Who are World's Top 10 Largest Creditor Nations?

[randomradio]

If it is informal, then how do you even quantified those unemployed? I just showed you information from your own Indian sources. In that case, you can also assume India is 100% employed. I have a feeling you guys now the problem you are facing but choose to live in denial.

The CII is among those that have people on the ground that can check.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation_of_Indian_Industry
Founded in 1895, India's premier business association has over 8,300 members, from the private as well as public sectors, including SMEs and MNCs, and an indirect membership of over 200,000 enterprises from around 250 national and regional sectoral industry bodies.

So, unlike the govt, they are much more hands on.

Why is it wrong? How much you export defines how competitive your products and companies are. You were arguing that China does not have global companies. I just proved to you otherwise.

Oh really? You haven't understood what I said. Most of these new Chinese companies have come up and become international only now, within a protected growing economy.

I had made it clear quite sometime ago, India has a very low per capita economy with massive conglomerates that are capable of competing in the global arena. Imagine what they will be like in 15 years from now.

Here's one:
http://www.thehindu.com/business/In...billion-market-cap-by-2025/article7954691.ece

350 billion by 2025, that's the same size as Samsung today. Imagine what Tata will be like in 2030 or 2035. Same with Birla, Reliance etc.

Yes, as usual, live in that little cocoon of yours. Stick your head into the sand and pretend nothing is going to hurt you. How is India going to have Chinese advantage in automation which requires, hundreds of thousands of skilled operators, investment in machinery and robots, and also manufacturing base for those robots without first embracing the revolution?

Our goods are already cheaper in Indian markets despite having higher cost workers and tariff, imagine how much more competitive they would become with superior automation?

Your goods are cheaper because India did not have a national policy along with subsidies directed towards manufacturing.

You don't get it but automation is overall bad for China. If you replace your manufacturing labour with robots, what are you going to do about the millions of unemployed labourers? They are not trainable in any other field unlike the service industry chaps who have at least read a book in their life.

You don't realize it but China is not even among the top 10 manufacturers using automation. In fact, China wants to breach the top 10 by 2020. So, no, automation is not a threat to India, and particularly not from China.

I asked you for slumdog billionaires, these are not slumdogs. One is from a political family and the other a upper middle class family. I just proved to you India is economically controlled by the few dozen corporate families working with a corrupted crony capitalist state. Please prove me wrong?

This argument would fail among intelligent people.

China is a capitalistic, socialist, authoritarian government. We are not totalitarian, people are relatively free unless they want to overthrow the government.

Call it what you want. Only a few people control power in China. You get on the good side of those few people, you will monopolize the market.

Give it sometime.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/10/here...meeting-with-alibabas-jack-ma-commentary.html
"Ma has probably gone as far as he can partnering solely with Chinese politicians and bureaucrats in that regard. As he himself has said on a number of occasions, there's only so far China can go economically with a central planning government trying to control too much."

What doesn't explain the startup boom? China also has a startup boom despite having a state dominated economy. So? Not sure how you define way ahead, China has larger successful startups compared to India.

Again, not enough for the size of the economy.

Take tech startups for example, UK is competing with India with similar economic size. But China should be competing with the US, not lag behind India.

Our argument was about whether age defines success for companies, I gave you Google and Microsoft and you insist they were both software companies. Then I gave you Intel, qualcomm, Xiaomi, DJI, SF all relatively young multi-billion companies, some hardware, some software, some logistics. So age does not defined success, most private Chinese companies are less than 30 years old, created after the 1980s economic reform, they became global giants in 3 decades, imagine where would they be in another 20 years?

That's not how it works. Tech companies come and go as directed by the market. They are not here to stay forever. If these companies stop innovating, they will disappear. But if they make something unique, they will dominate the market. So software companies like Microsoft and Google will disappear if something replaces their products. Hardware tech companies are the same, but much better placed. Qualcomm and Intel may dominate the market today, but if another company shows up with new technology, they will kick Qualcomm and Intel out.

Indian companies do not have many unique products. But they have vast experience and human resources that keeps them alive. This is what keeps companies alive for decades, even centuries if necessary because they can't be easily replaced. But this type of survival is what makes them a threat to purely tech oriented companies. Reliance Jio's juggernaut is the best example of this.

Give it a couple of decades, these companies will be absolutely gigantic, dominating an economy that will be equally gigantic and growing really fast. A real threat to the bubble companies in the tech segment that you have named.

No I would compare a skilled operator to an unskilled theoretical engineer. You don't seem to get the importance of vocational training with regards to industrial manufacturing prowess. You also don't seem to understand lower skilled Chinese workers are getting paid the same as your average IT engineers and these lower skilled workers are literate and can be up-skilled to operate more sophisticated systems.

It's you who don't seem to understand this. Indian graduates are being criticized because of a poor command of English, nothing else. Most Indians do not know English, yeah, this probably comes as a shock to you, but this is the case. The companies provide vocational training after candidates are recruited. What they are saying is there are not enough candidates who have mastered English enough to keep up with their trainers and peers.

90-95% of the GDP relies on non-English speakers.

Give them a machine they will work on it. Tell them to speak to an English speaking client from the West, they will fail. Services requires people to people contact, that's why some industries require English speaking people, which they do not get in enough numbers, especially with many of them leaving the country in large numbers as immigrants.

The Skill India program is precisely designed to train people to work on machines and such, so it does not leverage their English speaking skills, which is not really necessary to work in the manufacturing sector.

OTOH, India has 25% illiteracy and an unknown number of semi-literates. How are you going to provide jobs for them if not through manufacturing?

Services, man, services. India is a services dominated industry, 61%. The transfer of labour from agri to services is the highest. Manufacturing is being boosted as a secondary, quicker way to transfer labour, but the biggest job creator will still be services.

Also, in all your knowledge, you haven't considered that the people who will work in these industries are the youth. And the youth in India have very high levels of literacy. Over 90%. India's total literacy rate is lower because of the older members of the population, and training is irrelevant to them anyway.

That's what I am also telling you, we are SECOND only to India despite you saying we don't have a services based economy which I proved to you otherwise. Imagine a non-English speaking workforce exporting half your ITES exports and also having a large ITES market bigger than all your exports combined. Ignorance is bliss!

Meh, as I said, your economy is merely big. That's about it.

You are second to us only because India hasn't tapped markets that they should have done long ago. Particularly Japan. We export only 5% of our IT services to them.

Tech coolies are not worse than our 'sweatshops', but they are certainly paid not much better than them. LOL. The point is China and India need all the job we can find, not just low paid tech coolies. I want all jobs for Chinese, from the lower spectrum to the high. Understand? You need to create a million jobs a month just to keep your population employed, how many tech coolies can you employ? Also remember you have a 'demographic dividend' coming, LOL.

You don't get it. I posted a link some time ago in this thread, you should have read it. China has directed economic growth towards urban areas within the formal economy instead of helping expand the informal economy.

The point is not to give a farmer a city job, the point is to give the farmer a superior way of life. That's where India's efforts are directed towards.

So job growth is very different from improvement in quality of life. Why does a farmer need an alternate job when he is given free health care and free education? Instead he can use his income to boost consumption by purchasing goods, thereby giving rise to a new path for economic growth.

Secondly, Modi is not building a restaurant in order to employ cooks, like what China has done through investments. He is creating conditions which allows the cook to setup his own establishment, through self-employment.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/16/india-entrepreneurship-is-at-an-all-time-high.html
India is witnessing a major growth in entrepreneurship — not because of its X factor but out of the need for its citizens to create their own job.

This is before Modi came to power.
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-51-of-indian-workforce-self-employed-survey-1850820
Around 51% of Indian workers are self-employed, mostly in rural areas, while 33.5% of them are casual labour (33.5%) and only 15.6% have salaried employment, an official survey revealed on Thursday.

"Among workers in rural areas, 54.2% are self-employed as against 41.1% in urban areas and 38.6% work as casual labour as against 17.5% in urban areas," India's chief statistician T.C.A. Anant told reporters here.

And this is post-Modi.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...jobs-self-employment/articleshow/47401164.cms
Among Class III towns - those with a population less than 50,000 - nearly 45% of male workers and over 50% of female workers were self-employed. In big cities with a million-plus population, the proportion of self-employed was about 36-38% for both men and women. Self-employed includes very small industrial or service sector units as well as shops.

I myself am self-employed. And let me tell you one thing about how I am taxed. A regular salaried employee is taxed on his entire income. Otoh, I am taxed only on half my income.

http://www.financialexpress.com/ind...employed-consider-these-tax-questions/364150/
Under the presumptive tax method filed in ITR-4S, self-employed professionals are allowed to claim expenses at the rate of 50% of the total income, and the income tax is calculated on the remaining 50% percent while adding any interest income to it. Under this method you are not required to separately show any proof of expense, and you are not required to maintain accounting records.

