India's GDP growth revised to 4.5% for FY13

[Vinod2070]

Stop making personal attacks because the facts upset you. Its not healthy for discussion and this forum when you keep on making personal attacks.

Not sure why every fact about your pathetic little "country" and some others seem like a personal attack to you.

Don't try to get into Indian issues if you can't handle facts about your pathetic little sweatshop island "country".

 

[faithfulguy]

Not sure why every fact about your pathetic little "country" and some others seem like a personal attack to you.

Don't try to get into Indian issues if you can't handle facts about your pathetic little sweatshop island "country".

You can talk all you want about Taiwan. But the reality is that the average Taiwanese are in better condition than average Indian. Taiwan has no sweatshops as these were phased out back in late 80s, early 90s. The sweat shop have reach India yet. Eventually, India will be a sweat shop country. But first, get your country's infrastructure in place so the sweat shops has an opportunity to move there.

 

[Excelias]

4.5% is still not that bad.The days of break-neck economy growth seem to have stopped for now.What we need to do is find a way to transfer our workforce from agriculture to manufacturing.Service sector can only do so much.

 

[kbd-raaf]

4.5% is still not that bad.The days of break-neck economy growth seem to have stopped for now.What we need to do is find a way to transfer our workforce from agriculture to manufacturing.Service sector can only do so much.

It's not bad for a middle income country.

For India, it's terrible.

 

[Excelias]

It's not bad for a middle income country.

For India, it's terrible.

Well,I still think it is a decent rate,freaking out over reduced growth rates isn't going to help.What we need to do is look into the reasons for the slump and work towards solving it.I don't know much about it but business and economics seem to rely a lot on confidence,if we over react we will just worsen the situation.

Only wishing to know more,would u please point out how this rate of growth is terrible for India ?

 

[kbd-raaf]

Well,I still think it is a decent rate,freaking out over reduced growth rates isn't going to help.What we need to do is look into the reasons for the slump and work towards solving it.I don't know much about it but business and economics seem to rely a lot on confidence,if we over react we will just worsen the situation.

Only wishing to know more,would u please point out how this rate of growth is terrible for India ?

Isn't it obvious? India today has a per capita GDP of ~1700.

~1/30th of a country like Australia.

To double its GDP per capita within a reasonable time frame (say 10 years), India needs to grow at approximately 7.2%.

At 4.5%, it'll take India 16 years to double it's GDP.

We need to grow at 10%+ for a few decades, to get to a decent GDP per capita. The UPA government only makes reforms after the problem has already hit us. It muddles along until the next crash comes up and then continues like so.

 

[Excelias]

Isn't it obvious? India today has a per capita GDP of ~1700.

~1/30th of a country like Australia.

To double its GDP per capita within a reasonable time frame (say 10 years), India needs to grow at approximately 7.2%.

At 4.5%, it'll take India 16 years to double it's GDP.

We need to grow at 10%+ for a few decades, to get to a decent GDP per capita. The UPA government only makes reforms after the problem has already hit us. It muddles along until the next crash comes up and then continues like so.

Thanks for replying,I just think we are growing pretty well,even for now,its not as good as it can be but pretty good.AT least in my part of the country,can't say about the rest of India.

 

[Genesis]

All this talk of new government.

IF Indian democracy is anything like Canadian democracy, well, you wont' see change for a long time.

Besides the bureaucracy is still the same, what does it matter if the guy sitting in the top chair changes. He can't push through things just because he wants to.

 

[kbd-raaf]

All this talk of new government.

IF Indian democracy is anything like Canadian democracy, well, you wont' see change for a long time.

Besides the bureaucracy is still the same, what does it matter if the guy sitting in the top chair changes. He can't push through things just because he wants to.

That'd be an explanation that'd take too long to make

 

[UKBengali]

Isn't it obvious? India today has a per capita GDP of ~1700.

~1/30th of a country like Australia.

To double its GDP per capita within a reasonable time frame (say 10 years), India needs to grow at approximately 7.2%.

At 4.5%, it'll take India 16 years to double it's GDP.

