Dollar to dollar Bangladesh economy is same as Melbourne City

[Allah Akbar]

Members are banned on a non defence topic just for bullshit

 

[Nilgiri]

Eeconomy-1 state-Maharastra

Talking about PPP, and I already proved it that TN and UP have larger total physical consumption than BD when comparing same most recent year available....and that the trend will most likely continue....and could very well have Karnataka above BD by now as well.

Stop being obsessed with this PPP as it is subjective.

Yet you lot always quoting IMF for BD nominal figures (Esp given they are still estimated). Aint that really funny?

Same IMF does the PPP analysis using the ICP program. Not one of you BeeDees is apparently intelligent enough to read the ICP papers published in any detail so you can actually challenge the relevance of PPP over nominal.

 

[Homo Sapiens]

Talking about PPP, and I already proved it that TN and UP have larger total physical consumption than BD when comparing same most recent year available....and that the trend will most likely continue....and could very well have Karnataka above BD by now as well.

I have found a very useful website on economic statistics on Indian states.
http://statisticstimes.com/economy/comparing-indian-states-and-countries-by-gdp.php
In this website gdp nominal,gdp ppp,nominal per capita and ppp per capita are available for all Indian states in dollar for the year of 2014.These data are calculated based on IMF figure of 2014.Now we can compare directly between Bangladesh and Indian states.

In 2014, BD GDP PPP was 537 billion dollar
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=82&pr.y=13&sy=2014&ey=2014&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=513,534&s=PPPGDP,PPPPC&grp=0&a=

According to this website,in 2014-
Tamil Nadu GDP PPP - 601 billion dollar
Uttar Pradesh GDP PPP - 607 billion dollar
Karnataka GDP PPP - 410 billion dollar

So, yes both Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh have PPP volume somewhat larger than BD if we accept it by face value.But we all know that,gdp ppp for BD is very much undercounted.Let's assume it is just 20 percent undercounted(real figure would be certainly higher than this).So BD GDP PPP will be 537x1.20=644 billion dollar or greater than both Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu in 2014. So,it is beyond any doubt that Maharashtra is the only state in India which have larger economy than BD in both nominal and PPP basis.End of the story.

 

[Nilgiri]

But we all know that,gdp ppp for BD is very much undercounted.

No we dont "ALL" know that. It is a typical BD conspiracy claim...stemming from inability to read the ICP papers.

Let's assume it is just 20 percent undercounted(real figure would be certainly higher than this).

Hahahaha....I love it. Just fudge by whatever correction factor seems appropriate....without even reading the ICP paper first.

Like asking someone to build a bridge with absolutely no knowledge of civil engineering. You know that steel and cement are good materials to use (like you have some vague understanding of what CPI is and how it is one type of price level gauge)....absolutely no idea how it fits into the PPP calculation (just like no one would trust you to build a bridge on the basis of the general knowledge of materials) as evidenced time and again.

Trust me there is more than just price basket factor in the ICP calculation (stuff like volatility margins and such) too, I just wanted to highlight price levels are not the complete story. The price levels are not taken raw from what BBS (BD Bull Sh1t) provides them either anyway....so your assertion fails on multiple levels. You are simply way above your head yet you persist. Its fun for you?

So BD GDP PPP will be 537x1.20=644 billion dollar or greater than both Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu.So,it is beyond any doubt that Maharashtra is the only state in India which have larger economy than BD in both nominal and PPP basis.End of the story.

Please submit this wonderful thesis to ICP and IMF for review and acceptance

Tell them you are from a country where your profession causes regular patients to flee in the millions each year for basic treatment....so you are totally professional, knowledgeable and trustworthy on another subject past that.

 

[Homo Sapiens]

No we dont "ALL" know that. It is a typical BD conspiracy claim...stemming from inability to read the ICP papers.



Hahahaha....I love it. Just fudge by whatever correction factor seems appropriate....without even reading the ICP paper first.

