Balance China’s Military Might, India needs at least 30,000 extra troops

[Koovie]

yeh but what you failing to realize is that a trillion dollar gdp for over a bilion people is pathetic dont you think?
its should be 10 times as much for the amount of people you have.
so if you have a billion consumers licing in your country it doesnt matter if your gdp is trillion. it would only be impressive if it was 10 trillion +



you keep bringing up madrassahs so what do you expect to hear?

And here comes the top notch economist again.....

1.) India`s GDP is almost 2 trillion by now not one trillion

2.) Population does not determine the size of the economy kid.

Infact roughly 40 % of India`s population contribute to roughly 80 % of its GDP.

The majority of Indians work in the agricultural sector which barely contrubutes 17 % to our GDP

 

[GR!FF!N]

yeh but what you failing to realize is that a trillion dollar gdp for over a bilion people is pathetic dont you think?
its should be 10 times as much for the amount of people you have.
so if you have a billion consumers licing in your country it doesnt matter if your gdp is trillion. it would only be impressive if it was 10 trillion +

then I'll tell you to wait and watch..by the way,what figure you've posted,even china's GDP isn't equal to that(their GDP is around 8 trillion).only USA has more GDP than 10 trillion and even they achieve that in 2001,only 10 years back.don't mind dude,but you've some serious problems.you want to develop India second largest economy overnight.well,I welcome your enthusiasm,but reality doesn't work that way.India's economy is around 2 trillion and they achieved it even within global recession and all.China took over 6 years to become a 1 trillion economy to become a 2 trillion economy,even when global market was strong(1998-2005) when India took just over 5 years(2007-2012),even in the face of global recession.I really don't think comparison between India and China is fair.

 

[qamar1990]

And here comes the top notch economist again.....

1.) India`s GDP is almost 2 trillion by now not one trillion

2.) Population does not determine the size of the economy kid.

Infact roughly 40 % of India`s population contribute to roughly 80 % of its GDP.

The majority of Indians work in the agricultural sector which barely contrubutes 17 % to our GDP

you fail to understand.
you do know that gdp is goods and services produced?
you have a billion consumers in indian true?

your exports are around 300 billion
2 trillion minus 300 billion 1.7 trillion left?

so if your population was around 170 million do you stil honestly think your gdp would be 2 trillion?

you would close to a developed nation if that was the case.

i hope you understand what im trying to tell you here.

your gap is big only becuase of your population!!! get it in your head bro.



another thing btw

im just going to try to give you an example since you keep bringing up that 40 percent contribute to 80 percent of gdp.

how much food can one person produce on on a farm? few thousand worth?
while if you making cars you have help of machines and each product your produce if worth 1000 times more.
so you need les people to produce cars then you need to farm. do you get it?
if you stil dont get it ill have my brother explain to you he is a business major maybe lol.

 

[Dillinger]

you fail to understand.
you do know that gdp is goods and services produced?
you have a billion consumers in indian true?

your exports are around 300 billion
2 trillion minus 300 billion 1.7 trillion left?

so if your population was around 170 million do you stil honestly think your gdp would be 2 trillion?

you would close to a developed nation if that was the case.

i hope you understand what im trying to tell you here.

your gap is big only becuase of your population!!! get it in your head bro.

Not particularly adept at economics are we? Have decided that the GDP in actual figures represents the life quality of people hunh?

Here is a thought..with a much smaller population and a strategic location it should have been Pakistan which should have had the trillion dollar GDP like SK or Japan.

So yes, with just 170 million people to feed we would have soared beyond the 2 trillion mark. As should have Pakistan. A large population only provides a market and labor base. Now obviously you would have understood that if you had even remembered economics 101- factors of production. Little knowledge of economics and affairs martial, professional or otherwise, always leads to half baked posts. Even Jimmie's got his narrative set better than you.

 

[qamar1990]

Not particularly adept at economics are we? Have decided that the GDP in actual figures represents the life quality of people hunh?

Here is a thought..with a much smaller population and a strategic location it should have been Pakistan which should have had the trillion dollar GDP like SK or Japan.

So yes, with just 170 million people to feed we would have soared beyond the 2 trillion mark. As should have Pakistan. A large population only provides a market and labor base. Now obviously you would have understood that if you had even remembered economics 101- factors of production. Little knowledge of economics and affairs martial, professional or otherwise, always leads to half baked posts. Even Jimmie's got his narrative set better than you.

jesus christ you people so thick headed.
im not good economics but somethings are just commonsense.

i think everybody in the world knows that indias gdp is huge becuase of their population!!!!!!!!.
you have a billion consumers and that means millions of businesses have to produce products worth billions to feed and service these people!!!!! hence a gdp of of 2 trillion

 

[Dillinger]

@Koovie @GR!FF!N AND the rest of you. Why are we engaging in a redundant discussion with a person who's knowledge of such affairs is at best confined to that of a neophyte?