Cool, eh?

Self-employment is only possible in the services sector. And it is extremely difficult to calculate in statistics, so India will show a bad report when it comes to job growth when half the population is self-employed.

Even if they are protected, the market is still minuscule compared to China which is an economy 5x larger and much more sophisticated. Your ITES industry is tuned to be tech coolies servicing primarily English speaking countries. Do you know how big is the call center industry in China, all speaking in Mandarin?

Yeah, we have tech coolies servicing ourselves and others while you have tech coolies servicing only yourself. Big whoop.

And yet the 5% exported is half of your exports. How can it be irrelevant, we are concentrating on domestic consumption. Weren't you the one who keep on emphasizing that India is a domestic consumption based economy, then how does your largest industry not cater to your domestic market? Doesn't make sense isn't it?

Dude, this is irrelevant. You have half our exports because we haven't yet tapped your markets. And your domestic industry is already big, no denying it, but it's completely irrelevant because it doesn't affect India in any real way. Your IT companies do not compete in India, instead many of them have setup global R&D centers.

Even to tap the global market your biggest China companies need India. We don't need China for the same.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...invests-rs-136-crore/articleshow/53875236.cms
"Some 1,000-odd techies, comprising engineers and network operations specialists at the GSC will deliver the gamut of network monitoring/management related services to clients in India and overseas markets," Huawei India CEO Jay Chen said Friday.

The global services centre is located within the same complex that now houses Huawei India's R&D centre, where some 3,000-odd techies are involved in software development/coding and associated R&D work.

 

[Han Patriot]

The CII is among those that have people on the ground that can check.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation_of_Indian_Industry
Founded in 1895, India's premier business association has over 8,300 members, from the private as well as public sectors, including SMEs and MNCs, and an indirect membership of over 200,000 enterprises from around 250 national and regional sectoral industry bodies.

So, unlike the govt, they are much more hands on.

I know CII, it's a trade and industrial association, but it has nothing to do with quantifying the number of unemployed youths which you so conveniently attribute to working in the informal sector. It does the exact opposite, it quantifies those working in the formal sector since this is a TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL ASSOC., if it's informal you won't be joining the national trade body right, genius?

Oh really? You haven't understood what I said. Most of these new Chinese companies have come up and become international only now, within a protected growing economy.

I had made it clear quite sometime ago, India has a very low per capita economy with massive conglomerates that are capable of competing in the global arena. Imagine what they will be like in 15 years from now.

Genius, China only opened up our economy in the 1980s, first 10 years, we were still figuring out how to sell apples and pears without getting fined, contrast this to Indians starting to service US companies at the same time. I see nothing wrong growing in a protected economy, and after gaining enough experience and prowess, you go out and compete. India on the other hand has got the license raj protecting the near monopolies of the old like TATA, etc. liberalizing only after the 90s.

The very same massive conglomerates are after profits, they are the ones importing CHINESE goods. Get it? They can be godzilla all I care, the fact remains, these companies are no different from the family conglomerates of HK, Taiwan and Macau. The richest man in Asia is in HK, controlling ports across half the world, so what? There must be a balance between pure capitalism vs national interest. The very same superhero Ambani buys the most Chinese power equipment. I have nothing against Chinese corporations working in tandem with Indian conglomerates to exploit the Indian market, it's about $ afterall.

http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-52506320101028

Including previous orders, Reliance said it has signed around $10 billion worth of purchase orders with Shanghai Electric

Here's one:
http://www.thehindu.com/business/In...billion-market-cap-by-2025/article7954691.ece

350 billion by 2025, that's the same size as Samsung today. Imagine what Tata will be like in 2030 or 2035. Same with Birla, Reliance etc.

You obviously have no idea about the market capitalization of alot of Chinese, HK, Taiwan, Macau companies. Comparing TATA to SAMSUNG, delusional bunch. Jai Hind!

Your goods are cheaper because India did not have a national policy along with subsidies directed towards manufacturing.

Is it our fault? You also don't have a competitive industrial base cluster, infrastructure, skilled manpower, logistics, supply chain.

You don't get it but automation is overall bad for China. If you replace your manufacturing labour with robots, what are you going to do about the millions of unemployed labourers? They are not trainable in any other field unlike the service industry chaps who have at least read a book in their life.

Our workforce is dwindling and aging unlike India with her 'demographic dividend', automation makes perfect sense. Our work force are literate and skilled workers for gods sake. You seem to have this skewed idea that in a country, you either have degree holders or slaves, reminiscent of the caste system. The workforce is not just engineers, you need technicians, machinist, operators, schedulers, etc. Chinese workforce is ideal for up-skill, compare this with 25% illiterates and unskilled engineers who answer phone calls in India. We have proper vocational schools, skilled workers and semi-skilled workers who understand the work processes coupled with good government policies.

You don't realize it but China is not even among the top 10 manufacturers using automation. In fact, China wants to breach the top 10 by 2020. So, no, automation is not a threat to India, and particularly not from China.

Of course we are not the most automated country, that's why we are buying and manufacturing robots genius. Why are you repeating the obvious? The process of automating our industrial base is not a 1 - 2 year thing, it will take at least 10 years and this coincides with the reduction of our workforce. i have been repeating this, all is well for India, no worries, SUPA POWA 2012!

This argument would fail among intelligent people.

This is what stup*d people say when they can't answer things intelligently.

Call it what you want. Only a few people control power in China. You get on the good side of those few people, you will monopolize the market.

As if this doesn't happen in India? Alot of companies in China especially export oriented only became close after they became rich. You need credentials to be close to those 'few people'. The point is despite having corruption, companies are thriving in China and turning into global giants. China government is only interested in controlling SOEs of strategic indsutries like power, water, coal, oil, telecom, banking, etc. The other high tech fast moving consumer goods are majority in the hands of the nimble private sector. This is a hybrid economy, utilizing the best of the private sector while maintaining safeguards to national interest.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/10/here...meeting-with-alibabas-jack-ma-commentary.html
"Ma has probably gone as far as he can partnering solely with Chinese politicians and bureaucrats in that regard. As he himself has said on a number of occasions, there's only so far China can go economically with a central planning government trying to control too much."

If that was true, India wouldn't be in the current shit hole right, since it is a 'free' country?

Again, not enough for the size of the economy.

Take tech startups for example, UK is competing with India with similar economic size. But China should be competing with the US, not lag behind India.

You seem to think more start-ups equals more technology, I have seen gazillions of start-ups failing. The measure of successful start-ups is the size and revenue, not quantity.

That's not how it works. Tech companies come and go as directed by the market. They are not here to stay forever. If these companies stop innovating, they will disappear. But if they make something unique, they will dominate the market. So software companies like Microsoft and Google will disappear if something replaces their products. Hardware tech companies are the same, but much better placed. Qualcomm and Intel may dominate the market today, but if another company shows up with new technology, they will kick Qualcomm and Intel out.

Indian companies do not have many unique products. But they have vast experience and human resources that keeps them alive. This is what keeps companies alive for decades, even centuries if necessary because they can't be easily replaced. But this type of survival is what makes them a threat to purely tech oriented companies. Reliance Jio's juggernaut is the best example of this.

All companies regardless of industry need to stay competitive to survive, from your post, you seem to imply the opposite. There is a word for it, it's called CARTEL. You limit you industries to a few players with reduced competition. Most of the industries these Indian conglomerates are in are shielded from foreign competition no different from the strategic industry controlled by Chinese SOEs in China. Ex: power, telecom, steel, etc. The difference is the profits are channeled to the capitalistic share holders, in China it goes to the government as revenue.

Give it a couple of decades, these companies will be absolutely gigantic, dominating an economy that will be equally gigantic and growing really fast. A real threat to the bubble companies in the tech segment that you have named.

Great, I hope India has got no HUAWEI, QUALCOMM, SAMSUNG, XIAOMI, GE, LENOVO. Keep on importing! These are all BUBBLES....

It's you who don't seem to understand this. Indian graduates are being criticized because of a poor command of English, nothing else. Most Indians do not know English, yeah, this probably comes as a shock to you, but this is the case. The companies provide vocational training after candidates are recruited. What they are saying is there are not enough candidates who have mastered English enough to keep up with their trainers and peers.

Let me put it in a better way, perceived superiority in English. Ex: Most Americans can't understand the Indian accent of their call centers, but that is not stopping AIG and co from setting up call centers there right? Speaking poor English is way better than speaking no English.

90-95% of the GDP relies on non-English speakers.

I am not sure how you get this mumbai stats again.

Give them a machine they will work on it. Tell them to speak to an English speaking client from the West, they will fail. Services requires people to people contact, that's why some industries require English speaking people, which they do not get in enough numbers, especially with many of them leaving the country in large numbers as immigrants.

