Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Largest Emerging Economies, E7+SA, growth prospects and challenges

Discussion in 'World Economy' started by sunny_10, Jul 8, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. sunny_10

    sunny_10 BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    May 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    978
    ,
    QS World University Rankings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    here, this ranking is based on the level of infrastructure of Universities, not on the quality of students. for example, we have one more QS ranking of the Management Institutes as below, and compare average GMAT scores by Indian instutes with rest of the world. :india:
    Global 200 Top Business Schools 2010 by Region | TOPMBA (Asia)

    (here, GMAT score for IIM Calcutta was '760' in 2009 which is incorrectly written here for 2010 as 500 only. Minimum GMAT score required for admission in IIM Calcutta is "700", as per in "Admissions Requirements" section of this website.)
    Indian Institute of Management Calcutta | TOPMBA (IIMC)

    here, few US's institutes have average 700+ score due to international students only otherwise compare yourselves with European shiits, only French ANSEAD could have on average above 700 GMAT score :tdown:. while British Management Institutes have more than 70% international students only. now you will get to know, how Indians of average 780 marks have raised US's overall score to above 700 for its top management institutes, helping the Americans performing high in business side by their talent, similarly how Indian professionals are back boon of US's technological firms :cheers:

    Global 200 Top Business Schools 2010 by Region | TOPMBA (North America)

    Global 200 Top Business Schools 2010 by Region | TOPMBA (Europe)

    Global 200 Top Business Schools 2010 by Region | TOPMBA (Latin and Central America)
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2012
    1 person likes this.
  2. sunny_10

    sunny_10 BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    May 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    978
    my contribution on "FDI in retails" can be read in the thread as below. please come with arguments on my posts on this topic. thanks

    http://www.indiandefence.com/forums...govt-clears-51%-fdi-multi-brand-retail-4.html
     
  3. sunny_10

    sunny_10 BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    May 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    978
    ,
    India needs light of Hinduism to get higher success like China

    India needs light of 'Hinduism' to get higher success like China, which was helped by its Chinese culture. there is a group of Indian Economists who find high growth rate of India could be achieved due to 'Vajpayee Government' who took those (+)ve steps in early 2000s which could accelerate the growth of India since 2002. for example, people talk about heavy investments in infrastructure while that mainly started since early 2000s. for example of 'Gram Road Yojna' started during the time of BJP government in late 90s and now we find so good roads to drive to villages also, even in Bihar state, my elder brother said who recently visited there.......

    overall growth rate for the next 11 years since the economic reforms in 1991 didn't help Indian Economy to that extent, if it might not have got the changes in early 2000s, like how investments in infrastructure mainly started since early 2000s. growth rate of China was above 10% in between 1991 to 2002 while that of India was hardly around 5.6% for 11 years in between 1992-2002, excluding the year 1991?????? while India also adopted the similar type of economic reforms as China+ASEAN in 1991, under the "Rao Government"?????? India does need light of Hinduism to have higher success like China which was benefited by the Chinese culture, to get top two economic spots with China, similar to its economic state till 18th century.......
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2012
    1 person likes this.
  4. sunny_10

    sunny_10 BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    May 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    978
    and have a look on this idiot, ask him, why Chinese Per Capita Income was less than that of India till 1991, till economic reforms in 1991, while CHina also adopted the same type of economic reform even in 70s? hence, does this mean that Chinese Culture is inferior to Hinduism? while 5.5% growth rate of India for the first quarter is mainly because of the extremly bad external demand this year, (even if Indian economy isn't dependent on export to the extent as China+ASEAN, defintely not) :meeting:
    India GDP per capita PPP
    China GDP per capita PPP

    and, even since the economic reform by "Rao Government" under finance ministry of MMS in1991, Average Growth Rate of India was hardly around 5.6% for the next 11 years, from 1992 to 2002 as below. then was it Sikh growth rate? :sad:

