India to outpace China by 2030: US intelligence report

[Rage]

I just based it on my trust of World Bank statisticians.
Poverty headcount ratio at national poverty line (% of population) | Data | Table

Which have known to be fallible before.

Which base their reports on official country statistics.

 

[Rage]

by the way, india's nation poverty line is set below 28 rupees per day, wich is some 3 RMB
and China's national pervety line is 7 RMB daily, somewhere around 60 rupees

if China sets as 28 rupees there is no poverty by Indian's stand, if Indian set to 60 rupees, there will be more than 50% by Chinese standards.

How do you arrive at that figure? Have you calculated the Indian Government's official report for the number of people under 60 INR per day?

India's PPP conversion factor (GDP) to market exchange rate ratio = 0.41
China's " " " " " " .............................................................................. = 0.65

 

[hbogyt]

I'm only speaking from impression.

China is a manufacturing economy undoubtedly, but it is not the same as it was a decade ago. Chinese manufacturing is moving up the value chain while outsourcing some of its lower valued production offshore to countries like Vietnam, Pakistand and Indonesia. Most of the factory work that exists today requires at least some form of tertiary education for some of the workers.

India is allocating its limited resources to their most profitable use, including pharmaceuticals and software, These are industries in which India has some competitive advantage.

China has traditionally held the competitive advantage in labour cost and easy supply chain management. People laugh at their feeble attempts at producing 'indigenous' CPUs, passenger jets and high speed rails that would never get enough orders to break-even. The state doesn't expect those industry seed projects to ever turn a profit. It does, however, expect it to create new competitive advantages in that sector over time. The gist is that most profitable use is not the most efficient use and unprofitable ventures can prove otherwise in the future for the national economy as a whole.

China is also better placed to take advantege of emerging industries. In mature industries where competition is fierce and Western companies already has accumulated too much know-how, a new entrant would find it hard-pressed to out-R&D them. In industries such as renewable energy where everyone is at the starting line, it's relatively easy to get to the state of the art. What you need is a skilled labour force and adequate infrastructure, both of which China has in abundance.

The creation of new opportunities can not be entirely left to private hands especially when you're starting low and I see the Chinese government consciously nudging the economy in the right direction.

You can pull stats however you want. The fact of the matter is that China is going to block some of the growth paths India could've taken just as Japan, Korea and Taiwan have blocked China's, by being earlier.

Did whatshisname say something about 6 or 7 years? I don't think so. I think it will remain "6 to 7" years for some time.

 

[cinoti]

Which have known to be fallible before.

Which base their reports on official country statistics.

third party assessors according to World Bank, you can read their notes on their page, it is an objective third party evaluation group who came up with the statistics

 

[s002wjh]

seem like fortune telling or fortune cookies to me. who knows what happen in 20yrs.

 

[Rage]

third party assessors according to World Bank, you can read their notes on their page, it is an objective third party evaluation group who came up with the statistics

A third party that bases findings on country statistics that: a) are not always objectively prepared; and b) that have statistical methods applied to them that are often arbitrary, lead to gross miscalculations, which have been acknowledged in the past and do not capture ground variables that are crucial in contextually reading the findings.

Here's a primer:

Poverty in India: Has the World Bank goofed up?

The World Bank said [in 2008] the other day that 24 per cent of all Indians in 2005 lived on an average of Rs 13.14 per day or less (taking the weighted average of the different figures for rural and urban areas).

Further, it said that another 18 per cent lived on an average of between Rs 16.49 and Rs 13.14 per day (once again, averaging the rural and urban numbers). If you do the math for a population of about 1.1 billion people in 2005, what the Bank is saying is that 42 per cent of all Indians (about 460 million people) lived on less than Rs 250,000 crore in 2008. That was barely a tenth of total household expenditure in 2005 (which in turn is 60-65 per cent of GDP).

Er. . . just how poor is India?