Yah, with shitty vocational training, they are gonna operate machines in weeks. The technology downloaded from heaven syndrome again.

The Skill India program is precisely designed to train people to work on machines and such, so it does not leverage their English speaking skills, which is not really necessary to work in the manufacturing sector.

Hopefully it materializes soon, as with all Indian plan, it's mostly hype. You can't even fully educate your people and yet you start talking this, first teach them how to count.

Services, man, services. India is a services dominated industry, 61%. The transfer of labour from agri to services is the highest. Manufacturing is being boosted as a secondary, quicker way to transfer labour, but the biggest job creator will still be services.

That's why I say, I hope India becomes a 99% services country with 1.3 billion population where half are farmers, 25% illiterate, unknown semi-literates and the rest clueless.

Also, in all your knowledge, you haven't considered that the people who will work in these industries are the youth. And the youth in India have very high levels of literacy. Over 90%. India's total literacy rate is lower because of the older members of the population, and training is irrelevant to them anyway.

First before these 'literate' youth can work, there need to be work for them in the first place. .

Meh, as I said, your economy is merely big. That's about it.

You are second to us only because India hasn't tapped markets that they should have done long ago. Particularly Japan. We export only 5% of our IT services to them.

What makes you think we are not tapping the market in the West? . Yah, there is nothing special about China, just 5x bigger, JUST 99% literate, just more developed, just having more advanced technology, just having a 50 bil USD$ surplus with India. MEH MEH MEH

You don't get it. I posted a link some time ago in this thread, you should have read it. China has directed economic growth towards urban areas within the formal economy instead of helping expand the informal economy.

In China, people pay taxes, if you don't pay taxes, you are considered informal or black money. You obviously haven't been to China, you haven't seen our poorest farmers and our prosperous farmers.

The point is not to give a farmer a city job, the point is to give the farmer a superior way of life. That's where India's efforts are directed towards.

And how has it worked out? Explain to me how is a dalit working with a rich land owner is able to get a decent life? Or do they have a different definition of 'decent' in India? What makes you think China doesn't invest in our villages and farm? Each and every farmer in China is entitled to land by LAW. Without land, how are India's landless going to prosper? You need a revolution for this...and I am seeing one coming.

So job growth is very different from improvement in quality of life. Why does a farmer need an alternate job when he is given free health care and free education? Instead he can use his income to boost consumption by purchasing goods, thereby giving rise to a new path for economic growth.

. Indian are really living in their own little bubble. Please, you need to visit China, please visit our poorest region.

Secondly, Modi is not building a restaurant in order to employ cooks, like what China has done through investments. He is creating conditions which allows the cook to setup his own establishment, through self-employment.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/16/india-entrepreneurship-is-at-an-all-time-high.html
India is witnessing a major growth in entrepreneurship — not because of its X factor but out of the need for its citizens to create their own job.

This is before Modi came to power.
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-51-of-indian-workforce-self-employed-survey-1850820
Around 51% of Indian workers are self-employed, mostly in rural areas, while 33.5% of them are casual labour (33.5%) and only 15.6% have salaried employment, an official survey revealed on Thursday.

"Among workers in rural areas, 54.2% are self-employed as against 41.1% in urban areas and 38.6% work as casual labour as against 17.5% in urban areas," India's chief statistician T.C.A. Anant told reporters here.

And this is post-Modi.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...jobs-self-employment/articleshow/47401164.cms
Among Class III towns - those with a population less than 50,000 - nearly 45% of male workers and over 50% of female workers were self-employed. In big cities with a million-plus population, the proportion of self-employed was about 36-38% for both men and women. Self-employed includes very small industrial or service sector units as well as shops.

I myself am self-employed. And let me tell you one thing about how I am taxed. A regular salaried employee is taxed on his entire income. Otoh, I am taxed only on half my income.

No, China doesn't have huge private entrepreneurs, the small shops and restaurants are all state owned. Look at the successful informal sector of India. . Genius here doesn't know fixed investments are in infrastructure and government projects, he thinks we direct investments in place of small private shops into communist shops. LOL.

No, our typical Chinese business owners do not know the usual accounting and tax evasion tricks, we are all naive, only Indys can think. My advice bhai, you need to visit China, the world is big, seriously I have been to 4 Indian cities, it's your turn now. Your perspective will change and you will realize how f-up India is compared to the world.

Dude, this is irrelevant. You have half our exports because we haven't yet tapped your markets. And your domestic industry is already big, no denying it, but it's completely irrelevant because it doesn't affect India in any real way. Your IT companies do not compete in India, instead many of them have setup global R&D centers.

Many? How many? LOL. How are you tapping our market when you can't speak Mandarin? This is a service related industry, there is nothing technological about it. It's about customizing a software service.

Even to tap the global market your biggest China companies need India. We don't need China for the same.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...invests-rs-136-crore/articleshow/53875236.cms
"Some 1,000-odd techies, comprising engineers and network operations specialists at the GSC will deliver the gamut of network monitoring/management related services to clients in India and overseas markets," Huawei India CEO Jay Chen said Friday.

The global services centre is located within the same complex that now houses Huawei India's R&D centre, where some 3,000-odd techies are involved in software development/coding and associated R&D work.

You do know the Indian center is laying off after Indian projects are reduced right? My cousin is in Huawei and he tells me the center functions as a localization center for Indian projects, no core technology is done there. It was part of a local content facade to get Indian projects. You guys are so gullible.

 

[Yaseen1]

u.s will not pay back any loan unless their military and political influence is reduced they are exploiting weak military nations like saudiarabia to get loans and also china because of their naval influence in sea trade routes

 

[AndrewJin]

I know CII, it's a trade and industrial association, but it has nothing to do with quantifying the number of unemployed youths which you so conveniently attribute to working in the informal sector. It does the exact opposite, it quantifies those working in the formal sector since this is a TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL ASSOC., if it's informal you won't be joining the national trade body right, genius?



Genius, China only opened up our economy in the 1980s, first 10 years, we were still figuring out how to sell apples and pears without getting fined, contrast this to Indians starting to service US companies at the same time. I see nothing wrong growing in a protected economy, and after gaining enough experience and prowess, you go out and compete. India on the other hand has got the license raj protecting the near monopolies of the old like TATA, etc. liberalizing only after the 90s.

The very same massive conglomerates are after profits, they are the ones importing CHINESE goods. Get it? They can be godzilla all I care, the fact remains, these companies are no different from the family conglomerates of HK, Taiwan and Macau. The richest man in Asia is in HK, controlling ports across half the world, so what? There must be a balance between pure capitalism vs national interest. The very same superhero Ambani buys the most Chinese power equipment. I have nothing against Chinese corporations working in tandem with Indian conglomerates to exploit the Indian market, it's about $ afterall.

http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-52506320101028






You obviously have no idea about the market capitalization of alot of Chinese, HK, Taiwan, Macau companies. Comparing TATA to SAMSUNG, delusional bunch. Jai Hind!



Is it our fault? You also don't have a competitive industrial base cluster, infrastructure, skilled manpower, logistics, supply chain.



Our workforce is dwindling and aging unlike India with her 'demographic dividend', automation makes perfect sense. Our work force are literate and skilled workers for gods sake. You seem to have this skewed idea that in a country, you either have degree holders or slaves, reminiscent of the caste system. The workforce is not just engineers, you need technicians, machinist, operators, schedulers, etc. Chinese workforce is ideal for up-skill, compare this with 25% illiterates and unskilled engineers who answer phone calls in India. We have proper vocational schools, skilled workers and semi-skilled workers who understand the work processes coupled with good government policies.



Of course we are not the most automated country, that's why we are buying and manufacturing robots genius. Why are you repeating the obvious? The process of automating our industrial base is not a 1 - 2 year thing, it will take at least 10 years and this coincides with the reduction of our workforce. i have been repeating this, all is well for India, no worries, SUPA POWA 2012!



This is what stup*d people say when they can't answer things intelligently.




As if this doesn't happen in India? Alot of companies in China especially export oriented only became close after they became rich. You need credentials to be close to those 'few people'. The point is despite having corruption, companies are thriving in China and turning into global giants. China government is only interested in controlling SOEs of strategic indsutries like power, water, coal, oil, telecom, banking, etc. The other high tech fast moving consumer goods are majority in the hands of the nimble private sector. This is a hybrid economy, utilizing the best of the private sector while maintaining safeguards to national interest.



If that was true, India wouldn't be in the current shit hole right, since it is a 'free' country?



You seem to think more start-ups equals more technology, I have seen gazillions of start-ups failing. The measure of successful start-ups is the size and revenue, not quantity.