Put him on the ignore list if it is difficult to avoid the deviations, report any off-topic posts and lets keep this tread clean.

jesus christ you people so thick headed.
im not good economics but somethings are just commonsense.

i think everybody in the world knows that indias gdp is huge becuase of their population!!!!!!!!.
you have a billion consumers and that means millions of businesses have to produce products worth billions to feed and service these people!!!!! hence a gdp of of 2 trillion

Yup.

I can see where this gem of an economic revelation is coming from. Because obviously the 1.2 billion people are equally contributing to the GDP. or even better contributing in a synchronized manner. As I said, your knowledge of economics leaves much to be desired for. Amateurish opinions and gut feeling do not comprise sound economic evaluations.

 

[qamar1990]

@Koovie @GR!FF!N AND the rest of you. Why are we engaging in a redundant discussion with a person who's knowledge of such affairs is at best confined to that of a neophyte?

Put him on the ignore list if it is difficult to avoid the deviations, report any off-topic posts and lets keep this tread clean.



Yup.

I can see where this gem of an economic revelation is coming from. Because obviously the 1.2 billion people are equally contributing to the GDP. or even better contributing in a synchronized manner. As I said, your knowledge of economics leaves much to be desired for. Amateurish opinions and gut feeling do not comprise sound economic evaluations.

Economics 101: GDP growth, per capita income rise and how it affects us:Money Happy Returnseepa Venkatraghvan's blog-The Economic Times


just read this is shut your mouth and make sure to read the whole thing.

 

[Bullet500]

yeh but what you failing to realize is that a trillion dollar gdp for over a bilion people is pathetic dont you think?
its should be 10 times as much for the amount of people you have.
so if you have a billion consumers licing in your country it doesnt matter if your gdp is trillion. it would only be impressive if it was 10 trillion +



you keep bringing up madrassahs so what do you expect to hear?



you should teach your fellow indians first.
if they insult me then they can expect an insult 10 times worst understood? we are muslims we dont turn the other cheek we stick our foots up your *** if you insult or mess with us.

lol well cant argue with a madrasa educated one. Muslim in india are way better! they are not bad mouths like you dear! Hope allah give you some sanitary!

And dude per capita income in india is more than pakistan!

 

[Dillinger]

Economics 101: GDP growth, per capita income rise and how it affects us:Money Happy Returnseepa Venkatraghvan's blog-The Economic Times


just read this is shut your mouth and make sure to read the whole thing.

AND now we are back to my original reprimand. Conflating two different issues. Seriously should have paid attention in class. Perhaps if you had understood the meaning of the word "synchronized" you would have saved yourself the effort of posting that link. The definition of GDP in semantically defined terms is not the attributing factor for the value of said GDP and how the population exercises any control over it in real terms.

In fact the very article itself disproves your notion that the GDP is this high in India's case due to its population and rather concentrates on why the per capita income is so low due to the high population. Which is a function of the fact that the populace does not enjoy an equal stake in the economy of the nation and therefore does not in its entirety decide the growth of the GDP as such or in any appreciable manner. Had you had the common sense of going through certain crucial economic markers you would have gleaned a much better picture of where you are going wrong. I had thought that I was dealing with a neophyte and now I see that I am dealing with an uninitiated.

 

[Koovie]

you fail to understand.
you do know that gdp is goods and services produced?
you have a billion consumers in indian true?

your exports are around 300 billion
2 trillion minus 300 billion 1.7 trillion left?

so if your population was around 170 million do you stil honestly think your gdp would be 2 trillion?

you would close to a developed nation if that was the case.

i hope you understand what im trying to tell you here.

your gap is big only becuase of your population!!! get it in your head bro.

Interesting point, however, the thing is that not every one has the same purchasing power, especially not in a country where you have people living in deep poverty and people who got everything they can dream of. And then you got the people who are in the middle.

Its safe to assume that 30-40 maybe even 50% cannot afford anything except the food and other studd they need to survive, and such things are very often not accounted for in the GDP simply because they get it from sources who don`t know anything about book keeping.

So the vast majority of the consumption done in India is made by half or maybe even less of the population.

