India moves close to China in growth rate

[Rage]

Wrong。Mainland China's 2012 GDP is 8.3 trillion US dollars using year-end exchange rate。

China's 2012 GDP that includes Hong Kong and Macau but excludes Taiwan，is well in excess of 8.65 trillion dollars。

2013 figure for Mainland China will be NORTH of 9.5 trillion dollars。

Only losers talk about their GDPs in PPP terms。: rofl:

Another idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[Rage]

I think that shut up the idiots like @Rage awfully quick. Bravo

The idiots are the ones who actually think "100's of nukes will be launched at each other" in the event of an India-Pakistan contest .

But since you've decided to intrude on a topic you know absoloutely nothing about, show me how the figures you've quoted demonstrate "China's nominal GDP is 4 times that of India".

You might want to be a little more cautious with the attribution of adjectives to me that are really more characteristic of you, considering the number of times I've shut you up in the past.

And why would something like that shut me up 'awfully quick'? I don't spend my entire day on an internet forum like you.

 

[cinoti]

Christ! Things getting relatively more expensive does not mean a real growth rate that is "negative". The inflation rate has no bearing on the real GDP growth, in production of goods and services, which remained at 5.3% last quarter.

I hate to prototyping people, but you guys, I mean guys with an Indian cultural influence always tend to shoot without thinking, even you are NOT an econ major, you should have some commonsense, you are talking about PPP people! how come it does not have anything to do with inflation?

Nominal GDP usually takes off inflation index ( in India, you usually not to showcase a prettier figure) but how can you take it out form PPP? darn you are just wasting band width....

 

[Bangalorean]

I hate to prototyping people, but you guys, I mean guys with an Indian cultural influence always tend to shoot without thinking, even you are NOT an econ major, you should have some commonsense, you are talking about PPP people! how come it does not have anything to do with inflation?

Nominal GDP usually takes off inflation index ( in India, you usually not to showcase a prettier figure) but how can you take it out form PPP? darn you are just wasting band width....

And guys with a "Chinese cultural influence" make retarded statements like you just did. Retardedness at its best.

What the ---- do you mean "In India you usually not to showcase a prettier figure"? Are you an asshat? India's growth is always spoken of after taking inflation into account - all these 6%, 7% etc. numbers are after taking inflation out. What the ---- do you mean "you usually not"? Try not to be a retarded Chinese asshat. Shoot without thinking seems to be a symptom of Chinese twats more than anything else, based on this forum at least.

 

[cinoti]

And guys with a "Chinese cultural influence" make retarded statements like you just did. Retardedness at its best.

What the ---- do you mean "In India you usually not to showcase a prettier figure"? Are you an asshat? India's growth is always spoken of after taking inflation into account - all these 6%, 7% etc. numbers are after taking inflation out. What the ---- do you mean "you usually not"? Try not to be a retarded Chinese asshat. Shoot without thinking seems to be a symptom of Chinese twats more than anything else, based on this forum at least.

I am sorry if I hurt some feelings, Indian statistics usually don't take off inflation index when it calculates the nominal GDP, I don't want to elaborate on a fact, ask your own kind, let them give you a secret answer,

 

[Bangalorean]

I am sorry if I hurt some feelings, Indian statistics usually don't take off inflation index when it calculates the nominal GDP, I don't want to elaborate on a fact, ask your own kind, let them give you a secret answer,

GDP growth rate accounts for inflation. Always has, always does. Otherwise India's growth rate would have been presented in much higher percentages. What "fact" are you talking about? You are just making silly statements to suit what you want to present.

 

[ice berg]

But, even assuming your simple theoretical elaboration, what is the significance of your "numbers game" postulate in light of the fact that China's most recent base year (as revised) is 2010, thereby leaving real GDP growth rate for the series 2011-12 (retroactively) unaffected. India's real GDP numbers, in that sense, are understated because it continues to rely on FY2005-06 as the base year. Even discounting this significantly more upward revision for China, the bilateral conversion factor (which I have calculated to be) of 1.388 does not explain the allusion that "China's nominal GDP is 4 times that of India" considering the relative exchange rate appreciation and the different inflation rates.


