita on UK = $12.0trillion for 64 million population = $190,000 per person (around)

around 80 times higher


=> buying products in Market, would be around 8 to 10 times difference, as per my experience.

coffee in India at 30 cents and in Sydney its $3.2 (10 times difference)

something we usual buy, a mineral water for Rs15 (30cents) in Delhi, while it was around $2.4, the cheapest one, for a similar one liter mineral water in Sydney.....

the cheapest Chinese take away food at $12 plus $2.0 for water, as compare to i pay around Rs90 ($1.5) a time here in Delhi

renting flat in Sydney starts with around $350 per week, the cheapest, means around $1,500 per month, plus other charges. as compare to renting a flat in my city, Lucknow, at around Rs 20,000 a month ($300).

parking in city, as you first drive to a shopping complex and then buy food whose prices isn't much different than India, for example. and similarly, even if you watch a movie, you pay dollar as compare to rupees in India.

even mobile charge at around 30 paisa per minute in India, less than 0.5 cent, while its around 20 cents per minute in Australia....

even for transportation, its around Rs 20 rupees(30 cents) in Delhi metro, as compare to minimum $3.5 one way in Perth-Sydney metro.....

i would put "on ground" purchasing power difference at around 8 to 10 times between India and US. the prices which matters us, the prices of driving, renting, food, travelling, mobile etc.... :tup:

hence, $2,000 'exchange rate term' per capita income of India would stand at around $15,000, using the factor of '7.5', as per its prices in US, for the what we buy-use the money on the ground, which affect the buying power of people.
hence this way, we find per capita income of India at around $15,000, as compare to per capita income of around $50,000 and $38,000 in case of US and UK respectively....

.
=> while for the developing counties like India have their 40%+ GDP remains "undocumented", simply because they dont show their half of the salary. so even if we consider the factor just at around 5.0, GDP Per Capita of India would still come at around $15,000 on PPP, as compare to around $38,000 in UK and $50,000 in US. while high growth rate of India does promise a brighter future, while the today's OECD economies are mostly saturated, having done hefty cuts in budget expenditure since 2009 recession too, hence limited investment has further undermined the growth prospects. which would hard for them to even match with their 1.5% average growth rate of last 25years since 1991 too...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)#Lists
.

 

[santosh10]

.
further, as discussed in the above post, the term "Total Debt" or "Overall Debt" includes Government Debt+Household Debt+Business debt, mainly....

its a rough calculation for US-UK-India from the picture of 'The Economist' newspaper as below. an article about US's total debt, here we have.....

Total US debt soars to nearly $60 trn, foreshadows new recession

The problem is, the more debt we have, the more future income must be used to pay the debt and its interest, which reduces the money we have to spend on things. This works to slow the economy, Butler wrote.

http://www.rt.com/usa/166352-us-total-debt-sixty-trillion/

.

=> the 'factored' Total Debt on major OECD economies is as below:-