All companies regardless of industry need to stay competitive to survive, from your post, you seem to imply the opposite. There is a word for it, it's called CARTEL. You limit you industries to a few players with reduced competition. Most of the industries these Indian conglomerates are in are shielded from foreign competition no different from the strategic industry controlled by Chinese SOEs in China. Ex: power, telecom, steel, etc. The difference is the profits are channeled to the capitalistic share holders, in China it goes to the government as revenue.



Great, I hope India has got no HUAWEI, QUALCOMM, SAMSUNG, XIAOMI, GE, LENOVO. Keep on importing! These are all BUBBLES....



Let me put it in a better way, perceived superiority in English. Ex: Most Americans can't understand the Indian accent of their call centers, but that is not stopping AIG and co from setting up call centers there right? Speaking poor English is way better than speaking no English.


I am not sure how you get this mumbai stats again.



Yah, with shitty vocational training, they are gonna operate machines in weeks. The technology downloaded from heaven syndrome again.




Hopefully it materializes soon, as with all Indian plan, it's mostly hype. You can't even fully educate your people and yet you start talking this, first teach them how to count.



That's why I say, I hope India becomes a 99% services country with 1.3 billion population where half are farmers, 25% illiterate, unknown semi-literates and the rest clueless.



First before these 'literate' youth can work, there need to be work for them in the first place. .



What makes you think we are not tapping the market in the West? . Yah, there is nothing special about China, just 5x bigger, JUST 99% literate, just more developed, just having more advanced technology, just having a 50 bil USD$ surplus with India. MEH MEH MEH




In China, people pay taxes, if you don't pay taxes, you are considered informal or black money. You obviously haven't been to China, you haven't seen our poorest farmers and our prosperous farmers.




And how has it worked out? Explain to me how is a dalit working with a rich land owner is able to get a decent life? Or do they have a different definition of 'decent' in India? What makes you think China doesn't invest in our villages and farm? Each and every farmer in China is entitled to land by LAW. Without land, how are India's landless going to prosper? You need a revolution for this...and I am seeing one coming.



. Indian are really living in their own little bubble. Please, you need to visit China, please visit our poorest region.




No, China doesn't have huge private entrepreneurs, the small shops and restaurants are all state owned. Look at the successful informal sector of India. . Genius here doesn't know fixed investments are in infrastructure and government projects, he thinks we direct investments in place of small private shops into communist shops. LOL.

No, our typical Chinese business owners do not know the usual accounting and tax evasion tricks, we are all naive, only Indys can think. My advice bhai, you need to visit China, the world is big, seriously I have been to 4 Indian cities, it's your turn now. Your perspective will change and you will realize how f-up India is compared to the world.




Many? How many? LOL. How are you tapping our market when you can't speak Mandarin? This is a service related industry, there is nothing technological about it. It's about customizing a software service.




You do know the Indian center is laying off after Indian projects are reduced right? My cousin is in Huawei and he tells me the center functions as a localization center for Indian projects, no core technology is done there. It was part of a local content facade to get Indian projects. You guys are so gullible.

RSSers r in deep delusion.....
They need drugs...
It is these sort of ignorant people that makes india forever primitive and backward.

 

[randomradio]

I know CII, it's a trade and industrial association, but it has nothing to do with quantifying the number of unemployed youths which you so conveniently attribute to working in the informal sector. It does the exact opposite, it quantifies those working in the formal sector since this is a TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL ASSOC., if it's informal you won't be joining the national trade body right, genius?

BS as usual.

This is a CII study.
http://www.ies.gov.in/pdfs/CII EM-october-2014.pdf

It's obvious to anybody that the CII is highly interested in what employs 90% of our population.

Genius, China only opened up our economy in the 1980s, first 10 years, we were still figuring out how to sell apples and pears without getting fined, contrast this to Indians starting to service US companies at the same time. I see nothing wrong growing in a protected economy, and after gaining enough experience and prowess, you go out and compete. India on the other hand has got the license raj protecting the near monopolies of the old like TATA, etc. liberalizing only after the 90s.

Yeah, we liberalized in the 90s, but Tata was a tiny company in the 90s versus other global companies. Most of Tata's growth happened in the last 10-15 years.

Is it our fault? You also don't have a competitive industrial base cluster, infrastructure, skilled manpower, logistics, supply chain.

Man, you don't read at all, do you, all the links I gave?

I already told you the plan is to build up the entire supply chain in a very short time. Skill India aims to train and skill 400-550 million people by 2022. The entire supply chain is to be ready even before that.

You keep repeating the same BS again and again.

There's a huge difference between an extremely poor, impoverished China building a supply chain back in the 80s versus a comparatively richer India doing the same. China took 30 years because China was extremely poor. Most of the growth in China happened after China crossed into a $2T economy, the same place where India is now. Before 2005, China was still a small economy with poor industry.

Our workforce is dwindling and aging unlike India with her 'demographic dividend', automation makes perfect sense. Our work force are literate and skilled workers for gods sake. You seem to have this skewed idea that in a country, you either have degree holders or slaves, reminiscent of the caste system. The workforce is not just engineers, you need technicians, machinist, operators, schedulers, etc. Chinese workforce is ideal for up-skill, compare this with 25% illiterates and unskilled engineers who answer phone calls in India. We have proper vocational schools, skilled workers and semi-skilled workers who understand the work processes coupled with good government policies.

Of course we are not the most automated country, that's why we are buying and manufacturing robots genius. Why are you repeating the obvious? The process of automating our industrial base is not a 1 - 2 year thing, it will take at least 10 years and this coincides with the reduction of our workforce. i have been repeating this, all is well for India, no worries, SUPA POWA 2012!

Yeah, so if the 10 most automated countries don't dominate the Indian market today, then China won't even after it becomes the 10th most automated country in the future. Cheers.

This is what stup*d people say when they can't answer things intelligently.

Stupid is what stupid does.

As if this doesn't happen in India? Alot of companies in China especially export oriented only became close after they became rich. You need credentials to be close to those 'few people'. The point is despite having corruption, companies are thriving in China and turning into global giants. China government is only interested in controlling SOEs of strategic indsutries like power, water, coal, oil, telecom, banking, etc. The other high tech fast moving consumer goods are majority in the hands of the nimble private sector. This is a hybrid economy, utilizing the best of the private sector while maintaining safeguards to national interest.

And Indian giants are involved in power, water, coal, oil, telecom, banking etc. Tata and Reliance aren't e-commerce companies. They are quite literally giants.

When you want to build a moon base, you want a company like Tata, not Alibaba or even Huawei.

You seem to think more start-ups equals more technology, I have seen gazillions of start-ups failing. The measure of successful start-ups is the size and revenue, not quantity.

The measure of a start-up is its ability to compete. But in China there is little chance of that happening.

All companies regardless of industry need to stay competitive to survive, from your post, you seem to imply the opposite. There is a word for it, it's called CARTEL. You limit you industries to a few players with reduced competition. Most of the industries these Indian conglomerates are in are shielded from foreign competition no different from the strategic industry controlled by Chinese SOEs in China. Ex: power, telecom, steel, etc. The difference is the profits are channeled to the capitalistic share holders, in China it goes to the government as revenue.

Not true.

Telecom: Vodafone is a foreign company, UK. So is the Korean Docomo. The Norwegian Telenor. The Russian MTS. Fail argument.

Steel: The steel industry is open for investment in India. Arcelor and Posco were about to setup industries in India. Then they realized they didn't have what it takes to compete with Indian industries and backed out.

Oil: The Russians and the Dutch recently bought an oil company in India.
http://indianexpress.com/article/bu...l-for-13-billion-in-largest-fdi-deal-3084527/

Power: BS again because India allows 100%FDI in this sector. There are many foreign companies in India. Hong Kong's CLP. AES from the US.

Great, I hope India has got no HUAWEI, QUALCOMM, SAMSUNG, XIAOMI, GE, LENOVO. Keep on importing! These are all BUBBLES....

Of course they are. Like Lenovo's laptop business came after purchasing IBM's laptop business. So IMB's laptop business was a bubble that burst. All tech companies are bubbles, liable to be replaced if the next best thing comes along.

Let me put it in a better way, perceived superiority in English. Ex: Most Americans can't understand the Indian accent of their call centers, but that is not stopping AIG and co from setting up call centers there right? Speaking poor English is way better than speaking no English.

BS again. Indian call centers have some of the highest customer satisfaction figures in the industry.

I am not sure how you get this mumbai stats again.

Only about 10% of the population speaks English, and only 6% of the population are graduates. Less than 1% of the population speak English as a first language.

That's why I say, I hope India becomes a 99% services country with 1.3 billion population where half are farmers, 25% illiterate, unknown semi-literates and the rest clueless.

You can dream.