 

[qamar1990]

AND now we are back to my original reprimand. Conflating two different issues. Seriously should have paid attention in class. Perhaps if you had understood the meaning of the word "synchronized" you would have saved yourself the effort of posting that link. The definition of GDP in semantically defined terms is not the attributing factor for the value of said GDP and how the population exercises any control over it in real terms.

In fact the very article itself disproves your notion that the GDP is this high in India's case due to its population and rather concentrates on why the per capita income is so low due to the high population. Which is a function of the fact that the populace does not enjoy an equal stake in the economy of the nation and therefore does not in its entirety decide the growth of the GDP as such or in any appreciable manner. Had you had the common sense of going through certain crucial economic markers you would have gleaned a much better picture of where you are going wrong. I had thought that I was dealing with a neophyte and now I see that I am dealing with an uninitiated.

just tell me this.

would you have a 2 trillion dollr gdp with 176 million people?

just answer yes or no.

 

[El Weirdo]

says the guy who worships a monkey god and a statue somebody made with their own hand. There is a reason pakistanis have higher IQ then you Pathetic sorry *** indians. You indians should be lined up and shot for treating dalits the way you do. Your pathetic sorry fake *** superpower country trying to give aid to other countries while your own population starving to death

Ok , Money God... Ok, we do it and proud , as hes called the God of Power.. guess what Ur grandfather did that too.. not tyhat anything is wrong with that.. U guys have gone on to a wrong way of worshiping but Karma has her own way . but its stilll better to worship an `imaginary` God , and still better than worshippimg a guy who married 6 year old child , do U know what is that person called as?
Well that was below the belt so U got the reply.

And abt shooting us to Indians after making us stand in a line , go on then, lets see how many of us U can shoot !!

My advice , keep religion out of it.. and talk to Daddy without overdoing on Allah stuff !!

 

[Koovie]

im just going to try to give you an example since you keep bringing up that 40 percent contribute to 80 percent of gdp.

how much food can one person produce on on a farm? few thousand worth?
while if you making cars you have help of machines and each product your produce if worth 1000 times more.
so you need les people to produce cars then you need to farm. do you get it?
if you stil dont get it ill have my brother explain to you he is a business major maybe lol.

And how does it contradict to my point?

The worth of the goods and services produced in a country largely depend on the level of technology, skill of the workers, etc etc etc and not merely the number of the population.

 

[Bullet500]

jesus christ you people so thick headed.
im not good economics but somethings are just commonsense.

i think everybody in the world knows that indias gdp is huge becuase of their population!!!!!!!!.
you have a billion consumers and that means millions of businesses have to produce products worth billions to feed and service these people!!!!! hence a gdp of of 2 trillion

jesus christ??? Well you are somehow correct that a large population means large customer base but that doesnt translate to large economy straight away. To have a large economy excluding exports the per capita has to be increased so that ppl have morr buying power! And to increase per capita you have to pull people from low-income jobs like agricultural towards manufacturing and services! India has a sound services ecosystem we now have to develop a good manufacturing ecosystem. If you have been following news recently there were announcements for development of industrial corridors Amritsar delhi Calcutta industrial corridor, Delhi ahemdabad mumbai and mumbai bangalore chennai industrial corridor are few examples. So we are getting there. These industrial corridors will attract fdi and new businesses. As per capita in china is rising so india has good chance of becoming next manufacturing hub but that will have to wait until key infra projects are finished

 

[Dillinger]

just tell me this.

would you have a 2 trillion dollr gdp with 176 million people?

just answer yes or no.

Oh hell yes! AND to explain why I have already hinted at a concept called income and wealth distribution. In India just 40-30 percent of the population controls over 80 percent of the income..and monies being bandied around.

Let me break this down to you. The 1.2 billion Indians do not uniformly contribute to the GDP..in fact if you had looked up at the break down of the various sectors and how they contribute to the GDP and what percentage of the population is engaged in said sectors..the answer would have already been clear to you.

Here is the GDP composition by sectors:-

GDP - composition by sector
agriculture: 17%
industry: 18%
services: 65%

Now 50 percent + of our workforce is involved in agriculture but only contributes 17% to our GDP.

Mind you while the numerical figures are exact I am giving you a very super-simplified and crude brief given your obvious inexperience in economics. These factors inter-play even further to provide very interesting variable scenarios..and effects over the years to result in a cumulative effect. At the end of the day all such exercises are futile. For example with just half of our population..the savings in expenditure required in massive nationwide programs like SSA could have been re-diverted to the industry to cause a synergistic effect and take the GDP even higher than the 1 or 2 trillion mark. A flawed but simple explanation, below my standards, for a severely flawed and even more simple question.

Comprende?