Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Throwaway08080909070 t1_je1scmp wrote

Still a developing country though, right? Quarter trillion in exports, a space program and nuclear arsenal.

Developing.

−49

Reselects420 t1_je1wtde wrote

Look at GDP per capita. Iraq has GDP per capita twice that of India. You going to call Iraq a developed country?

66

Throwaway08080909070 t1_je1x8va wrote

I would point out that per capita GDP is just one metric, not the whole.

−42

Reselects420 t1_je1xey8 wrote

GDP per capita is the main metric used to label a country “developing”. If you decide to ignore the most key metric, you’re choosing to be a moron.

62

Throwaway08080909070 t1_je1xlxp wrote

I'm choosing to look at something other than India's astonishing capacity to produce new humans, such as their membership in a small club as a nuclear power with a space program, and VAST exports.

I'm also choosing not to insult you despite your need to descend to that level.

−37

Reselects420 t1_je1yimn wrote

You can’t just make up your own metric of judging whether a country is developed or developing, and decide that everyone should update their dictionary.

Pakistan is a nuclear power with a GDP per capita only a little lower than India’s. Is Pakistan a developed country?

Here, I’ll do one better. Iran. Higher GDP per capita than India, space program, possibly nuclear status soon. Are they a developed country? If not, is it just the figure of exports that matters, not the distribution of that figure?

49

Throwaway08080909070 t1_je1yruy wrote

> Pakistan is a nuclear power with a GDP per capita only a little lower than India’s. Is Pakistan a developed country?

But they lack a space program and nearly a trillion in exports. And again "per capita" vs "total" is worth acknowledging, even if you reject its role in defining development.

> Here, I’ll do one better. Iran. Higher GDP per capita than India, space program, possibly nuclear status soon. Are they a developed country? If not, is it just the figure of exports that matters, not the distribution of that figure?

It's the combination of factors, as I've said from the start.

−6

meabandit t1_je30b8n wrote

Your definition might work for you but we can't all come ask you when we need to know right? So maybe let's use a common definition, mkay?

27

brinjal_ke_kama t1_je3e1pk wrote

Look at the population numbers too dumbass.

26

Throwaway08080909070 t1_je3e9fa wrote

Generally population is a benefit, as in the case of China, which has the same population. After all more people = more people to generate GDP, which is why China has the world's second largest GDP.

India... well population appears to hit differently in India.

−5

brinjal_ke_kama t1_je3enqd wrote

Yeah and that's why stuff like big manufacturing and exports is needed. To raise the GDP per capita.

And while boon of high population is higher export numbers, its bane is that GDP per capita growth is slower.

But you'll ignore that, of course. Cos mom's basement feels nicer that way.

27

Throwaway08080909070 t1_je3eved wrote

Again... China seems to manage with six+ times the GDP of India, and they were colonized as well, plus they went through that dreadful period of actually trying to be Communist.

1.4 billion people in India, 1.4 billion people in China.

−4

brinjal_ke_kama t1_je3f0lx wrote

China started opening its markets in the 70s while India did it in the 90s.

Man stop being dumb on reddit and read some useful stuff.

35

Throwaway08080909070 t1_je3f5ti wrote

I guess you should have opened your markets a bit earlier. 🤷‍♂️

−4

perrinlighteyes t1_je44eyw wrote

China also killed millions of its people in the great leap forward.

Pardon me if we don't follow the same approach

16