Like asking someone to build a bridge with absolutely no knowledge of civil engineering. You know that steel and cement are good materials to use (like you have some vague understanding of what CPI is and how it is one type of price level gauge)....absolutely no idea how it fits into the PPP calculation (just like no one would trust you to build a bridge on the basis of the general knowledge of materials) as evidenced time and again.

Trust me there is more than just price basket factor in the ICP calculation (stuff like volatility margins and such) too, I just wanted to highlight price levels are not the complete story. The price levels are not taken raw from what BBS (BD Bull Sh1t) provides them either anyway....so your assertion fails on multiple levels. You are simply way above your head yet you persist. Its fun for you?



Please submit this wonderful thesis to ICP and IMF for review and acceptance

Tell them you are from a country where your profession causes regular patients to flee in the millions each year for basic treatment....so you are totally professional, knowledgeable and trustworthy on another subject past that.

You can harp as much as you want,but you can never convince anyone with economic knowledge that a puny state like Tamil Nadu or Bhukha-nanga state like Uttar Pradesh have larger economy than dynamic Bangladesh.See post no.61 to get the real comparison which is acceptable for all of us including other Indian.Even in ppp gdp Tamil Nadu and UP are not ahead of BD if we get the real gdp ppp of BD.

 

[Nilgiri]

You can harp as much as you want,but you can never convince anyone with economic knowledge that a puny state like Tamil Nadu or Bhukha-nanga state like Uttar Pradesh have larger economy than dynamic Bangladesh.See post no.61 to get the real comparison which is acceptable for all of us including other Indian.Even in ppp gdp Tamil Nadu and UP are not ahead of BD if we get the real gdp ppp of BD.

OK yer back to not reading the ICP papers and remaining in the well of "its a big anti-BD conspiracy".

Suit yourself.

Still speaking for the "all of us" too

Thanks for pointing him out. Let me correct him for you.

Its indeed impressive. Maharashtra leads South Asia followed by Pakistan and Bangladesh. This is how South Asia stacks up.
1. Maharashtra 330 billion $
2. Pakistan 284 billion $
3. Bangla Desh 227 billion $
4. Tamil Nadu 170 billion $
5. UP 168 billion $
6. Gujarat 150 billion $
7. West Bengal 138 billion $
8. MP/Rajasthan 110 billion $ each
9. Andhra/Telangana 100 billion $ each
10. Bihar 94 billion $
11 Delhi / Sri Lanka 83 billion $ each

Buddy do not use nominal USD data. It does not represent total consumption accurately. Total consumption wise, UP and TN are ahead of BD.

Also your figures are from different years (like in the case of Maharashtra which is a 2016/17 provisional estimate)

For 2014/15 (so that all data is from the same time period, the ranking by physical PPP consumption goes like such:

Using PPP conversion rates from:

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=42&pr.y=7&sy=2014&ey=2021&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=513,564,534&s=PPPGDP,PPPEX&grp=0&a=

1. Maharashtra = 17921.22/17 = 1054 billion USD
2. Pakistan = 884 billion USD
3. Tamil Nadu = 11206.2/17 = 660 billion USD
4. UP = 10420/17 = 613 billion USD
5. Bangladesh = 536 billion
6. Karnataka = 9078/17 = 534 billion USD

and so on.

State data from:

http://www.esopb.gov.in/static/PDF/GSDP/Statewise-Data/state wise data.pdf

Remember Bangladeshis can be proud about consuming the same as Melbourne (of 4.5 million people) because they feel applying USD exchange rates (based on limited trade) in an insulated developing country (with most GDP coming from non-foreign trade by far) determine total consumption.

But we care about equivalent physical consumption of goods, thus we should focus on PPP when doing such ranking, thanks.