    India GDP - real growth rate - Economy


    and also, economic size of India was the highest till 18th, sharing the top 2 spots with China itself till 18th century, then was it because western Women like Sunny Leone were entertaining Hindus and Chinese till 18th century????
    List of regions by past GDP (PPP) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    and if India suffered "Brain Drain" even during last 65 years of independence, helping Western Economies maintain superiority during this period, then why was that? because Indian DNA was in demand in US/EU that time??? isn't it the 'culture' who helped Indians have this strength? :meeting:
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2012
    1 person likes this.
  5. sunny_10

    sunny_10 BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    May 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    978
    I just checked, at the end of financial year 2003-04, India registered the highest growth at '8.2%' "Under Vajpayee Government", since economic reform in 1991. it was the highest growth rate since reforms in 1991, and then BJP government completed its term by June 2004. and it was only 4% for the year 2002-03 as it was hit by the 3rd biggest drought of last one century...... so I would say that "Sikh Growth Rate", started by Mr M.Singh in 1991, had fianlly ended till the financial year 2002-03, with going on the path of very high growth rate since 2003-04, from 8.2%, due to the efforts by "Vajpayee Government" since late 90s/early 2000s, who started high investments in infrastructure during their period.

    (while the financia years 1999-2000, 2000-01 were mainly hit by "Kargil War" and "Military Stand Off" after the attack on the Indian Parliament in 2001, due to the British Pet Dog Mr P.Musharraf. and even if 'Vajpayee Government' faced economic crisis of ASEAN in late 90s, together with Western economic sanctions after Nuclear Tests in 1998, it did have few high performance years 1998/ 1999/ 2000 even during that "Sikh Growth Rate" which continued till 2002. and then India came on the path of the highest growth at '8.2%' for the Financial year 2003-04, in the light of Hinduism and then India never look back. while China also adopted the same type of economic reforms since 1979, with having average over 10% growth during last 32 years since 1979, under the light of Chinese Culture?????)

    => The "Average Sikh Growth Rate" for 12 years of 1991 to 2002 was around "5.3%" only, for the 12 years since the economic reforms by Mr M.Singh in 1991, as below: (which also include few high performance years of 'Vajpayee Government' of late 90s, the 1998/1999/2000). while China registered over 10% growth for 32 years since 1979 when they also adopted the similar economic reforms as India, in the light of their Chinese Culture. (the China and India, which have been the two largest economies for centuries, till the 18th century.)

    India GDP - real growth rate - Economy
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2012
  6. sunny_10

    sunny_10 BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    May 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    978
    India ranks first in top 10 destinations for outsourcing
    Oct 8, 2012

    NEW DELHI: India ranked first in the list of top 10 locations for outsourcing business operations in 2011 but it has started facing competition from countries like Phillipines and Indonesia, global property consultant Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL) said in a report.

    "India, while still hitting the high notes on the offshoring market, will need to work hard to maintain its edge," JLL India Chairman and Country Head Anuj Puri said in a statement.

    Puri said when it comes to offshoring business operations to India, the traditional benefit of availability of a large talent pool, lower costs and quick turnaround time still apply.

    Outsourcing to India enables foreign companies to overcome office space costs in their own countries, he added.

    "India has the largest english speaking population in the world, ensuring optimal communication customer-vendor communications. However, India is beginning to face stiff competition on the outsourcing front from other markets like Phillipines and Indonesia," Puri said.

    The report said that the options for global location decision makers are extending.

    "Optimal decisions require a broader and more considered evaluation reflective of changing times. India continues to be a leading player in this environment, supported by its strong fundamentals," JLL Director - Corporate Research Tom Carroll said.

    However, he said the global corporations are increasingly focused on productivity, operational efficiency and future scalability, rather than straight cost-saves in the short term and therefore "India will need to ensure it reflects these concerns if it is to retain its leading position".

    "India consistently leads top 10 locations for FDI in shared service centres (2003-2011), the statement said.

    Malaysia and Poland were at the second and third positions, respectively, accoring to the report.

    India ranks first in top 10 destinations for outsourcing: JLL - Economic Times
     
    1 person likes this.
  7. sunny_10

    sunny_10 BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    May 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    978
    India among top-5 global investment destinations
    Oct 29, 2012

    NEW DELHI: India has emerged as one of the top five investment destinations in the world, primarily on account of large market size and high customer potential, says a survey.

    Notwithstanding bullish business prospects, the survey also said that India is perceived as a risky place to make investments.

    The consulting firm BDO Global Market Opportunity Index 2012 covered more than 1,000 senior finance officers spread across 14 countries, including India, the US and the UK. The survey examines the views of the company's finance chiefs to expand in specific countries.

    In terms of investment destinations, India continued to be at the fourth spot in the list topped by neighbouring China. Other nations in the top five are the US (second), Brazil (third) and Germany (fifth).