What makes you think we are not tapping the market in the West? . Yah, there is nothing special about China, just 5x bigger, JUST 99% literate, just more developed, just having more advanced technology, just having a 50 bil USD$ surplus with India. MEH MEH MEH

You have a services deficit with the US.

In China, people pay taxes, if you don't pay taxes, you are considered informal or black money. You obviously haven't been to China, you haven't seen our poorest farmers and our prosperous farmers.

Same in India.

No, China doesn't have huge private entrepreneurs, the small shops and restaurants are all state owned. Look at the successful informal sector of India. . Genius here doesn't know fixed investments are in infrastructure and government projects, he thinks we direct investments in place of small private shops into communist shops. LOL.

You failed to understand my analogy. Not surprised.

Many? How many? LOL. How are you tapping our market when you can't speak Mandarin? This is a service related industry, there is nothing technological about it. It's about customizing a software service.

Mathematics has no language.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...ms-amid-losses-in-us/articleshow/58898985.cms
The provincial governor Sun Zhigang is expected to visit New Delhi and Bangalore in June when several deals are expected to be inked. Heads of two Indian IT companies said they were very close to signing deals, while several others are working out various parameters for collaboration in the coming weeks.

China is now looking for Indian IT expertise.

You do know the Indian center is laying off after Indian projects are reduced right? My cousin is in Huawei and he tells me the center functions as a localization center for Indian projects, no core technology is done there. It was part of a local content facade to get Indian projects. You guys are so gullible.

You are not particularly intelligent if you believe that. India is not a major patent source for Huawei, so it's obvious that no core technology development happens there. The employees who are gifted are moved into overseas R&D centers. India's advantage is human resources, so that's what Huawei is tapping.

India has always been a place for companies to attract talent and siphon them off to foreign shores. The Indian govt is complicit because it earns them forex through remittances, stuff we use to finance our deficit.

 

[Han Patriot]

BS as usual.

This is a CII study.
http://www.ies.gov.in/pdfs/CII EM-october-2014.pdf

It's obvious to anybody that the CII is highly interested in what employs 90% of our population.

Can you explain to me how does a association of formal industries get data on employment in the informal economy? If you told me it was to get statistics about formal industries employment, it would make sense since the constituent companies can submit their data. How do you quantify something that officially does not exist and has got no records?

That report is a guesstimate at most and it contradicts with the link I gave you about 30% youth unemployment cited by the government. At least the government of India has got a census bureau, CII has their own census surveying 1.3 billion Indians? Mumbai stats again?

Btw, the debate is about serious youth unemployment/under employment and you are giving me a report on how much employment there is in the informal economy. The report does not prove that the 30% unemployed/under employed are working in the informal economy.

Yeah, we liberalized in the 90s, but Tata was a tiny company in the 90s versus other global companies. Most of Tata's growth happened in the last 10-15 years.

Good to know that. But the debate was about protected environment for growth. You were saying as if the India conglomerate grew in a septic environment and emerged a champion overnight. We are not so much different now, isn't it?

Man, you don't read at all, do you, all the links I gave?

I already told you the plan is to build up the entire supply chain in a very short time. Skill India aims to train and skill 400-550 million people by 2022. The entire supply chain is to be ready even before that.

You keep repeating the same BS again and again.

As if you read the links I sent. I am not interested in PLANSSSS. India is always planning. India was supposedly a SUPAPOWA back in 2012 too. You seem to think it's so easy but results tell a different picture altogether. Do you know the typical Indian government efficiency rate? Do you even want me to start? Yah easy peasy, ready in a jiff, puff and India is super power. See you in 5 years time.....first I repeat learn to store grain, next learn to distribute grain.

There's a huge difference between an extremely poor, impoverished China building a supply chain back in the 80s versus a comparatively richer India doing the same. China took 30 years because China was extremely poor. Most of the growth in China happened after China crossed into a $2T economy, the same place where India is now. Before 2005, China was still a small economy with poor industry.

Government efficiency in executing plans, projects and infrastructure does not depend on economic size. It depends on work culture and accountability. Most of the growth happening in 2005 needed the foundation built 10-20 years beforehand. There is no shortcut. India first need to sort out about improving it's awful social parameters. You have a 2T economy now, but the attitude of your government in implementing projects might even be worse than 1980s China, the red tape etc.

Yeah, so if the 10 most automated countries don't dominate the Indian market today, then China won't even after it becomes the 10th most automated country in the future. Cheers.

Who tell you they don't dominate the Indian market? AIRCRAFT? MACHINERY? ELECTRONICS bundled together with Chinese hardware, MEDICAL EQUIPMENT? GAS TURBINES? LED? UHV EQ? METROLOGY EQ? India is a great market for all foreigners including Chinese to exploit due to the absence of domestic technology.

You must be just thinking about toys and plastics? How many of those Indian brand uses Chinese made goods and stick an Indian label? Your deficit already shows how competitive your industries are even with Indian slave wage & tariff. Now imagine a production system churning out more at half the price? Your industries will be decimated.

And Indian giants are involved in power, water, coal, oil, telecom, banking etc. Tata and Reliance aren't e-commerce companies. They are quite literally giants.

When you want to build a moon base, you want a company like Tata, not Alibaba or even Huawei.

That's the point, these companies are in an industry that is not so competitive and poised to make money once managed properly. In China this role is dominated by SOEs due to strategic reasons. It's like ready cheese waiting to be sliced. That's not the case for highly competitive industries which exports and face foreign competition.

The measure of a start-up is its ability to compete. But in China there is little chance of that happening.

That's what UBER thought too.

Not true.

Telecom: Vodafone is a foreign company, UK. So is the Korean Docomo. The Norwegian Telenor. The Russian MTS. Fail argument.

These happen after telecom liberalization and most are tie-ups with Indian partners. Some bought out existing Indian companies. It's more of an investment than real entry to compete. Why don't you try giving them full liberty and license?

Steel: The steel industry is open for investment in India. Arcelor and Posco were about to setup industries in India. Then they realized they didn't have what it takes to compete with Indian industries and backed out.

Are you sure it wasn't government ineptitude? .

Oil: The Russians and the Dutch recently bought an oil company in India.
http://indianexpress.com/article/bu...l-for-13-billion-in-largest-fdi-deal-3084527/

Recently? The Oil sector is dominated by government PSUs, you allow some investment for funding purposes, not because you are opening it up for competition.

Power: BS again because India allows 100%FDI in this sector. There are many foreign companies in India. Hong Kong's CLP. AES from the US.

Yah, what is the percentage compared to the licenses you gave Indian companies? These are small slice to induce investment because your own companies are not willing to invest. It's not because you want to create competition.

Of course they are. Like Lenovo's laptop business came after purchasing IBM's laptop business. So IMB's laptop business was a bubble that burst. All tech companies are bubbles, liable to be replaced if the next best thing comes along.

I guess SIEMENS, IBM, SAMSUNG, HYUNDAI, are all bubbles. That's the beauty of competition, you evolve, if you don't evolve you die. You need to research new technologies, anticipate market changes. This is different from power, water, ports, etc,. There is not much competition, therefore, it's best to keep these profits back to the government, rather than into the rich who are already rich. Ever wonder why Chinese Government revenue is 10x yours?

BS again. Indian call centers have some of the highest customer satisfaction figures in the industry.

According to you? There were some migration to Philippines since Americans can take pinoy accent better.

Only about 10% of the population speaks English, and only 6% of the population are graduates. Less than 1% of the population speak English as a first language.

10% is a hundred million, your ITES employment is roughly 1-2 million? You see the cheap English supply pool? All geared towards serving anglophone countries?

You have a services deficit with the US.

And is that a problem? The largest foreign student in the states are Chinese, that alone is in the billions. Hollywood movies, IP for technologies, these are all services.

You failed to understand my analogy. Not surprised.

Hard to understand when a blindman tries to explain about sunlight

Mathematics has no language.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...ms-amid-losses-in-us/articleshow/58898985.cms
The provincial governor Sun Zhigang is expected to visit New Delhi and Bangalore in June when several deals are expected to be inked. Heads of two Indian IT companies said they were very close to signing deals, while several others are working out various parameters for collaboration in the coming weeks.

China is now looking for Indian IT expertise.

This guy is just looking for more investment, he wants these IT companies to use Chinese professionals and export them. Don't be so naive.

TCS and INFOSYS are already in China for 10+ years.. Of course mathematics and coding has no language, You think only Indians know how to code? ITES is much more than coding, it's primarily about understanding client requirement and customizing existing software. Example, INFOSYS implements SAP software for customers. INFOSYS and TCS don't develop the software themselves, they apply world famous software into applications, provide technical service to support those applications, etc. All of these require language and cultural skills. You can't implement what you don't understand.