 

[Homo Sapiens]

1. Maharashtra = 17921.22/17 = 1054 billion USD
2. Pakistan = 884 billion USD
3. Tamil Nadu = 11206.2/17 = 660 billion USD
4. UP = 10420/17 = 613 billion USD
5. Bangladesh = 536 billion
6. Karnataka = 9078/17 = 534 billion USD

Do you think,PPP exchange rate will be same in Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh or all state in general? Uttar Pradesh have slightly larger ppp gdp than Tamil Nadu and Karnataka much less in reality.You can not apply 1 ppp dollar=17 rupee uniformly across all state in India irrespective of economic health.Richer states will have more than 17 and poorer less than 17.By calculating this bullsht,you have exposed your level of knowledge about ppp gdp.
http://statisticstimes.com/economy/comparing-indian-states-and-countries-by-gdp.php

 

[Nilgiri]

Do you think,PPP exchange rate will be same in Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh or all state in general? Uttar Pradesh have slightly larger ppp gdp than Tamil Nadu and Karnataka much less in reality.You can not apply 1 ppp dollar=17 rupee uniformly across all state in India irrespective of economic health.Richer states will have more than 17 and poorer less than 17.By calculating this bullsht,you have exposed your level of knowledge of ppp gdp.

Hence why these are all estimates and I am somewhat against ranking in US dollar terms (be it nominal or PPP) for sub-country divisions....the price levels and consumption baskets would definitely differ from state to state. ICP does not go to that resolution to create sub-country PPP data. They look at average price levels (sampling across rural and urban areas, and then applying the urbanisation ratio for overall price level) for the whole country and average consumption basket as well (using national income stratification data). I will have to look into ICP database and see if there is any pertinent information there at state level resolution. I haven't checked it in a long time so I assume it to be the same as before.

Richer states will have more than 17 and poorer less than 17.

That actually depends....as we can see by Bangladesh being both poorer and having a worse PPP multiplier compared to India and Pakistan. The consumption basket can be so bad that price levels (for say food) arent enough to compensate for that.

By calculating this bullsht,you have exposed your level of knowledge of ppp gdp.

You seriously going to say that with a straight face after you have proven time and again you havent read the ICP?...and after applying real growth to nominal figures? Okay!

You know next to nothing about PPP, stick to believing nominal and being all confused why BD consumes like next to 0 steel per capita.

 

[Homo Sapiens]

Hence why these are all estimates and I am somewhat against ranking in US dollar terms (be it nominal or PPP) for sub-country divisions....the price levels and consumption baskets would definitely differ from state to state. ICP does not go to that resolution to create sub-country PPP data. They look at average price levels (sampling across rural and urban areas, and then applying the urbanisation ratio for overall price level) for the whole country and average consumption basket as well (using national income stratification data). I will have to look into ICP database and see if there is any pertinent information there at state level resolution. I haven't checked it in a long time so I assume it to be the same as before.

That's why it is safe to stick only to nominal gdp.

That actually depends....as we can see by Bangladesh being both poorer and having a worse PPP multiplier compared to India and Pakistan. The consumption basket can be so bad that price levels (for say food) arent enough to compensate for that.

Basket goods selection for BD is influenced by the LDC status of BD to fit in that group despite much larger economy than LDC norm .That's why you got the skewed ppp data for BD against non LDC India or Pakistan.You will have to wait a few more years to get the true ppp gdp for BD until LDC graduation.

 

[Radio Mirchi]

OK yer back to not reading the ICP papers and remaining in the well of "its a big anti-BD conspiracy".

Suit yourself.

Still speaking for the "all of us" too

Thanks for pointing him out. Let me correct him for you.



Buddy do not use nominal USD data. It does not represent total consumption accurately. Total consumption wise, UP and TN are ahead of BD.

Also your figures are from different years (like in the case of Maharashtra which is a 2016/17 provisional estimate)

For 2014/15 (so that all data is from the same time period, the ranking by physical PPP consumption goes like such:

Using PPP conversion rates from:

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=42&pr.y=7&sy=2014&ey=2021&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=513,564,534&s=PPPGDP,PPPEX&grp=0&a=

1. Maharashtra = 17921.22/17 = 1054 billion USD
2. Pakistan = 884 billion USD
3. Tamil Nadu = 11206.2/17 = 660 billion USD
4. UP = 10420/17 = 613 billion USD
5. Bangladesh = 536 billion
6. Karnataka = 9078/17 = 534 billion USD

and so on.