    The survey attributed India's appeal as attractive investment destination to its large market size, customer potential and cheap labour.

    About India, the survey said that the professional services and technology, media and telecoms (TMT) sectors are driving investment in the country.

    Besides, planned investment in India is fairly consistent as 32 per cent of Cheif Financial Officers (CFO) surveyed in Saudi Arabia expect to enter this market.

    Among others in the top 10 are Russia, the UK, Australia, United Arab Emirrates and Mexico.

    "The 'big seven' (China, USA, Brazil, India, Germany, Russia and UK) lead the index as attractive investment markets, due to size and customer potential... (these nations) are the ones that CFOs feel most comfortable investing in," the survey noted.

    This year 66 per cent of the CFOs surveyed are setting their sights on a 'big seven' of attractive investment destinations.

    Besides, CFOs across the globe are finding it more difficult to conduct business overseas- certainly compared to three years ago on account of poor economic situation, increased regulation and greater competition.

    Notably, CFOs consider parts of Europe as risky as the politically unstable countries of the Middle East. Spain is perceived as a riskier investment destination than Egypt. Besides, Greece is seen as more risky than Libya and Syria.

    Iran is being seen as most risky to invest in by CFOs, followed by Iraq, Greece, Syria and Libya.

    Interestingly, three of the four BRIC countries are considered among the top 20 risky markets, Russia ranks ninth, China 13th, and India 20th. This shows that, while BRIC countries are seen as attractive markets for investment, they also come with some inherent perceived risk.

    India among top-5 global investment destinations: Survey - Economic Times
     
  8. sunny_10

    sunny_10 BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    May 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    978
    E7 Growth Performance Trumps G7
    January 2012

    It is now three years since the Great Recession ended and profound changes are underway in the world economy. The global economic axis which had been shifting fundamentally away from the advanced economies of Europe and North America to the world’s emerging economies has accelerated sharply over the past four years. Moreover, living standards are rebalancing across the world, rising in the emerging countries but falling in the advanced countries.

    The global economy has been severely buffeted in the past few years as it lurches from one crisis to yet another. The bursting of the US housing bubble, the meltdown of the sub-prime mortgage market, the freezing of credit markets, the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the sovereign debt crisis, credit rating downgrades, and the very survivability of the eurozone, have all contributed to the unprecedented battering that is plaguing the global economy.

    It’s little wonder that the fallout from these crises has had a profound effect on the structure of the world economy. Interestingly, a comparison between the major advanced economies of the G7 and the seven largest emerging economies – the E7 – reveals some startling differences. Collectively, the E7 bloc which includes China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Russia, Turkey and Mexico now accounts for close to 31% of world GDP, up from 19% twenty years ago. During this same time period, the G7 has seen its share of world output fall from 51% to 38%.

    The impact of the global recession on the G7 and E7 economies has been quite varied. In a nutshell, while the recession and the ongoing economic malaise have knocked the wind out of the G7 economies, the impact on most of the E7 countries has been relatively muted. Five of the G7 economies – Britain, France, Italy, Japan, and the United States – all suffered back-to-back declines in GDP both in 2008 and 2009. Canada and Germany, however, posted declines in GDP on a calendar year basis only in 2009.

    In contrast, four members of the E7 group – Brazil, Mexico, Russia, and Turkey – experienced declines in economic activity only in 2009 with the fall in GDP ranging from a low of -0.6% in Brazil to a high of -7.8% in Russia. Moreover, the economies of China, India, and Indonesia rode out the financial storm and sailed through the global recession without posting a single negative year of growth.

    Since climbing out of the Great Recession, the recovery has been weak across the board for all the G7 economies and there are growing fears that another economic downturn may be unavoidable. For example, for the G7 group as a whole, growth in GDP averaged 2.7% in 2010 but weakened to 1.3% in 2011 and is expected to slip even further and average just 0.6% this year. In contrast, while a slowdown is also anticipated in all the major emerging economies because of the global inter-linkages, there is no talk of recession. Economic growth in the E7 averaged 7.5% in 2010, 6.0% in 2011 and is projected to slip to 5.2% this year.

    It is these divergent trends in growth that have significantly altered the global economic landscape. To put things in perspective, over the four year period from the end of 2007 through to 2011, only four of the G7 economies have regained their pre-recession levels of output. Canada has been the best performer in this group but despite that it is still only 3.1% larger than it was in 2007. The size of Germany’s economy, the second best performer, is 1.8% larger while the United States and French economies have just managed to move ahead of where they were in 2007.

