Is India really over populated?

[Mad Indian]

Exactly.

More the people, more will be the supply of labour, and lower will be the salary. Of course over-population has a negative effect on income, and by extension, prosperity.

That's just pure non sense. I will give you a hint on why it's pure nonsense plot the population growth(or labor if you will) of US/(or even India )against the labour charges/wages over time

 

[pmaitra]

That's just pure non sense. I will give you a hint on why it's pure nonse- plot the population growth(or labor if you will) of US/(or even India )against the labour charges/wages over time

No thanks. I decline to take your hint.

Just present your argument. I don't have time to speculate.

 

[Mad Indian]

What could ave India done differently? Why don't you list them out? Growth does not grow on a mango tree. Let's see what alternatives you have.

I have the same alternative the present India has. What else free market. For one it would have prevented the so many famines caused during the CONgoon socialist rule

Of course it is true

.

Yeah in socialist dreams

Read his post again, and try to understand what he is saying. Read it nicely. Don't cherry-pick sentences.

His other points were not even addressing the issue I raised an I don't care. But the essential point is China took off as soon as it liberalised. But if the take off was due to population control which could not have kicked into effect till 1999, that take of could not have happened which can only mean the take off was due to liberalisation and not population control. O really don't know of you are debating or arguing Aa I really don't think you are dumb enough to ask these silly questions

No, I am not kidding you. You have not lived through the famines. You have not lived through the floods. You know nothing of whatever you are talking about. Think of Food Corporation of India. Think of the Dams. Those are all products of socialism. Your ignorance of the past does not change the facts.

you mean the govt saved the people from the famine they thenselves engineered with socialism. And your reasoning is a logical fallacy. Are you saying I need to be in 1950s to judge the crap socialism bestowed? By that logic I should have cancer before I start treating cancer patients right?

Anyway , even then I know more about poverty than any of the socialist dung heads here know. But that's for another day.

Do you even know how the socialist shit ---- of Indian economy worked back then? People were discouraged from investing in private enterprises. We had a huge monopoly of govt on means of production and we had the dreaded licence raj which meant that the only few private firms also were monopolised. So what did it mean on a micro economic level? The people were forced into the only jobs available agriculture which alsoeamt too many were employed in a sector which produces little wealth. Just by having the private sector open would have meant more jobs for the family which faced agricultural shortage to move into service and industrial sectors and hence out of poverty. Socialist dogs in govt prevented such mobility and made the only means of social upwarx mobility for poor all but impossible.


Socialism is very unique in that it solves the problem no other system has

Exactly, and that is why I am asking you to provide actual points instead of going about "not true." It proves nothing.

Makes sense. Because, I made a full list of items and data supporting my stand . you just made a sweeping statement


PS:I will only debate you if you have anything to say about the overpopulation. I will ignore your comments on socialism from now on since you are a Marxist and debating the ills of socialism to a Marxist is like debating a religious nut and is practically useless.

 

[Peter]

That's just pure non sense. I will give you a hint on why it's pure nonsense plot the population growth(or labor if you will) of US/(or even India )against the labour charges/wages over time

Give the graphs so we can analyze them. Also please take inflation into account.

 

[Mad Indian]

Yes I read what you wrote. Check out Italy and India in your and my rankings. What position have you put them in?

Also see my response very slowly and carefully. You have no idea about growth and irregularity of these rankings..

Both have comparable physiological population densities but we earn only one tenth of Italians and you don't hear Italians whining about population like us , why?


If you can set aside the typical intellectual west Bengali crap aside and think like an average human not biased by media manipulation, you will see why. Honestly if three decades of decadence in leftist rule didn't wake you up from socialist crap I don't know what will:rolleye:

 

[Peter]

Both have comparable physiological population densities but we earn only one tenth of Italians and you don't hear Italians whining about population like us , why?


If you can set aside the typical intellectual west Bengali crap aside and think like an average human not biased by media manipulation, you will see why. Honestly if three decades of decadence in leftist rule didn't wake you up from socialist crap I don't know what will:rolleye:

Not wanting to sound like a typical WB intellectual but please compare the economy of Italy and India. Also do so by per population. You will get your answer.

Compare the per capita GDP and you will see Italy is ahead of even Russia.