Bear in mind also, that in the calculation of Budget deficits, as in the above figure, India's most recent base year is FY 2005-06; whereas, China's (1.1%) budget deficit is based upon a calculation with a more recent base year, 2010; and that therefore, China's budget deficit under this new series is lower than what it would have been had it been computed at the previous (and more comparable) base year 2005, since GDP would be larger in the new series for calculating national income.

Face palm. How many times do I have to explain this?

You are still lost in your own world with your "real GDP".

I already explained that real GDP is only used when people want to compare GDP in one year with past years to study trends in economic growth.
You DO NOT compare two different economies in different development stages using different base year.

The discussion started as the relative size between Chinese and Indian economy in nominal GDP.

You are the one who brought up the topic of "real GDP" in the first place!

As regarding the statement of whether chinese GDP in year 2012 is four times bigger than India.
Chinese GDP were 8,2 trillion in 2012. Indian has less than 2 trillion.
Do your own math.

The last paragraph is just silly. The chart shows clealy that it was based on year 2011. No idea where you get your numbers from.

 

[Rage]

Face palm. How many times do I have to explain this?

You are still lost in your own world with your "real GDP".

I already explained that real GDP is only used when people want to compare GDP in one year with past years to study trends in economic growth.
You DO NOT compare two different economies in different development stages using different base year.

The discussion started as the relative size between Chinese and Indian economy in nominal GDP.

You are the one who brought up the topic of "real GDP" in the first place!

As regarding the statement of whether chinese GDP in year 2012 is four times bigger than India.
Chinese GDP were 8,2 trillion in 2012. Indian has less than 2 trillion.
Do your own math.

The last paragraph is just silly. The chart shows clealy that it was based on year 2011. No idea where you get your numbers from.

Listen, retard. I don't know where you go getting your "economics" from or how you think it relates to the matter at hand.

Stop spouting theoretical bullshit in an attempt to convince me of an argument you know absoloutely nothing about.

I'm asking you to show me, using numbers and figures, how "China's nominal GDP is 4 times that of India" when the previous year's, i.e. 2011, figures show that the ratio of nominal GDP's is 3.6 (that's right, India's financial year hasn't ended yet, stupid) given the real growth rates in the preceding quarters, given significantly higher inflation in India and given that the PPP ratios (or conversion factor:exchange rate ratios, called the 'national price level') have changed only fractionally. You think that's a "silly question", again, why don't you try answering it?

Your compadres here seem to think that only China's nominal GDP grows, while the rest of the world's remains static.

Do you see me talking about India and China's 'real GDPs' anywhere? I'm talking about real GDP "growth", which as an inflation-adjusted macroeconomic measure for quantity of total output, is very comparable year-on-year, even with different base years.

Even considering this foolish "base year" argument, which has nothing to do with the comparative statics of real GDP, India's real real GDP, if it were to be calculated as a number and measured in relation with China's real GDP as a separate (and more accurate) comparison of economic performance, would be much higher than it is at present since India's real GDP has a base year of 2004-05, while China's has 2010 (and much of India's post-liberalization inflation has been in the intervening period).

 

[Rage]

I hate to prototyping people, but you guys, I mean guys with an Indian cultural influence always tend to shoot without thinking, even you are NOT an econ major, you should have some commonsense, you are talking about PPP people! how come it does not have anything to do with inflation?

Nominal GDP usually takes off inflation index ( in India, you usually not to showcase a prettier figure) but how can you take it out form PPP? darn you are just wasting band width....

My dear, good, very confused man!

Real GDP growth is the growth of GDP in output terms, that is the growth of actual output compared to the previous year's production, after inflation has been dealt with.

Still confused?

 

[t_co]

The idiots are the ones who actually think "100's of nukes will be launched at each other" in the event of an India-Pakistan contest .

Tu quoque - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But since you've decided to intrude on a topic you know absoloutely nothing about, show me how the figures you've quoted demonstrate "China's nominal GDP is 4 times that of India".

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where did I argue that China's nominal GDP was 4x that of India?

You might want to be a little more cautious with the attribution of adjectives to me that are really more characteristic of you, considering the number of times I've shut you up in the past.