State data from:

http://www.esopb.gov.in/static/PDF/GSDP/Statewise-Data/state wise data.pdf

Remember Bangladeshis can be proud about consuming the same as Melbourne (of 4.5 million people) because they feel applying USD exchange rates (based on limited trade) in an insulated developing country (with most GDP coming from non-foreign trade by far) determine total consumption.

But we care about equivalent physical consumption of goods, thus we should focus on PPP when doing such ranking, thanks.

Whatever but its commendable to even beat UP and Tamil Nadu and Pakistan's Punjab in nominal terms. There are lots of advantages being part of a big nation. You have bigger political clout, bigger market and access to so many things.

 

[Nilgiri]

That's why it is safe to stick only to nominal gdp.

Uh no, that would be far worse of the two. The concept of ranking using subcountry PPP may be far from ideal, but its far better than imposing 10 - 20% based patterns (BoP, trade) on the 100% of the economy. Thats a factor of 5 - 10 times extrapolation. There is nowhere near that much potential variance among the states within India.

Basket goods selection for BD is influenced by the LDC status of BD to fit in that group despite larger economy than LDC norm .

There is no set LDC basket used in BD. There is surveying done by ICP (last one done in 2011) on basket composition in addition to price levels. Like I have said, read the papers on methodology. You want me to post the list of all LDC countries that have different PPP multipliers to BD?

Few examples:

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=42&pr.y=7&sy=2014&ey=2021&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=513,564,534&s=PPPGDP,PPPEX&grp=0&a=

BD multiplier = 2.74
Cambodia = 3.00
Ethiopia = 2.53
Laos = 3.04
Mozambique = 2.84
Myanmar = 4.2
Nepal = 3.3

You telling me all this variance is from price levels alone with a standard assumed LDC basket? Something you are telling me after not reading one page of the ICP methodology publications?

Read what was done already for the pre-survey methodology for the older 2005 ICP:

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXT...PK:62002388~theSitePK:270065~isCURL:Y,00.html

Please get this definition in your head please:

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXT...002244~piPK:62002388~theSitePK:270065,00.html

The International Comparison Program (ICP) is a worldwide statistical operation involving 199 countries. It produces internationally comparable price and volume measures for gross domestic product (GDP) and its component expenditures. The measures are based on purchasing power parities (PPPs). To calculate the PPPs, the ICP holds surveys every six years to collect price and expenditure data for the whole range of final goods and services that comprise GDP including consumer goods and services, government services and capital goods.

PPPs are both currency converters and spatial price deflators. They are used by the ICP to make the GDPs of different countries comparable. Initially, the GDPs are not comparable because they are expressed in national currencies and valued at national price levels. But, after PPPs are applied, the GDPs are converted to a common currency and are revalued at a uniform price level. As a result, differences between the GDPs reflect only differences in the volumes of final goods and services purchased.

Whatever but its commendable to even beat UP and Tamil Nadu and Pakistan's Punjab in nominal terms. There are lots of advantages being part of a big nation. You have bigger political clout, bigger market and access to so many things.

Their RMG industry has definitely been a success story and one worthy of emulation for fellow developing countries for their most least developed areas that need basic low skill jobs.

But in the end it is physical consumption per capita (PPP) that matters the most for livelihood quality. There is long way to go for the entire region. We are literally comparing who is a few metres ahead in the early part of a marathon.

 

[Homo Sapiens]

Uh no, that would be far worse of the two. The concept of ranking using subcountry PPP may be far from ideal, but its far better than imposing 10 - 20% based patterns (BoP, trade) on the 100% of the economy. Thats a factor of 5 - 10 times extrapolation. There is nowhere near that much potential variance among the states within India.