You are not particularly intelligent if you believe that. India is not a major patent source for Huawei, so it's obvious that no core technology development happens there. The employees who are gifted are moved into overseas R&D centers. India's advantage is human resources, so that's what Huawei is tapping.

Damn, now huawei is an Indian company. Wonder why these entrepeneurial and genius Indians don't have their own Huawei. ZTE dont seem to need India to be the 4th largest equipment maker, I wonder why.

 

[AndrewJin]

Can you explain to me how does a association of formal industries get data on employment in the informal economy? If you told me it was to get statistics about formal industries employment, it would make sense since the constituent companies can submit their data. How do you quantify something that officially does not exist and has got no records?

That report is a guesstimate at most and it contradicts with the link I gave you about 30% youth unemployment cited by the government. At least the government of India has got a census bureau, CII has their own census surveying 1.3 billion Indians? Mumbai stats again?

Btw, the debate is about serious youth unemployment/under employment and you are giving me a report on how much employment there is in the informal economy. The report does not prove that the 30% unemployed/under employed are working in the informal economy.


Good to know that. But the debate was about protected environment for growth. You were saying as if the India conglomerate grew in a septic environment and emerged a champion overnight. We are not so much different now, isn't it?



As if you read the links I sent. I am not interested in PLANSSSS. India is always planning. India was supposedly a SUPAPOWA back in 2012 too. You seem to think it's so easy but results tell a different picture altogether. Do you know the typical Indian government efficiency rate? Do you even want me to start? Yah easy peasy, ready in a jiff, puff and India is super power. See you in 5 years time.....first I repeat learn to store grain, next learn to distribute grain.



Government efficiency in executing plans, projects and infrastructure does not depend on economic size. It depends on work culture and accountability. Most of the growth happening in 2005 needed the foundation built 10-20 years beforehand. There is no shortcut. India first need to sort out about improving it's awful social parameters. You have a 2T economy now, but the attitude of your government in implementing projects might even be worse than 1980s China, the red tape etc.




Who tell you they don't dominate the Indian market? AIRCRAFT? MACHINERY? ELECTRONICS bundled together with Chinese hardware, MEDICAL EQUIPMENT? GAS TURBINES? LED? UHV EQ? METROLOGY EQ? India is a great market for all foreigners including Chinese to exploit due to the absence of domestic technology.

You must be just thinking about toys and plastics? How many of those Indian brand uses Chinese made goods and stick an Indian label? Your deficit already shows how competitive your industries are even with Indian slave wage & tariff. Now imagine a production system churning out more at half the price? Your industries will be decimated.



That's the point, these companies are in an industry that is not so competitive and poised to make money once managed properly. In China this role is dominated by SOEs due to strategic reasons. It's like ready cheese waiting to be sliced. That's not the case for highly competitive industries which exports and face foreign competition.


That's what UBER thought too.



These happen after telecom liberalization and most are tie-ups with Indian partners. Some bought out existing Indian companies. It's more of an investment than real entry to compete. Why don't you try giving them full liberty and license?


Are you sure it wasn't government ineptitude? .


Recently? The Oil sector is dominated by government PSUs, you allow some investment for funding purposes, not because you are opening it up for competition.


Yah, what is the percentage compared to the licenses you gave Indian companies? These are small slice to induce investment because your own companies are not willing to invest. It's not because you want to create competition.



I guess SIEMENS, IBM, SAMSUNG, HYUNDAI, are all bubbles. That's the beauty of competition, you evolve, if you don't evolve you die. You need to research new technologies, anticipate market changes. This is different from power, water, ports, etc,. There is not much competition, therefore, it's best to keep these profits back to the government, rather than into the rich who are already rich. Ever wonder why Chinese Government revenue is 10x yours?



According to you? There were some migration to Philippines since Americans can take pinoy accent better.


10% is a hundred million, your ITES employment is roughly 1-2 million? You see the cheap English supply pool? All geared towards serving anglophone countries?




And is that a problem? The largest foreign student in the states are Chinese, that alone is in the billions. Hollywood movies, IP for technologies, these are all services.





Hard to understand when a blindman tries to explain about sunlight



This guy is just looking for more investment, he wants these IT companies to use Chinese professionals and export them. Don't be so naive.

TCS and INFOSYS are already in China for 10+ years.. Of course mathematics and coding has no language, You think only Indians know how to code? ITES is much more than coding, it's primarily about understanding client requirement and customizing existing software. Example, INFOSYS implements SAP software for customers. INFOSYS and TCS don't develop the software themselves, they apply world famous software into applications, provide technical service to support those applications, etc. All of these require language and cultural skills. You can't implement what you don't understand.


Damn, now huawei is an Indian company. Wonder why these entrepeneurial and genius Indians don't have their own Huawei. ZTE dont seem to need India to be the 4th largest equipment maker, I wonder why.

It's effortless to argue with Supa Powans from 2012.

This thread is about creditor country.
Shall we not discuss about a failed deficit country with primitive tech and way too many useless low-skill labor?

 

[Mista]

To be frank, India's economy isn't large enough yet to be of any great significance to the rest of the world.

With 1.3b people, it's GDP is only the size of greater Tokyo. Soon to be most populous country vs most populous metropolitan city?

 

[Shotgunner51]

China Rebalances Away From Bonds to Buy Equities, Particularly in Europe
Balance-of-payment surpluses shifted toward more profitable foreign investments

May 30, 2017, 11:26 a.m. EDT, By David Marsh, MarketWatch

SINGAPORE (MarketWatch) — How China deploys its considerable foreign assets, acquired as a result of two decades of sizable current-account surpluses, is one of the most important issues facing the world economy.

Balance of payments and international asset statistics underline how China has been rebalancing its foreign investments away from holdings of other countries’ debt (led by U.S. government dollar bonds) towards greater ownership of foreign equities, with a particularly large buildup in Europe.

This redeployment has been part of Beijing’s deliberate strategic efforts to gain extra leverage and value from foreign investments, as it seeks to emulate the successes of the U.S. and other Anglo-Saxon countries in borrowing from abroad at relatively low rates of interest and investing outside the country at significantly higher rates of return.

The corporate spending spree in Europe has slowed significantly this year as a result of Beijing’s sharpened controls on capital outflows, introduced to damp downward pressure on the yuan. But the underlying trend is clear and suggests that China may wish to continue foreign-equity purchases once balance of payments constraints ease.

Strains on the country’s international position have been demonstrated by last week’s announcement by Moody’s Investor Services of a cut in China’s credit rating on expectations the country’s financial strength will “erode somewhat” over coming years as debt rises — even though China’s outlook was lifted to stable from negative.

China is the world’s third largest net foreign creditor in value terms, according to data on the national international investment position (NIIP) collated for the Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum’s annual Global Public Investor publication, summarizing the investment management performance of 750 public-sector agencies around the world. OMFIF’s GPI 2017 report is due for release on June 14.

The world’s biggest net foreign creditor remains Japan, with $3.1 trillion in net assets at the end of 2016, against $2.8 trillion in 2015, equivalent to 62.1% of gross domestic product, down from 64.2% in 2015. Germany is No.2 with $1.8 trillion in net foreign assets, against $1.6 trillion in 2015, making up 51.8% of GDP against 48.8% in 2015. China weighs in at No.3 with $1.7 trillion in net foreign assets, up from $1.6 trillion the previous year, or 15.6% of GDP against 14.2% in 2015.

The world’s biggest net foreign debtor, by a large margin, is the U.S. with net international debts of $8.1 trillion at the end of 2016 against $7.3 trillion in 2015, 43.7% of GDP against 40.4% in 2015. This reflects America’s extraordinary position as the home of the principle international reserve currency and a haven for much of the world’s savings.

America’s enormous debt position co-exists with its role as the world’s largest holder of gross assets. In the list published in GPI 2017 of the world’s 750 top public investors — central banks, sovereign funds and public-pensions funds — the U.S. accounts for $6.6 trillion, around 20% of global public investible assets of close to $35 trillion. China accounts for three of the world’s top public-sector investors — People’s Bank of China, China Investment Corp., and the National Social Security Fund — with assets of around $4 trillion or 12.5% of the total.

Data on China’s holdings of reserve assets at the People’s Bank of China, which are heavily weighted to U.S. Treasury bond holdings, compared with portfolio, direct and other investments, underline how China has shifted its foreign-investment structure during the last few years. This follows recognition by the Beijing authorities that the country was achieving suboptimal returns on its foreign investments by gearing an undue amount of its allocations towards unprofitable holdings of U.S. fixed-income securities.

China’s gross external assets at the end of last year — which may not include all the country’s overseas wealth, some of which has seeped abroad via illicit channels — totaled $6.5 trillion, of which 48% was in reserve assets and 52% in other types of investment, most of it in equities, according to publicly available data from the International Monetary Fund and other sources, compiled by OMFIF.