Tu quoque - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh, and cite your sources, buddy

And why would something like that shut me up 'awfully quick'? I don't spend my entire day on an internet forum like you.

What the heck does that have to do with the discussion at hand?

 

[t_co]

Very good. This is what you learn in 1st year grad school. But that is not the way things work in practice.

China, for example, has growth rates at constant prices processed by either one of two methods: price index deflation method or volume index extrapolation method based upon convenience in each sector or industry. The single deflation gives the value added at constant prices of agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry and fishing, industry, construction, information transmission, computer service, software, wholesale and retail trade, financial intermediation, real estate and leasing services; while the value index extrapolation method calculates constant prices for transport, storage, freight, power and post among others.

There are two reasons for adopting single deflation. One is in China, no product price system exists which can reflect all production results; and moreover, there is a lack of a pricing index which can reflect an intermediate situation of inputs and economic activity. On the other hand, the extrapolation method is not purely production based either, but combines both income and production approach.

In theory, the appropriate price index is the weighted mean of indeces for goods and service prices. But in fact, this ideal situation does not exist at all. For this reason, we have to combine the relative price index and complement some price info. to arrive at an industry specific deflation index in the calculation of GDP at constant prices. This is where Chinese fudging comes in.

All well and good.

But, even assuming your simple theoretical elaboration, what is the significance of your "numbers game" postulate in light of the fact that China's most recent base year (as revised) is 2010, thereby leaving real GDP growth rate for the series 2011-12 (retroactively) unaffected. India's real GDP numbers, in that sense, are understated because it continues to rely on FY2005-06 as the base year. Even discounting this significantly more upward revision for China, the bilateral conversion factor (which I have calculated to be) of 1.388 does not explain the allusion that "China's nominal GDP is 4 times that of India" considering the relative exchange rate appreciation and the different inflation rates.

This is where you go off the rails: why does India's use of FY2005-06 as the base year understate real GDP? Also, what is your source for a 1.388 bilateral conversion factor?

And finally, you guys are arguing at non-point here. From a nominal perspective, Chinese GDP is 4x India's. The ratio of real GDPs should be the same if you are calculating things into dollar terms and using the same dollar-based deflator. Rage's point is that the actual Sino-India GDP ratio is about 2.8 or 2.9 if you look at PPP, which is also true, since the cost of goods and services in India is cheaper than China due to the lower costs of production factors.

Bear in mind also, that in the calculation of Budget deficits, as in the above figure, India's most recent base year is FY 2005-06; whereas, China's (1.1%) budget deficit is based upon a calculation with a more recent base year, 2010; and that therefore, China's budget deficit under this new series is lower than what it would have been had it been computed at the previous (and more comparable) base year 2005, since GDP would be larger in the new series for calculating national income.

That doesn't make sense at all. Why would China choose a 2010 base year to deflate its GDP, but a 2005 base year to deflate its budget deficits? If you deflate both budget deficits and GDP using a 2005 deflator coefficient, then you'll get the same deficit-to-GDP ratio...

 

[t_co]

Face palm. How many times do I have to explain this?

You are still lost in your own world with your "real GDP".

I already explained that real GDP is only used when people want to compare GDP in one year with past years to study trends in economic growth.
You DO NOT compare two different economies in different development stages using different base year.

The discussion started as the relative size between Chinese and Indian economy in nominal GDP.

You are the one who brought up the topic of "real GDP" in the first place!

As regarding the statement of whether chinese GDP in year 2012 is four times bigger than India.
Chinese GDP were 8,2 trillion in 2012. Indian has less than 2 trillion.
Do your own math.

The last paragraph is just silly. The chart shows clealy that it was based on year 2011. No idea where you get your numbers from.

FYI @cinoti, @Rage and you are arguing different points. See my above post.

 

[p2prada]

I am sorry if I hurt some feelings, Indian statistics usually don't take off inflation index when it calculates the nominal GDP, I don't want to elaborate on a fact, ask your own kind, let them give you a secret answer,

You mean to say India has only seen negative growth year on year?

Growth has been 15% and above for India over the years, without taking inflation into account.