We need to grow at 10%+ for a few decades, to get to a decent GDP per capita. The UPA government only makes reforms after the problem has already hit us. It muddles along until the next crash comes up and then continues like so.

India is hamstrung by the multi-ethnic nature of the country. This leads to other centres of power in the state governments and also the general elections every five years that the government in power does everything to try to win.

It cannot implement large scale projects across the board like China has and can.

A BJP government can only be marginally better than the UPA. It still will have the Indian system that cannot be radically changed otherwise there is a great risk that India will disintegrate.

If India can manage 7-8% GDP growth over the next few decades then it would have done well. 10% growth like China is simply not possible.

 

[kbd-raaf]

India is hamstrung by the multi-ethnic nature of the country. This leads to other centres of power in the state governments and also the general elections every five years that the government in power does everything to try to win.

It cannot implement large scale projects across the board like China has and can.

A BJP government can only be marginally better than the UPA. It still will have the Indian system that cannot be radically changed otherwise there is a great risk that India will disintegrate.

If India can manage 7-8% GDP growth over the next few decades then it would have done well. 10% growth like China is simply not possible.

Wot

Hamstrung, how?

Every country has state governments, India's central government is more powerful than most.

India's PM is more powerful than the president of the US.

 

[karan21]

India is hamstrung by the multi-ethnic nature of the country. This leads to other centres of power in the state governments and also the general elections every five years that the government in power does everything to try to win.

It cannot implement large scale projects across the board like China has and can.

A BJP government can only be marginally better than the UPA. It still will have the Indian system that cannot be radically changed otherwise there is a great risk that India will disintegrate.

If India can manage 7-8% GDP growth over the next few decades then it would have done well. 10% growth like China is simply not possible.

I agree with most of what you said. But yet India hasn't even started implementing big integrated projects like China. The first one we are trying is DMIC and dedicated corridors. I won't say India can't implement big projects. I believe we can but there are troubles like chanigng governments every 5 years and populist decisions that all leaders in India fall for to maintain ther position.

 

[UKBengali]

Wot

Hamstrung, how?

Every country has state governments, India's central government is more powerful than most.

India's PM is more powerful than the president of the US.

As China has managed 10% a year average for the last 3 decades, then some people think that this is also possible for India. This is not true as India is not a unitary state like China is. The Chinese cabinet has near absolute power in China but the Indian cabinet does not. It needs to work with the local state governments to get things done. This leads to delays and sometimes even cancellations of projects.

Also India has to be a democracy because it is not ethnically homogeneous and this leads to short-term populist measures that do the economy long-term harm.

 

[kbd-raaf]

As China has managed 10% a year average for the last 3 decades, then some people think that this is also possible for India. This is not true as India is not a unitary state like China is. The Chinese cabinet has near absolute power in China but the Indian cabinet does not. It needs to work with the local state governments to get things done. This leads to delays and sometimes even cancellations of projects.

Also India has to be a democracy because it is not ethnically homogeneous and this leads to short-term populist measures that do the economy long-term harm.

I concur with your premise, but not your conclusion.

India can grow at 10%+, it has in the past, (in a few quarters), even with poor governance, poor reform orientated government and a incredible slow bureaucracy.

Modi's government will push through reforms within the first 6 months to a year (depending on the strength of the people's mandate), The reforms will be targeted both at the financial sectors as well as the governance areas of the government (look at what he has done in Gujarat for governance).

From your previous posts here it becomes obvious that you are anti-Indian so I'm going to stop replying here.

 

[UKBengali]

I concur with your premise, but not your conclusion.

India can grow at 10%+, it has in the past, (in a few quarters), even with poor governance, poor reform orientated government and a incredible slow bureaucracy.

Modi's government will push through reforms within the first 6 months to a year (depending on the strength of the people's mandate), The reforms will be targeted both at the financial sectors as well as the governance areas of the government (look at what he has done in Gujarat for governance).

From your previous posts here it becomes obvious that you are anti-Indian so I'm going to stop replying here.

OK. Fair enough.

Just because I do not believe that India is a viable state in the long-run does not necessarily mean that I would not try to be objective in my viewpoints.