Is India really a rich country?

[master_13]

Not exactly. The poors are poor in India because they are highly under-employed and their traditional employment is disappearing due to automation and modernization. Mean while rich and nouve riches are rich not only because it is extremely cheap to live in India but also they are involved in businesses --legal or illegal-- which are extremely well paying.

Think this way, in India a large number of farms are cultivated by families. Their farms keep on getting smaller and smaller with each generation due to property distribution while average family size is still atleast 6-8 members all working in agriculture. Productivity per person goes down with each generation and they become poor. If they had kept their family size to one or two children, this would not have been the result.

Hence I presented the hypothetical scenario : if these excess people were not there --or hypothetically, a dictator eliminated them-- productivity per captia will improve without lowering the overall production or significantly increasing the production cost.

Upshot is :-
1. Rich in India are signficant in number, in fact on a per nation basis India is having top 3 or 4 ranking in number of billionaires. These people are rich not only because they are snatching rights of poor but because they are in higher value and higher paying businesses which poors cannot enter AND their pot of earning grows each year.

2. Poors in India are mostly in businesses that are traditional and are limited not by man power but by other resources: like agriculture where the limiting resource is land itself, another example is land less labourers or migrant labourer. In all of these cases, they are under productive and their overall pot size is remaining same or even decreasing.

3. Even if large number of poors in India were to disappear suddenly --hypothetically speaking-- the riches in India will not become poor.

Hence the reality of India is a dual one -- like a number of other developing nations. There is a realtively small rich part and there is a huge poor part. But since India is pretty large, its relatively rich part --when compared to other nations-- is quite large.

it makes no logical sense, how do you think the so called high value job or business will even exist without feeding on the large, albeit poor population. A lot of businesses in India (china as well) makes money on the massive population of poors, even if they make 1 dollar from each person, the massive population will still make the business owner rich. The so-called high value jobs also depending on their businesses feeding off such large poor market as well. Without massive "poor" population, the rich simply can't sustain their business. The productivity gain of the rich simply made wealth transfer much more efficient, but it doesn't change the fact that rich still feed off the business from the poor, even at $0.5 per person, the large population will compensate for it. So your notion that eliminating massive poor population and rich will remain rich is simply impossible. So using large absolute number of billionaires from Indian is irrelevant, because for a population this size, you bound to have a few that make money from the massively poor, and when the poors are eliminated, these so called "rich" will fall to poverty along with them.

1.Recently I visited a tribal area. They have a very low income but they do not need any money except filling petrol and recharge mobile. They have everything available from their source I.e. milk, food etc. So majority of those low income people are in villages where there they have all the resources required for life are there own and they do not need to buy them.

2. World bank has said that india's poverty will reduced to 1/4th as the new ppp valuation is due .

So what tribal area can sustain themselves? Even natives from Amazon can fully sustain themselves and stay alive, but they are still considered desperately poor?

 

[Jugger]

We are very poor country, please give us money so that we can spend it on increasing the human capital and growth of the country.
Also ignore our nuclear program, space program, 60 billion defence budget etc..
I request all countries in the world to contribute and give us aid, this includes our beloved neighbor to the west Pakistan too.

 

[Nilgiri]

That guy had tried to prove that Chinese warships were watching Australia, then we humiliated him. He refers to China's Yuanwang 7 measuring ship, which is publicized by Australia as a Chinese spy boat. In fact, the total tonnage of the Yuanwang 7 measuring ship is 30000 tons, the main function is to monitor and track the launch of the ballistic missile..... But，there are no ballistic missiles in Australia.

Think about how we laugh at Australia.....


Now he began to attack India.

He has attacked both India and China....he has no preference for either, so I am fine with that at least. Anyways I will discuss the specific arguments (pertaining to India) when he brings them up...and there are plenty of Chinese members to do the same for China as well.

There is no denying Australia is a rich country, but there is not much utility in comparing its invasion + wild wild west + massive exploitation buffer context to long existing, high dense population civilisations like India and China.

 

[TruthTheOnlyDefense]

He has attacked both India and China....he has no preference for either, so I am fine with that at least. Anyways I will discuss the specific arguments (pertaining to India) when he brings them up...and there are plenty of Chinese members to do the same for China as well.

There is no denying Australia is a rich country, but there is not much utility in comparing its invasion + wild wild west + massive exploitation buffer context to long existing, high dense population civilisations like India and China.

Look even Australia a so-called developed nation has problems as well, domestic violence, child abuse, rapes, murders as well, but in Australia, the corruption is minimum, for example, we can't pay a cop $5 or even $500 dollars to get away.

We don't have politicians who hold rallies in support of rapist and child killers, our PM and other politicians don't go around following these godmen, the church is separate from the state.

Our rules are strict and if you want to break the law you can expect the police etc to come down on you hard if you have been to Australia you would know even at customs how hard it is to get through even with just food.

When we complain to the local council that there is a crack in the footpath they come to repair it within 72 hours etc.

Big business too has to work within the law and if you break the law there are huge fines and even jail time, that's why our environment is so beautiful.

 

[HariPrasad]

So what tribal area can sustain themselves? Even natives from Amazon can fully sustain themselves and stay alive, but they are still considered desperately poor?

That is exactly I tell you. They have all fruits, food grain, milk of their own. They have huge land , theor own houses still they are considered as poor as the per capita income is low. Now you have everything of your own, you do not need to spend. You can save even if your income is low. In computation of income, you are shown very much bellow in table but you have all resources to suistance and live a happy life without any scarcity. If you tell someone that their per capita income is 2 USD than they will think that they will infact not be able to eat but a family with 4 in any rural area will need only 100 USD for a very life against the 240 at the rate of 2 usd per person per day.

 

[Tshering22]

@Tshering22 bhai,

Would you mind if I marry a Sikkimese girl?

Why would I mind, bhai sahab?

 

[Martin Peterson]

India is a rich country in absolute terms whatever metric you use (GDP PPP or GDP Nominal/ERV terms).

India is a poor country on average terms whatever metric you use (GDP PPP Per Capita or GDP Nominal/ERV Per Capita).

(Fun fact: India has tremendous production capacity at around $2 Trillion give or take).

 

[Kamikaze Pilot]

A lot of things depend upon what you want to do with a fact.

If you are looking at a country from purely social point of view, eg you want to support children with troubled childhood or malnutrition then it makes more sense to you to go with an estimate of how many poor child with no access to proper diet may be there in that country. So you start with an estimate of how many below poverty line or vulnerable households may exist in a country.

If you are a business looking to a market a product --say a car, you try to estimate how many people are going to be able to buy it and if their number are growing and relative to your other market how big is this number. In that sense for such countries India may be a bigger market than say Australia or Canada because even though the number of poors is extremely large the absolute number of rich is large enough to justify an India specific strategy.

Ultimately 'rich' or 'poor' nation is a oversimplification of a much bigger reality. A poor country may have a massive number of poor folks but it can have more rich folks than perhaps a number of smaller and richer countries. Which is roughly the reality of India is.

Are you Punjabi?

 

[TruthTheOnlyDefense]

India is a rich country in absolute terms whatever metric you use (GDP PPP or GDP Nominal/ERV terms).

India is a poor country on average terms whatever metric you use (GDP PPP Per Capita or GDP Nominal/ERV Per Capita).

(Fun fact: India has tremendous production capacity at around $2 Trillion give or take).

India's education is lacking at all levels, no jobs are being created in India most of the graduates coming out of India's schools don't have basic skills, maybe a few do but it's not up to standard.