 

[Mad Indian]

This is where you go off the rails: why does India's use of FY2005-06 as the base year understate real GDP? Also, what is your source for a 1.388 bilateral conversion factor?

Because nominal gdp of the country will be way higher in 2010 than in 2005. While the real growth would be after accounting for inflation, nominal would be without excluding it and hence it would be naturally high. Even I can understand this. And you are calling some one @Rage as an idiot .

 

[Mad Indian]

What the heck does that have to do with the discussion at hand?
*

Read what you wrote dimwit .

I think that shut up the idiots like @Rage
-awfully quick. Bravo-

You made ad-hominem first.

 

[Bhoja]

I don't like Kapil Sibal but he made an interesting comment on the Chinese economy several years ago at the
World economic forum.

 

[t_co]

Because nominal gdp of the country will be way higher in 2010 than in 2005. While the real growth would be after accounting for inflation, nominal would be without excluding it and hence it would be naturally high. Even I can understand this. And you are calling some one @Rage as an idiot .

Unfortunately, that's not what @Rage was saying. Rage didn't say 'real GDP expressed in 2005-06 dollars will be lower than real GDP expressed in 2010 dollars'. Rage said that real GDP deflated using the 2005-06 deflator (with whatever G&S weighting in their deflator basket) will systemically undercount real GDP independent of the deflator. I was asking if Rage knew something about the characteristics of the Indian deflator that all of us didn't.

 

[Mad Indian]

Unfortunately, that's not what @Rage was saying. Rage didn't say 'real GDP expressed in 2005-06 dollars will be lower than real GDP expressed in 2010 dollars'. Rage said that real GDP deflated using the 2005-06 deflator (with whatever G&S weighting in their deflator basket) will systemically undercount real GDP independent of the deflator. I was asking if Rage knew something about the characteristics of the Indian deflator that all of us didn't.

A like for the humility. See, that was not hard was it? Now I dont know the technical jargon you are talking, and so i will let @Rage to answer the post

 

[Singh]

I hate when people just discuss percentages without looking at the base figures.

The day we grow at 14% to China's 7% then I shall be happy and say that we are finally moving ahead.

Germany with 2% growth rate makes much bigger news and impact than India with 5% or 5.5% or whatever we will end up this year.

Agreed. Look at the size of economies too.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

 

[Rage]

All well and good.

This is where you go off the rails: why does India's use of FY2005-06 as the base year understate real GDP? Also, what is your source for a 1.388 bilateral conversion factor?

And finally, you guys are arguing at non-point here. From a nominal perspective, Chinese GDP is 4x India's. The ratio of real GDPs should be the same if you are calculating things into dollar terms and using the same dollar-based deflator. Rage's point is that the actual Sino-India GDP ratio is about 2.8 or 2.9 if you look at PPP, which is also true, since the cost of goods and services in India is cheaper than China due to the lower costs of production factors.

That doesn't make sense at all. Why would China choose a 2010 base year to deflate its GDP, but a 2005 base year to deflate its budget deficits? If you deflate both budget deficits and GDP using a 2005 deflator coefficient, then you'll get the same deficit-to-GDP ratio...

You know, I'd love to take the time out to explain to you why China's nominal GDP cannot be more than 4x that of India, when it was about 3.6 times the last year, why the bilateral conversion factor is what it is or why China's nominal GDP and nominal GDP growth is believed to be overvalued (you'll find explanations to most of those in the preceding posts). But when you make stupid comments like "the ratio of real GDPs should be the same" or ask me stupid questions like "why India uses 2004-05 as the base year" I just get turned off.

You, first need to understand what Real Gross Domestic Product is, what real GDP growth is and what PPP actually means. Then, you can think about moving onto such "complex" things as rebasing and extrapolating national accounts, bilateral conversion factors, exchange rate movements and the like, which for the moment remain only a distant illusion.

Tu quoque - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tu quoque - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh, and cite your sources, buddy

What the heck does that have to do with the discussion at hand?

Funny guy; you make an "ad hominem" attack, and then talk to me about "straw man arguments", "Tu quoque's" etc.? Where the f&ck do you get off?