Comments
NewParsnip9411 t1_j6mqa1k wrote
How tf will china grow 5.2%?
SnootyPangolin t1_j6msovv wrote
I think it's a bounce back from reopening, but it probably won't be sustainable
mshriver2 t1_j6oo2xe wrote
Maybe they grew 5% after the 30% this lost over the last few years? That's all I could possibly think of as China's economy is currently collapsing not "growing".
Train-Robbery t1_j6og37c wrote
Statistics can be whatever they want, every independent journalist has committed suicide by beating himself to death in China
Ok-Class6897 t1_j6p4ris wrote
India's population is the largest in the world, so it's no surprise
Youngerthandumb t1_j6pdrmq wrote
It's also a very young population overall, which helps.
https://indbiz.gov.in/one-of-the-youngest-populations-in-the-world-indias-most-valuable-asset/
Nightshade238 t1_j6mc5b6 wrote
Every time I see one of these headlines I just think, but who is really profiting from the growth here? The individual workers? The companies? The government? Supposedly all of them but rarely is it the first case.
creativename87639 t1_j6mqy8q wrote
India is an industrializing country, it will start off with horrendous worker rights and such similar to the US in the early to mid 20th century.
Workers rights and equality come with time.
wefarrell t1_j6on3nz wrote
Why do you say that?
Chinese workers are in a far better position now than they were 50 years ago. Same with workers in the US at the beginning of the 20th century vs the end.
Indus-ian t1_j6mj5hk wrote
A rising tide lifts all boats
Nightshade238 t1_j6mjjla wrote
But only if the others are still able to float.
Indus-ian t1_j6mk7vv wrote
India experienced a socialist system for its first five decades which made people poor. With the opening up of economy, lot of people were pulled out of poverty.
But here the focus seems to be wondering why the rich got richer rather than thinking did the poor got better in the same time? The answer is yes.
SentientHotdogWater t1_j6n9nv7 wrote
>India experienced a socialist system for its first five decades which made people poor.
Yep, that's what made India poor. Definitely didn't have anything to do with centuries of British colonialism.
Indus-ian t1_j6nbqr8 wrote
Yes the colonial occupation was the biggest cause. But when India got independence it could have charted a better economic model for faster prosperity.
SentientHotdogWater t1_j6ndp0b wrote
Can you give me an example of a post-colonial nation that was able to become economically prosperous immediately after obtaining freedom using only free market capitalist economics?
Indus-ian t1_j6nf9fe wrote
I didn’t claim an immediate prosperity from a colonial rule.
I can’t really fault the economic policies from independence to around 60’s. What caused the slow growth was a bunch of economic policies that included nationalisation in the 70s. That crippled the economy and almost went bankrupt in late eighties and nineties.
vubjof t1_j6o1316 wrote
baltics
thankful-wax-5500 t1_j6pel5p wrote
It's says lift all boats. Can't help ya if you're hanging on to some driftwood lmao.
SentientHotdogWater t1_j6n9egu wrote
>A rising tide lifts all boats
It also drowns the people who can't afford boats...
Indus-ian t1_j6nbyzc wrote
It is strange that every economic metric shows open economy improved the quality of life for the poor and lifted them from poverty but somehow economic growth is the problem here
SentientHotdogWater t1_j6ne99a wrote
Embracing free market trickle down economics actually lowered the quality of life for the poor in my county.
Indus-ian t1_j6nfkp9 wrote
Can’t compare countries with different levels of growth and in different phases.
Socialism is a rich country’s economic model. One has to reach sufficient levels of prosperity and wealth to start dabbling in that
SentientHotdogWater t1_j6nm0qe wrote
This would seem to conflict with your earlier assertion that a rising tide lifts all boats?
Indus-ian t1_j6nx9b3 wrote
That’s a very specific instance of tax cuts which may or may not be applicable elsewhere.
hansobolo t1_j6mn9vj wrote
Yes but why is this the same as a rising tide?