There is no set LDC basket used in BD. There is surveying done by ICP (last one done in 2011) on basket composition in addition to price levels. Like I have said, read the papers on methodology. You want me to post the list of all LDC countries that have different PPP multipliers to BD?

Few examples:

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=42&pr.y=7&sy=2014&ey=2021&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=513,564,534&s=PPPGDP,PPPEX&grp=0&a=

BD multiplier = 2.74
Cambodia = 3.00
Ethiopia = 2.53
Laos = 3.04
Mozambique = 2.84
Myanmar = 4.2
Nepal = 3.3

You telling me all this variance is from price levels alone with a standard assumed LDC basket? Something you are telling me after not reading one page of the ICP methodology publications?

Read what was done already for the pre-survey methodology for the older 2005 ICP:

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXT...PK:62002388~theSitePK:270065~isCURL:Y,00.html

Please get this definition in your head please:

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXT...002244~piPK:62002388~theSitePK:270065,00.html

The International Comparison Program (ICP) is a worldwide statistical operation involving 199 countries. It produces internationally comparable price and volume measures for gross domestic product (GDP) and its component expenditures. The measures are based on purchasing power parities (PPPs). To calculate the PPPs, the ICP holds surveys every six years to collect price and expenditure data for the whole range of final goods and services that comprise GDP including consumer goods and services, government services and capital goods.

PPPs are both currency converters and spatial price deflators. They are used by the ICP to make the GDPs of different countries comparable. Initially, the GDPs are not comparable because they are expressed in national currencies and valued at national price levels. But, after PPPs are applied, the GDPs are converted to a common currency and are revalued at a uniform price level. As a result, differences between the GDPs reflect only differences in the volumes of final goods and services purchased.

So,in 2017 they will collect price and expenditure data.I am sure by the next year, BD's GDP PPP figure will narrow the gap with India or Pakistan a lot because in 2011 our gdp was severely under counted which influenced ppp gdp.I am also expecting favorable ppp multiplier as our consumption per capita increased more rapidly compared to India.Currently BD's per capita ppp is around 60 percent of India,so it may become 75-80 percent after update.

 

[Radio Mirchi]

Uh no, that would be far worse of the two. The concept of ranking using subcountry PPP may be far from ideal, but its far better than imposing 10 - 20% based patterns (BoP, trade) on the 100% of the economy. Thats a factor of 5 - 10 times extrapolation. There is nowhere near that much potential variance among the states within India.



There is no set LDC basket used in BD. There is surveying done by ICP (last one done in 2011) on basket composition in addition to price levels. Like I have said, read the papers on methodology. You want me to post the list of all LDC countries that have different PPP multipliers to BD?

Few examples:

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=42&pr.y=7&sy=2014&ey=2021&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=513,564,534&s=PPPGDP,PPPEX&grp=0&a=

BD multiplier = 2.74
Cambodia = 3.00
Ethiopia = 2.53
Laos = 3.04
Mozambique = 2.84
Myanmar = 4.2
Nepal = 3.3

You telling me all this variance is from price levels alone with a standard assumed LDC basket? Something you are telling me after not reading one page of the ICP methodology publications?

Read what was done already for the pre-survey methodology for the older 2005 ICP:

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXT...PK:62002388~theSitePK:270065~isCURL:Y,00.html

Please get this definition in your head please:

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXT...002244~piPK:62002388~theSitePK:270065,00.html

The International Comparison Program (ICP) is a worldwide statistical operation involving 199 countries. It produces internationally comparable price and volume measures for gross domestic product (GDP) and its component expenditures. The measures are based on purchasing power parities (PPPs). To calculate the PPPs, the ICP holds surveys every six years to collect price and expenditure data for the whole range of final goods and services that comprise GDP including consumer goods and services, government services and capital goods.

