Search results

I said it was arguable. And you are right there I guess, although the gap is still wide. Again, there is still a lot of gap between India's $-5.4 billion & Pakistan's $+604 million (0.604 billion). It's interesting, because according to the IMF data, India has a higher average inflation...

While India has undoubtedly done better than Pakistan in most aspects, Pakistan has done better than India in some of the others. For example, according to the national data of both countries: Pakistan's Balance of Trade is better than India's (arguable), Pakistan's current account is a...

see post # 17 & my posts after that.

As flawed as it is, I still think the real GDP is a better parameter than the nominal GDP, for the reasons I have mentioned above. While the real GDP cannot give you the size of the economy period (as it changes with a different base year & hence a different GDP Deflator), in my opinion the...

This is the nominal GDP, not the Real GDP.

No, that's not the real GDP, that's the nominal GDP. The nominal GDP, the real GDP & the GDP (PPP) are three separate, unrelated things. Real GDP is also referred to as GDP at constant prices, & a base year is selected to get a GDP Deflator (any base year can be selected according to the...

Again, a high inflation rate (done by devaluing the currency purposely, or by printing more money) can show an extremely high nominal GDP growth, but that does not necessarily mean the economy has grown to that extent, or even close to it. Hence, it is a poor indicator for how much the economy...

Precisely. Which is why the real growth rate is better than nominal growth rate for measuring the size of the economy.

So we all know that the nominal growth rate is greater than the real growth rate. But really, what real good is the use of the nominal growth rate? If we go about using those figures for measuring the size of the economy, then the next 9 years for Pakistan would grow it at a nominal rate of...

I'm not sure if the reported figures are real growth, because as you can see in Post # 43, it explicitly says that the inflation has already been adjusted into the figures:

Read Post # 17.

Yes, this is the formula I used, & I got a GDP of $3.5 trillion for 2020 for India, if a constant 8% nominal growth rate (real growth rate is even lower) is used over the next 9 years. Not $5.6 trillion.

I do. Please refer to this website, it is very good. The figures I provided to you were the nominal growth rates, they have already been adjusted for inflation. The inflation rate % has already been added to the real growth rate. In other words, the real growth rate is the nominal growth...

If India grows at an average growth rate of 8% per year for the next 9 years, according to my calculations, India's GDP in 2020 will be close to about $3.5 trillion, not $5.6 trillion. Please correct me if my calculations are wrong.

-------------------------------

Of course I know the differences between nominal & real growth rates, but basically, what Abhishek said in Post # 33. The figures I gave you were the GDP annual growth rates broken into quarters. If I change that to the GDP growth rate adjusted by inflation, these are the results that come out...

That's exactly correct! I've lived in Nigeria for 4 years, & the rampant corruption there makes Pakistan's look very 'bleak', makes Pakistan look extremely 'decent'. Yet, it is ranked higher than India, Pakistan & China. I don't know who formulated this list, or how they did it. That's why I...

China is ranked below Pakistan, India & Bangladesh at 135 on that list.

One needs to be realistic as well. China has barely been able to have GDP growth rate % greater than 10% for 3 quarters, from 2009 to 2011. Not to sound patronizing, but India has not even reached the double digit figure once for even a single quarter.

-------------------