It's terrible if the poorest 42 per cent of the population account for only 10 per cent of all household expenditure. Oddly enough, the World Bank does not say that. Its World Development Indicators say that the bottom 40 per cent of the population accounted for over 19 per cent of all household consumption in India. That is almost twice as much [from the World Bank's own indicators] as what the same World Bank is telling us now through its poverty numbers.

In fact, there is hardly any economy in the world in which the poorest 40 per cent of the population gets less than 10 per cent of total household income. The only major exception is Brazil, where the figure is 9.2 per cent, but inequality levels in Brazil are grossly ahead of what exist in India. China and the US are also more unequal than India [from the World Bank's own GINI coefficients], and even they had their bottom 40 per cent accounting for 12.8 per cent and 16.1 per cent of the total, respectively. So it is highly unlikely that India's bottom 40 per cent gets only a one-tenth slice of the total pie.

What this perhaps means is that we should place little value on the latest World Bank assertion that 42 per cent of the Indian population lives on less than $1.25 per day (calculated on the basis of purchasing power parity).

In fact, if (as the World Development Indicators tell us) the bottom 20 per cent of the population accounts for 8 per cent of all household consumption, then even their average income is higher than the rupee equivalent of $1.25 per day.

If so, the numbers living on less than $1.25 per day should be much smaller than even 20 per cent of the population.

One hesitates to conclude that an institution that specializes in inter-country comparisons can have got its numbers so badly wrong - though Surjit Bhalla has alleged exactly that.

The conspiracy theorists will argue that the World Bank's business is poverty eradication, and if it is to stay in business it needs to keep telling the world that there is still a lot of poverty all around.

This does not wash, because even with sharply reduced estimates on the numbers that live on less than a dollar a day, there would be enough and more for the World Bank to do.

If the Bank's numbers are wide of the mark, they will make a difference to the poverty debate. The Left has argued over the years that the economic reforms have done little or nothing to tackle the poverty problem, since most of the benefits have gone to the wealthy and the middle-class.

But, if poverty levels are in fact much lower than what the World Bank tells us, the truth may be different, and the Left may have got it wrong yet again.

Poverty in India: Has World Bank goofed up?

Besides, you reached several frivolous conclusions that were not based on World Bank statistics. Including what proportion of India's population lived on a [non PPP comparable] less than 60 INR a day.

 

[Rage]

@hbogyt,

India's liberalization of the pharmaceutical, aviation, telecommunication, entertainment and larger business process outsourcing sectors had little to do with 'allocative efficiency' and rather more to do with political expeditiousness.

In the early days of liberalization, liberalizing sectors in their relative infancy was the way to go about economic growth without disrupting the economy, for a government that had a democratically established mandate but would see that mandate electorally erode if the economy was disrupted large-scale.

On the other hand, political expediency for the Chinese Government lay in fulfilling the employment aspirations of millions of people, establishing a mandate that otherwise had no electoral basis or had not been renewed since the revolution: by being the provisioner of that employment.

As India's economic and political landscape changes, the Government finds that it has a political compunction to liberalize more sectors to sustain the growth rates necessary to prevent erosion of wealth and incomes among a key electoral vote base: the middle class. This political compulsion is so strong as to push a minority Government to adopt key reforms such as FDI-retail despite its Parliamentary confidence and electoral sufficiency being at stake.

India has acquired now a cost advantage, despite its relative infrastructural mediocrity, over China in a number of industries: automotive, petro products and chemicals to name a few.

2011 report reveals China manufacturing hourly labor rate, compensation costs impact EMS | VentureOutsource.com

 

[desicanuk]

Soviet was a communist country ,but its economy colllapseed, N. Korea is also one,however, their economy plan seem not to work.....

so, the success of CHina obvioulsy doesn' lie in its communism.

Very true indeed for it lies in Nationalsozialismus.

 

[hbogyt]

I think people toss the word communist around all too casually. None of the Soviet and North Korean econonomic and political system were communist. They were soviet socialist. The regimes were purportedly communist but nothing else.