    Three of the G7 economies – the United Kingdom, Japan, and Italy – have failed to recover the output lost from the 2008-09 recession and find themselves essentially stuck in what amounts to a long drawn-out economic slump. The UK economy is 2.6% smaller than it was in the pre-recession peak year of 2007, Japan’s is 4.2% smaller, and Italy’s is 4.7% smaller (see Table 2).

    In contrast to the G7 countries, the production of goods and services is bigger today in all the E7 economies than it was in 2007. China’s economy is 44.6% larger than it was before the crisis and despite a slowing down of growth its GDP is likely to expand by another 8.2% this year. Similarly, India’s economy is 34.6% larger, Indonesia’s is 25.2% and Brazil’s is 16.5% bigger. Even Mexico’s economy, which is 3.9% larger and, therefore is the E7’s worst performer, has outperformed every single member of the G7. :meeting:

    The major advanced economies now face years of struggle and none of them are likely to see a return to pre-crisis rates of growth for the next few years. Indeed, several of the G7 economies including Britain, France, Germany, and Italy could be heading back into recession as the recovery is increasingly showing signs of coming unstuck. Unemployment is rising again in Europe, retail sales are falling, and although inflation has started to edge down it still remains above central bank targets. Moreover, the need to reduce budget deficits and reign in unsustainable debt-to-GDP ratios – which are at alarmingly high levels in all the G7 economies – risks further entrenching the recessionary conditions in which these economies find themselves stuck.

    With the outlook for growth diverging sharply, the G7 countries are split into two camps – the United States and Canada are expected to grow at around 2% in 2012 and Japan’s economy is also likely to see its output rise by a similar amount as the country rebuilds from last year’s devasting tsumani and earthquake. On the other hand, the outlook for European economies is darkening. With the debt crisis in the eurozone countries continuing to swirl and showing no sign of easing, the IMF in its latest forecast expects the region’s GDP to contract by 0.5% this year. Italy, the regions third largest economy is projected to decline by 2.2%, by far the worst performer of any G7 economy.

    It is now abundantly clear that, more than two years after the end of the Great Recession, a sustained recovery remains stubbornly elusive for the major advanced economies. Despite massive amounts of monetary and fiscal stimulus, the rate of growth in all of the major advanced economies has been sharply below their respective long-term averages. Moreover, constrained by large debts and deficits, not a single G7 country is expected to achieve growth rates above, or even at, its long-term average for several more years. :no:

    In contrast, since 2007, growth in the economies of the E7, despite the ongoing global turbulence, has not deviated much from their long-term averages. By 2020 this bloc, given the current trends, will surpass the G7 and account for a greater share of world output. This, in turn, will lead to a shift in the current geo-political power structure. Whether this will be muted or more pronounced remains to be seen. :coffee:

    E7 Growth Performance Trumps G7 / Ranga Chand - International Economist and Financial Author
     
  9. sunny_10

    sunny_10 BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    May 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    978
    2013 Global Manufacturing Competitiveness Index
    November 16, 2012

    The U.S., the world’s largest economy, will slip to fifth place from third in manufacturing competitiveness in the next five years as India and Brazil race ahead, according to a report.

    China will remain in the top spot while India rises to second from fourth and Brazil jumps from eighth to third, according to the 2013 Global Manufacturing Competitiveness Index compiled by Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu and the U.S. Council on Competitiveness. The index, which was first introduced in 2010, reflects perceptions of more than 550 senior corporate leaders surveyed about how 38 countries rank currently and will fare in five years.

    Executives said access to talented workers is the top indicator of competitiveness, followed by a country’s trade, financial and tax policies, according to the report, which was to be published today.

    “From a U.S. perspective we didn’t change that much, but it’s just that others are moving rapidly,” Samuel Allen, chairman and chief executive officer of Deere & Co. (DE) and chairman of the council, said in a telephone interview. “We can’t tread water whether it be in education, tax reform or continued investment in infrastructure.”

    The current and future rankings reinforce the perception that the U.S. is “living off of investments we made a long time ago,” Allen said. He said he worries about factors such as deteriorating U.S. infrastructure that may increase costs to move goods, and energy policies that could boost fuel prices.