This was a marked shift from $6 trillion in gross foreign holdings at the end of 2013, of which 64% was in reserve assets and 36% in other types of investment. According to these data, China’s direct investments abroad roughly doubled over the last three years to $1.3 trillion at the end of 2016, reflecting the foreign corporate buying effort that has now slowed considerably because of capital controls.

These data — which also show a marked switch to direct investments in advanced countries and away from the developing world over the past decade — demonstrate how the PBoC’s well-publicized fall in China’s reserve assets of more than $1 trillion from 2014 highs has helped finance a fall in Chinese corporate foreign debt and a build-up in overseas equity holdings.

Europe and North America accounted for only 3% of an overall $42 billion of publicly announced Chinese direct and other forms of investment flows abroad in 2006. The European and North American share of such investments soared to 47% of a much larger total of $245 billion last year as part of the foreign investment rebalancing.

http://www.marketwatch.com/(S(rnrsy...uy-equities-particularly-in-europe-2017-05-30

 

[randomradio]

Can you explain to me how does a association of formal industries get data on employment in the informal economy? If you told me it was to get statistics about formal industries employment, it would make sense since the constituent companies can submit their data. How do you quantify something that officially does not exist and has got no records?

That report is a guesstimate at most and it contradicts with the link I gave you about 30% youth unemployment cited by the government. At least the government of India has got a census bureau, CII has their own census surveying 1.3 billion Indians? Mumbai stats again?

Through surveys.

Btw, the debate is about serious youth unemployment/under employment and you are giving me a report on how much employment there is in the informal economy. The report does not prove that the 30% unemployed/under employed are working in the informal economy.

How stupid. If I wan't paying taxes, then I would be in the informal sector too.

Good to know that. But the debate was about protected environment for growth. You were saying as if the India conglomerate grew in a septic environment and emerged a champion overnight. We are not so much different now, isn't it?

They actually grew in an environment that was hostile to any private entrepreneur, not just foreign companies.

A good example is the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. It was set off by Union Carbide, which is an American company.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

Foreign companies have been functioning in India since decades. In fact, because of govt involvement and License Raj, foreign companies had the upper hand over domestic private companies.

What License Raj meant was private companies could not take a decision without govt approval. Also, India also had the Monopolies & Restrictive Trade Practices Act which prevented a business from becoming a monopoly. That has since been replaced with the Competition Act.

http://www.gktoday.in/the-monopolies-and-restrictive-trade-practices-act-1970/
To ensure that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of economic power in hands of few rich.

India was fair to all private companies and still is.

When General Motors entered India in the 90s, they were about 30 times bigger than Tata Motors. Only a few weeks ago they decided to leave India because they couldn't compete. Now they only want to use their Indian production for exports. And both Tata and GM are on a level playing field in India.

As if you read the links I sent. I am not interested in PLANSSSS. India is always planning. India was supposedly a SUPAPOWA back in 2012 too. You seem to think it's so easy but results tell a different picture altogether. Do you know the typical Indian government efficiency rate? Do you even want me to start? Yah easy peasy, ready in a jiff, puff and India is super power. See you in 5 years time.....first I repeat learn to store grain, next learn to distribute grain.

It's already being implemented. I gave you the links, you haven't bothered to read them, that's all.

This year, one of the Skill Indian organizations is training 4 million people.

Government efficiency in executing plans, projects and infrastructure does not depend on economic size. It depends on work culture and accountability. Most of the growth happening in 2005 needed the foundation built 10-20 years beforehand. There is no shortcut. India first need to sort out about improving it's awful social parameters. You have a 2T economy now, but the attitude of your government in implementing projects might even be worse than 1980s China, the red tape etc.

Is that why greenfield FDI has crossed China's?

Is that why there are more domestic investors in India's equity than FII?

Who tell you they don't dominate the Indian market? AIRCRAFT? MACHINERY? ELECTRONICS bundled together with Chinese hardware, MEDICAL EQUIPMENT? GAS TURBINES? LED? UHV EQ? METROLOGY EQ? India is a great market for all foreigners including Chinese to exploit due to the absence of domestic technology.

That's changing big time. Give it sometime, you will see it for yourself.

You must be just thinking about toys and plastics? How many of those Indian brand uses Chinese made goods and stick an Indian label? Your deficit already shows how competitive your industries are even with Indian slave wage & tariff. Now imagine a production system churning out more at half the price? Your industries will be decimated.

India is willing to open up the goods market in India to China if China opens up the Chinese market to Indian companies and services sector.

That's the point, these companies are in an industry that is not so competitive and poised to make money once managed properly. In China this role is dominated by SOEs due to strategic reasons. It's like ready cheese waiting to be sliced. That's not the case for highly competitive industries which exports and face foreign competition.

And your SoEs are struggling.

That's what UBER thought too.

Uber got locked out of China, as usual. Like Google. Like Facebook.

These happen after telecom liberalization and most are tie-ups with Indian partners. Some bought out existing Indian companies. It's more of an investment than real entry to compete. Why don't you try giving them full liberty and license?

They do have full liberty and license. 100% FDI in most industries. Power, telecom, both have 100% FDI.

Are you sure it wasn't government ineptitude? .

No. They both gave environmental reasons to leave, the simplest reason ever. India even offered a 5 year extension to Posco, but they left. They even got tax benefits and subsidies which were not offered to Indian companies.

Recently? The Oil sector is dominated by government PSUs, you allow some investment for funding purposes, not because you are opening it up for competition.

BS as usual. The Russians have full control over all of Essar's businesses. They can do anything they want. They can do everything Essar used to do, even tap Indian banks for credit.

Yah, what is the percentage compared to the licenses you gave Indian companies? These are small slice to induce investment because your own companies are not willing to invest. It's not because you want to create competition.

How dumb. Companies create competition. The Indian govt is only interested in sustainable FDI. It's up to the companies to survive. They are in fact protected by the Competition Act.

http://www.cci.gov.in/competition-act

I guess SIEMENS, IBM, SAMSUNG, HYUNDAI, are all bubbles. That's the beauty of competition, you evolve, if you don't evolve you die. You need to research new technologies, anticipate market changes. This is different from power, water, ports, etc,. There is not much competition, therefore, it's best to keep these profits back to the government, rather than into the rich who are already rich.

All tech companies are bubbles. There were so many other companies in the past that have already died.

Ever wonder why Chinese Government revenue is 10x yours?

BS. The last I checked, India's total govt expenditure is only 4x smaller than China's.

10% is a hundred million, your ITES employment is roughly 1-2 million? You see the cheap English supply pool? All geared towards serving anglophone countries?

Many leave the country. Many don't work at all. Many are kids who can't work. Dude, is common sense a problem for you? A huge chunk of our English speaking population is still less than 18.

Hard to understand when a blindman tries to explain about sunlight

You are just some Chinese stooge who doesn't realize the importance of what India is doing.

Damn, now huawei is an Indian company. Wonder why these entrepeneurial and genius Indians don't have their own Huawei. ZTE dont seem to need India to be the 4th largest equipment maker, I wonder why.

Meh, both these companies would barely have survived if you had let Cisco and Juniper into your market. You kick out competition, then it's obvious you will get Chinese companies to replace them.

These companies were nobodies until China grew richer. In India's case, we have well known companies even when India is a nobody. That's the difference.

 

[Shotgunner51]

China Rebalances Away From Bonds to Buy Equities

China is the world’s third largest net foreign creditor in value terms, according to data on the national international investment position (NIIP) collated for the Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum’s annual Global Public Investor publication, summarizing the investment management performance of 750 public-sector agencies around the world. OMFIF’s GPI 2017 report is due for release on June 14.

The world’s biggest net foreign creditor remains Japan, with $3.1 trillion in net assets at the end of 2016, against $2.8 trillion in 2015, equivalent to 62.1% of gross domestic product, down from 64.2% in 2015. Germany is No.2 with $1.8 trillion in net foreign assets, against $1.6 trillion in 2015, making up 51.8% of GDP against 48.8% in 2015. China weighs in at No.3 with $1.7 trillion in net foreign assets, up from $1.6 trillion the previous year, or 15.6% of GDP against 14.2% in 2015.

I'd made a few notes to article posted in #144.

• From official sources posted in #70, China Mainland (+SDR1.3394 trillion) and Germany (+€1.705 trillion) are about the same. I used end 2016 market exchange rate to deduce that China Mainland is second largest by a very small margin (+$1.8005 trillion vs +$1.7939 trillion), Germany third. If Hong Kong and Taiwan, +$1.1 trillion each, are included in calculation then Greater China is the largest creditor nation overtaking Japan.