Remember that per capita GDP is population based.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita


Your physiological population density is flawed.

 

[Mad Indian]

Give the graphs so we can analyze them. Also please take inflation into account.

OK I will try, has the population increased or decreased from 2006?
India GDP per capita | Actual Value | Historical Data | Forecast

 

[PredictablyMalicious]

OK I will try, has the population increased or decreased from 2006?
India GDP per capita | Actual Value | Historical Data | Forecast

It has obviously increased. India's TFR is still above replacement level of 2.1

 

[Mad Indian]

Not wanting to sound like a typical WB intellectual but please compare the economy of Italy and India. Also do so by per population. You will get your answer.

Compare the per capita GDP and you will see Italy is ahead of even Russia.

Remember that per capita GDP is population based.

List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Your physiological population density is flawed.

I dint coin the term physiological density. So its not my term.

Anyway Russia having less physiological density than India means it is still less crowded than India of course. But then again my point was why are we so far behind the countries which are much more densely populated than India if Indian problem is over population.


But I don't think you have the capacity to even process what I am suggesting so I am not really surprised that you don't get my point.

 

[Mad Indian]

It has obviously increased. India's TFR is still above replacement level of 2.1

Which proves two points- the labour wages have no correlation with population and that Indian problems of poor living standards are not due to over population. If you disagree do so with reason rather than assertions and give explanations

 

[Peter]

@Mad Indian

Ok let me explain why physiological density is flawed in a simple way.

You are considering physiological density= population/arable land

This is correct as long as "ARABLE LAND" is the ONLY resource required for progress,development or being rich. In other words,arable land is the only thing that would measure a country`s wealth. You are disregarding other factors of the economy of a state.

If this was a medieval era your calculation would have been correct. However arable land does not determine how rich/poor a country is. Similarly you cannot take it as a base for your calculation for population.

My refined calculation would be pop measurement= pop/resources required(not only natural resources)

This resources would include food,oil for cars,common goods,luxurious things,other small things etc(in layman terms).

Do this and make a ranking list and you would see India is quite poor here. India does not have adequate resources mate. Also a larger population would put strain on resources. The rich countries have less arable land as they are westernised. They import most of their food as they have a lot of wealth. That is why their calculation becomes flawed.

Really this is +2 level mathematics.

 

[Peter]

OK I will try, has the population increased or decreased from 2006?
India GDP per capita | Actual Value | Historical Data | Forecast

Take inflation into account before you spew out any data. Also take a look at my post why your physiological density is flawed.

 

[Mad Indian]

No thanks. I decline to take your hint.

Just present your argument. I don't have time to speculate.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NtRmS7q9DlM

Watch the video. It also supports my view on bangla immigrants...

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

just reposting my last post. A poor man have 4 kids , all are under 15. That man earns 100 rupees per day. So even to earn money which will provide them sufficient food, kids have to work instead of going to school. More illiteracy.

 

[Mad Indian]

Take inflation into account before you spew out any data.

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.

 

[PredictablyMalicious]

Which proves two points- the labour wages have no correlation with population and that Indian problems of poor living standards are not due to over population. If you disagree do so with reason rather than assertions and give explanations

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.

 

[Peter]

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.

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.

 

[Mad Indian]

@Mad Indian

Ok let me explain why physiological density is flawed in a simple way.

You are considering physiological density= population/arable land

This is correct as long as "ARABLE LAND" is the ONLY resource required for progress,development or being rich. In other words,arable land is the only thing that would measure a country`s wealth. You are disregarding other factors of the economy of a state.

If this was a medieval era your calculation would have been correct. However arable land does not determine how rich/poor a country is. Similarly you cannot take it as a base for your calculation for population.

My refined calculation would be pop measurement= pop/resources required

This resources would include food,oil for cars,common goods,luxurious things,other small things etc(in layman terms).

Do this and make a ranking list and you would see India is quite poor here. India does not have adequate resources mate. Also a larger population would put strain on resources. The rich countries have less arable land as they are westernised. They import most of their food as they have a lot of wealth. That is why their calculation becomes flawed.


Ask any one who actually knows india
Really this is +2 level mathematics.

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.

 

[Mad Indian]

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

 

[Peter]

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.

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.

Also the resources thing would balance out. Even if oil is being imported the US exports other things that make up the deficit.