    ‘Continued Deterioration’

    While Deere, the world’s largest (DE) maker of farm equipment, has factories around the world, it still has invested about 57 percent of its capital in the U.S. in the last five years, Allen said. The Moline, Illinois-based manufacturer generated 61 percent of its revenue (DE) in the U.S. and Canada last year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

    “What you worry about is the continued deterioration of the critical success factors to manufacture here,” Allen said.

    The U.S. still can improve its competitiveness by reforming its tax structure and controlling its debt, Allen said.

    According to the report, Germany will move from second to fourth in the competitiveness ranking, South Korea will fall from fifth to sixth, Taiwan will go from sixth to seventh, Canada will drop from seventh to eighth, and Japan falls out of the top 10 list altogether, tumbling from 10th to 12th. Vietnam, meanwhile, will jump from 18th to 10th and Singapore will maintain its No. 9 ranking.

    ‘Sobering’ Findings

    Another “sobering” finding in the report is that in five years Germany will be the only European country in the top 15 spots for manufacturing competitiveness, as the U.K. and Poland slide, Allen said.

    The world is seeing a “power shift” of competitiveness toward developing countries, particularly those in Asia, said Deborah L. Wince-Smith, CEO of the Washington-based council that includes business, academic and labor leaders.

    China and other emerging countries are increasingly manufacturing advanced goods, said Craig Giffi, the U.S. consumer and industrial products industry leader at Deloitte who co-authored the report.

    While emerging manufacturing powers still face challenges in improving their infrastructure, supplier networks and legal systems, the countries are investing to drive growth and jobs, according to the report.

    “We are at an inflection point,” Giffi said. “For developed nations, it’s going to get harder.”

    Aside from the responses of top executives, the study was based on interviews with “key manufacturing players” and contributors from Deloitte, the council, the Indian Institute of Management in Lucknow, and Clemson University in South Carolina, according to the report.

    U.S. Competitiveness Slips as India Jumps in Five Years - Businessweek

     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2012
    2 people like this.
  10. brahmos_ii

    brahmos_ii Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2012
    Messages:
    3,791
    Likes Received:
    954
    Nice info man, thanks for contibution:india:
     
    1 person likes this.
  11. Himanshu Pandey

    Himanshu Pandey Don't get mad, get even. STAR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2011
    Messages:
    10,210
    Likes Received:
    4,220
    Country Flag:
    India
    Nice work sunny:tup:
     
    1 person likes this.
  12. sunny_10

    sunny_10 BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    May 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    978
    BRICs Share Of World Economy Up Four Times In 10 Years
    7/04/2012

    The economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China account for 20 percent of the world economic output, and rising. That’s up four fold in the last decade, according to a report released yesterday by the International Monetary Fund.

    Despite the growth, problems in the core economies had made the post-2008 world a difficult one for the big four emerging markets.

    Their combined stock-market value has dropped to a three-year low of 16 percent of the total invested in global equities, according to data compiled by Bloomberg . Jim O’Neill , the chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management who came up with the term BRIC in a November 2001 research report, said that the pull back in equity values makes BRIC market stocks “irresistible,” Bloomberg reported him saying on Wednesday. The last time the gap was this wide, in 2005, the MSCI BRIC Index jumped 53 percent in 12 months, more than double the gain in the MSCI All-Country World Index. :tup:

    “Unless we are seeing a major collapse of those economies, it’s a huge opportunity for investors,” O’Neill told the newswire.

    Audrey Kaplan, a fund manager at Federated InterContinental (RIMAX) said on Monday in an interview with Forbes that she had started investing in China for the first time in nearly years in the first quarter and is now overweight China and Brazil within the BRICs.

    “You want to own a lot of these big names when they’re cheap,” Kaplan said about Brazil’s large cap stocks which have underperformed the local BM&F Bovespa index all year. “We’re getting back into these names because they are very attractive at their recent price levels.”

    According to Bloomberg, BRIC equity value, which includes locally-traded shares and ADRs, has dropped to $7.6 trillion from $9.5 trillion a year ago, when they made up 18 percent of the global total. Petrobras (PBR), Brazil’s state run energy company, fell to the world’s 39th-largest company by value from the 10th-biggest in July 2011. China Construction Bank’s rank dropped to 20 from 12 while Rosneft , Russia’s largest oil producer, sank to 106 from 70. India’s ICICI Bank (IBN) has lost 17 percent of its market cap during the past year, compared with an average gain of 9 percent for global peers.