• Just like I've pointed out long before, FXR used to be as heavy as 60% of all foreign assets, that's why China despite being net creditor still suffered investment deficit for years. Finally, China began a tectonic shift in global strategy since Oct 2013, pivoting away from bonds to FDI, that's a positive shift though it face rising political interference from the west (e.g. CFIUS, BIS, IMF).

• Current international BoP imbalance is sustainable? For instance one year of US deficit with China already values more than entire US gold reserves, let alone the colossal US national/external debts. BoP is the primary if not the only reason behind urgency of OBOR.

 

[AndrewJin]

To be frank, India's economy isn't large enough yet to be of any great significance to the rest of the world.

With 1.3b people, it's GDP is only the size of greater Tokyo. Soon to be most populous country vs most populous metropolitan city?

Smaller than Western China, China's poorest region.
More interestingly, their GDP growth is smaller than Western China.
That means, even China has no Central China (2 trillion dollar) /NE China (1 trillion dollar)/Coastal China (6 trillion),
still Western China is leading with the distance getting bigger year after year.
And they call it turtle/rabbit competition....
lmao

 

[Shotgunner51]

Germany is the world's 3rd largest creditor nation, and 1st largest in EU-28 (now EU-27 plus UK, excluding Norway and Switzerland) followed by Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark and Luxembourg.
View attachment 395884
Figure 1: Total Net International Investment Position with the rest of the world, EU-28 Member States, 2015 (EUR 1 000 million)

Some development in Europe. Euro-area finance ministers led by Germany are seeking a compromise with the IMF on debt relief for Greece (as % of GDP, more indebted than PIIGS average, USA, Latin America average) that could signal the final act in the seven-year-old drama for the continent’s most indebted state.

• The IMF is reluctant to participate in a bailout unless the euro area ensures the country’s 315 billion-euro ($355 billion) debt load is sustainable.
• Some nations like Germany that are resisting a change to Greece’s debt profile won’t release any new funds until the IMF joins the program.
• Athens needs the new aid installment before it has to repay about 7 billion euros to lenders in July.

Let's see how this unfold in coming weeks.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...review-stalls-as-creditors-debate-debt-relief

 

[onebyone]

BY JOE MCDONALDAP Business Write

BEIJING
China's foreign currency reserves rose in May for a fourth month ahead of a possible U.S. interest rate hike that might put new pressure on Beijing's exchange rate controls.

The reserves, the world's biggest, increased $24 billion to $3.05 trillion, according to government data released Wednesday.

A sharp decline last year prompted Beijing to tighten controls on the outflow of money from the world's second-largest economy.

The Chinese controls could face a new test if the U.S. Federal Reserve decides at a meeting next week to raise interest rates. That would draw money out of China in search of higher returns, which could require Beijing to raise its own interest rates or further tighten controls.

The Fed has signaled it expects to raise rates a total of three times this year to ensure tighter labor markets do not trigger inflation pressures.


The central bank spent reserves to shore up the yuan's exchange rate after expectations that the Chinese currency would decline prompted investors to move money out of the country starting in 2015.

The reserves declined from a peak of $3.99 trillion in June 2014 to just under $3 trillion late last year. Late last year, the net outflow was tens of billions of dollars a month, which prompted Beijing to step up scrutiny of proposed foreign investments and ban some activities by individual investors.

"Though the large capital outflow appears to have eased notably, the authorities have no intention to loosen capital control yet," said Citigroup economists Li-Gang Liu and Xiaowen Jin in a report.

In its latest tactic, the foreign currency regulator announced Friday that Chinese banks must report all overseas automatic teller or credit card transactions above 1,000 yuan ($150) by their customers beginning Sept. 1.

The tighter controls have temporarily set back Beijing's gradual moves to encourage more use of the yuan abroad for trade.

The People's Bank of China bases the yuan's state-set exchange rate on a basket of currencies that is believed to be dominated by the dollar. That required Beijing to intervene to keep the yuan in line with the dollar as the greenback rose over the past two years.

The latest controls appear to have locked the yuan to the dollar, possibly to send a clear signal it won't fall further.

___

Online:

People's Bank of China (in Chinese): www.pbc.gov.cn

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/article154774334.html

 

[Shotgunner51]

This is companion post to #59:

Curbing the Growth of US International Debt
Joseph E. Gagnon (PIIE)
https://piie.com/blogs/realtime-economic-issues-watch/curbing-growth-us-international-debt
March 29, 2017 10:15 AM

A companion post discusses the problem of the declining US net international investment position (NIIP). This post explores possible solutions. Rather than raising trade barriers, which would be economically harmful and have little effect on the trade deficit and the NIIP, the United States should encourage an orderly decline in the foreign exchange value of the dollar. Cutting taxes and expanding the budget deficit, as many are expecting, is a move in the wrong direction; if anything, taxes should be increased modestly to allow exports to increase without sparking excessive inflation or a counterproductive rise in interest rates and the dollar. Ideally, US trading partners would cooperate in an orderly realignment of exchange rates. However, the United States will likely need to act unilaterally to get the process started.

The major appreciation of the dollar in 2000-02 (figure 1) combined with the US housing bubble led to the record trade deficits of around 6 percent of GDP in 2005-06. The Great Recession sharply reduced the US trade deficit in 2009 and the depreciation of the dollar to record low levels in 2010-14 helped to keep the US trade deficit in a range of 2 to 3 percent of GDP in 2010-16. A significant adjustment was achieved, but not enough to prevent a continued decline in the ratio of NIIP to GDP. (The trade deficit and NIIP are displayed in the companion post.)

Figure 1 Real Trade-Weighted Exchange Value of the Dollar (Broad Index), January 1980 to February 2017 (Index, March 1973=100)

To stabilize the NIIP at ‑50 percent of GDP would require a reduction in the trade deficit to 2 percent of GDP by 2020. The dollar would have to depreciate 14 percent in real effective terms from its current level to stabilize the trade deficit at 2 percent of GDP.[1] That would take the broad real dollar (figure 1) back to roughly its level in 2012-13. An even larger depreciation may be desirable to gradually shrink the NIIP toward zero.[2]

In a forthcoming book, Currency Conflict and Trade Policy: A New Strategy for the United States, Fred Bergsten and I urge the United States to announce a policy of “countervailing currency intervention” to offset the effects of official currency intervention by G-20 countries with large trade surpluses. This would effectively replace the “strong dollar” policy with an “appropriate dollar” policy. In addition, the United States should work with its G-20 partners and with the International Monetary Fund on guidelines for exchange rate policies to prevent the buildup of unsustainable trade deficits and surpluses. These policies would remove the threat of future foreign official intervention to support the dollar when the United States has a large trade deficit. The dollar likely would fall immediately as financial markets respond to the increased future downside risks for its value.

To prevent the US economy from overheating as the dollar falls and the trade deficit narrows, saving would have to increase or investment decrease by a comparable amount. Ideally, the fiscal deficit would be cut to raise national saving, holding down interest rates and contributing to the dollar’s decline. If the dollar were to decline without any fiscal contraction, monetary policy could encourage both more private saving and less private investment by raising interest rates, but higher US interest rates would make US assets more attractive to foreigners, likely unwinding some of the needed dollar depreciation.

At present, the United States faces the risk that tax cuts may raise the US fiscal deficit, the opposite direction of what would help to reduce the trade deficit. Macroeconomic Advisers recently estimated that the budget plans of the House Republicans would put further upward pressure on the dollar and widen the trade deficit to around 5 percent of GDP by 2021.[3] The NIIP would decline at an accelerated rate into uncharted territory.

The US NIIP is approaching a level at which other countries have faced financing difficulties and abrupt adjustments. The dollar’s role as the world’s primary currency for foreign exchange reserves, international lending, and trade invoicing may allow the United States to borrow relatively more than other countries. On the other hand, the large size of the US economy means that foreign investors are far more exposed to risks in the United States than to risks in any other country. Historically, financial markets have tended to oscillate between periods of excessive exuberance and excessive gloom. Policymakers should take steps now to prevent an overaccumulation of debt that may need to be unwound in the future.


Data Disclosure:
The data underlying this analysis are available here [zip].

Notes
[1] Based on October 2016 data, Cline (2016) estimated that the dollar was overvalued by 8 percent. Cline’s estimate is based on returning the deficit to 3 percent of GDP; relative to a target of 2 percent of GDP, the dollar would have been overvalued by 16 percent. A 14 percent depreciation would eliminate a 16 percent overvaluation (1.00/1.16=0.86). As of late March 2017, movements in key nominal exchange rates suggest that the broad real dollar is close to the October 2016 level on which these calculations are based.

[2] Cline (2016) estimates a negative trend in the US trade balance, implying that a gradual real depreciation is necessary just to maintain a stable deficit.

[3] Joel Prakken and Chris Varvares, “Trump Stimulus in the Forecast?” December 9, 2016.