PPPs are both currency converters and spatial price deflators. They are used by the ICP to make the GDPs of different countries comparable. Initially, the GDPs are not comparable because they are expressed in national currencies and valued at national price levels. But, after PPPs are applied, the GDPs are converted to a common currency and are revalued at a uniform price level. As a result, differences between the GDPs reflect only differences in the volumes of final goods and services purchased.



Their RMG industry has definitely been a success story and one worthy of emulation for fellow developing countries for their most least developed areas that need basic low skill jobs.

But in the end it is physical consumption per capita (PPP) that matters the most for livelihood quality. There is long way to go for the entire region. We are literally comparing who is a few metres ahead in the early part of a marathon.

I have been seeing some data about UP in Times of India Mumbai as there are elections happening. Last week I was shocked to see the per capita income of East UP. It was 24,500/- rs. or US$ 360/- whereas the All India average per capita income is about US$ 1600/-. A mere 20,000 sq km area has a population of 2.4 crores that is a population density of 1200 people per sq km worse than BD. How can we compare per capita gdp of 360 USD with Bangladesh which has a per capita GDP of over 1200 USD. And our PM represents parliament from that very region. We have gone wrong some where. We cheer and pass across whatsapp messages whenever we see Ambani, Adani, Tata, Birla being in the global list of richest individuals. Such news means nothing to people of East UP, Bihar, Jharkhand, Odisha and some other pockets.

 

[Nilgiri]

So,in 2017 they will collect price and expenditure data.I am sure by the next year, BD's GDP PPP figure will narrow the gap with India or Pakistan a lot because in 2011 our nominal gdp was severy under counted which influenced ppp gdp.I am also expecting favorable ppp multiplier as our consumption per capita increased more rapidly compared to India.Currently BD's per capita ppp is around 60 percent,so it may become 75-80 percent after update.

Uh huh, lets wait and see. You will probably get another disappointing result and blame it yet again on anti-BD conspiracy.

It will certainly not jump from 60 to 75% (there is no massive structural change in the methodology ever since 2005 to assist in that....and certainly no drastic change in BD consumption basket to merit that). It could very well drop as a % too given greater formalisation pace of Indian economy compared to stagnant BD corruption perception.

Remember what the long term ratios have been like and what they are expected to be like:

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=71&pr.y=10&sy=2000&ey=2021&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=513,534&s=PPPPC&grp=0&a=

BD/IND PPP per capita ratio:

2000 = 67%
2005 = 64%
2010 = 58%
2015 = 58.5%
2020 = 57%

So dont cry foul if you don't get the result you are hoping for....given you are already throwing around correction factors like "20%" for what you don't like right now to begin with (rather than reading the papers that explain how they got to that determination).

I have been seeing some data about UP in Times of India Mumbai as there are elections happening. Last week I was shocked to see the per capita income of East UP. It was 24,500/- rs. or US$ 360/- whereas the All India average per capita income is about US$ 1600/-. A mere 20,000 sq km area has a population of 2.4 crores that is a population density of 1200 people per sq km worse than BD. How can we compare per capita gdp of 360 USD with Bangladesh which has a per capita GDP of over 1200 USD. And our PM represents parliament from that very region. We have gone wrong some where. We cheer and pass across whatsapp messages whenever we see Ambani, Adani, Tata, Birla being in the global list of richest individuals. Such news means nothing to people of East UP, Bihar, Jharkhand, Odisha and some other pockets.

Do these people in these areas consume by converting what they earn into USD and then buy imported products for everything?

If not why are you caring about what their rupees fetch them in USD as opposed to on the ground physical goods?

Also understand that per capita income is not the same as per capita GDP for all countries in question....and former will always be smaller than the latter. So don't compare apples to oranges to begin with.

 

[Flynn Swagmire]

A dalit girl from Bangladesh.... Far better than even upper casted Tamils.

PPP does not give her food and clothing but Bangladesh society and education does.

By the way they are from India originally.

She is far beautiful than your dream girl in Tamil Nadu

Dalit in Bangladesh! How come?