    The long term trend of rising standards of living remains in place for the BRICs, but investors still have to contend with market volatility related to problems in the advanced economies.

    Allan Conway, head of emerging markets at Schroder Investment Management, said the market still needs clarity on Europe. There’s no clear direction yet in global equities as a result.

    “In 2008, we beat the MSCI emerging markets index. The period we suffered most was 2010 when the market had no clear trend. Since then we’ve clawed back and are ahead by about 300 basis points over the MSCI EM and this year as of end of June up 250 basis points over MSCI EM. The challenge for us has been to stay ahead of the curve. If we wait for some incredible plan to come out of Europe, we miss 30 percent of the rally,” he said. “The trick in the coming months are to look for the sign points that show we have moved away from kicking the can down the road and are moving to more long lasting structural changes.”

    Dedicated emerging market investment funds that have a heavy weighting in the BRICs have posted 16 straight weeks of withdrawals , losing a net $5.3 billion, according to Cambridge, Mass based fund tracking firm EPFR Global.

    The BRIC economies are slowing. They’ve expanded by 4.8 percent on average during the first quarter, but that’s down from nearly 7 percent last year.

    [​IMG]

    BRICs Share Of World Economy Up Four Times In 10 Years - Forbes
     
    1 person likes this.
  13. sunny_10

    sunny_10 BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    May 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    978
    the man behind growth storey of India since 1991... :what:

    but in fact, Pakistan itself copied its economic policy from China, ASEAN region who adopted this open market strategy since 70s. and then after learning from their experience of over a decade, then only Mr Nawaz Sharif adopted economic liberalization in Pakistan in 1990. and here Mr Nawaz Sharif can only say that India copied and learned from China, ASEAN, Pakistan all and then they adopted the path of industrialization in 1991 :meeting:

    but yes the only credit goes to Mr Nawaz Sharif that he is the man who first introduced economic liberalization in South Asia region :agree:

     
  14. sunny_10

    sunny_10 BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    May 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    978
    I would compare India with the Asian Newly Industrialized Countries as below, leaving Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore as they are among the industrialized nations and Malaysia is too small to be compared.....

    => Newly industrialized country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    hence, we have "Average Growth Rate" of last 32 years of China, India, Philippines, Thailand, including Indonesia as below: (since 1980)

    here we can see that India could maintain around 6.3% growth rate for the 31 years of 1981 to 2011, which is quite high as compare to the 3 biggest economies of ASEAN. but population growth rate of around 1.9% since 1981 has added 500mil extra people during this period, which has pulled India down. hence India's per capita income is around same as that of Philippines, Indonesia...::tsk:

    and here we have a "miracle" growth rate of China, around 10% for the last 32 years to 2011, with controlling its population too through One Child Policy etc, and hence its per capita income is around 3 times to that of India while per capita income of India was higher than that of China till 1991, the year when economic reforms took place in India.......

    => hence even if India now has around 350mil Middle Class whose per capiat Income would stand at around $20,000 on PPP as below, India is still a poor country. 350mil population is in fact more than total population at the time of freedom of India, 1947, but its still a poor country because of around extra 600mil population :toilet:

     
  15. sunny_10

    sunny_10 BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    May 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    978
    BRIC's Composite PMI for December 2012:
    Markit Economics - Press releases

    1st, Brazil:

    The seasonally adjusted HSBC Brazil Composite Output Index posted 53.2 in December, up from 53.0 in November

    http://www.markiteconomics.com/MarkitFiles/Pages/ViewPressRelease.aspx?ID=10510

    2nd, Russia:

    Remaining above the 50.0 no-change threshold for the twenty-eighth month in succession in December, the Index eased to 56.1, from 57.1 in November.

    http://www.markiteconomics.com/MarkitFiles/Pages/ViewPressRelease.aspx?ID=10498

    3rd, India:

    The HSBC India Composite Output Index posted 56.3 in December, up from 53.2 in November.

    http://www.markiteconomics.com/MarkitFiles/Pages/ViewPressRelease.aspx?ID=10507

    4th, China:

    The HSBC China Composite Output Index posted 51.8 in December, up from 51.6 in November.

    http://www.markiteconomics.com/MarkitFiles/Pages/ViewPressRelease.aspx?ID=10556
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page