Indus-ian t1_j6mngkz wrote
Because OP asked who does this growth benefit, listing out a few things. Like how a rising tide lift all kinds of boats this high growth should help all sections of the country
hansobolo t1_j6mnmgn wrote
How does he know it will?
Comparing it to a tide doesn't make sense. It's like saying "this government policy is like someone who helps kittens, you know good"
Basically it's like a trick because you don't know if it will raise everyone up
Indus-ian t1_j6mnw75 wrote
There are charts which plot how many people were pulled out of poverty, it has consistently been on the increase over the years. Way more than when india was wallowing in socialist policies.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India
> India has achieved annual growth exceeding 7 percent over the last 15 years and continues to pull millions of people out of poverty, according to the World Bank. The country has halved its poverty rate over the past three decades and has seen strong improvements in most human development outcomes, a report by the international financial institution has found. Growth is expected to continue and the elimination of extreme poverty in the next decade is within reach, said the bank, which warned that the country's development trajectory faces considerable challenges.[1
hansobolo t1_j6mo0op wrote
How do you know these charts are correct?
Indus-ian t1_j6moc9d wrote
Okay I think at this point you’re trolling.
Sorry that you find Indian poverty reduction so troubling. Scratch that, not sorry at all. Happy to see you upset
Spiritual-Fan5642 t1_j6nqfpx wrote
How do you know / how can you prove that they are wrong?
hansobolo t1_j6nz7hl wrote
Spiritual-Fan5642 t1_j6o5hjr wrote
You are a burden on your OWN self.
Savage_X t1_j6pio6s wrote
> but rarely is it the first case
I take it you have never been in a rural area in a developing nation.
Much of this growth is going towards basic things we take for granted like indoor plumbing and electricity.
Youngerthandumb t1_j6mcsgv wrote
Doesn't seem great for the lower classes.
"In India, the share of the national income of the bottom 50% has decreased by around 40% since 1980 (Figure 7). In contrast, the share of the national income of the top 10% has increased by around 80% (Figure 8) and the share of the top 1% has increased by around 180% since 1980 (Figure 9). "
Cultural_Flounder107 t1_j6o5sgz wrote
This doesn't mean the bottom 50% got poorer though. In fact, the graph just above what is written in the article says otherwise.
Youngerthandumb t1_j6oab0j wrote
Which graph are you referring to?
Cultural_Flounder107 t1_j6paj98 wrote
The chart/ table. English is not my first language. What I mean is if the bottom 50% represent 20% of the economy and, after ten years, they represent 50% less of it and the economy gets three times bigger, they actually got richer. The table shows the bottom 50% got consistently way richer.
Youngerthandumb t1_j6pbko8 wrote
You're not wrong. Overall, they may be better off on paper, notwithstanding changes in cost of living. However, relative to the upper classes, they are worse off than they would be if the upper classes hadn't gobbled up a disproportionate part of the increased wealth of the nation. Extreme poverty is still a giant problem in India and I think it's unjust that they should see their proportion of wealth decrease (by 40% since the 80s!), even if their total wealth increased somewhat.
Reselects420 t1_j6mcwws wrote
Do you have figures from developed countries that we could use to compare here?
Youngerthandumb t1_j6mdx3p wrote
Global inequality is on the rise. The figures are similar everywhere. It's cliche but, the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer, at least since the 70s.
Reselects420 t1_j6me113 wrote
Ah but this is since the covid pandemic.
Youngerthandumb t1_j6me4ux wrote
You can look at the Oxfam reports going back in the years. I'm not an expert, but the figures are pretty damning.
Here's 2016
https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-will-own-more-all-rest-2016
Spiritual-Fan5642 t1_j6npzof wrote
So what you really want to say is tgat inequality is a GLOBAL and historical problem.
Youngerthandumb t1_j6nqasu wrote
I did say that. However, this thread is about India. I'll quote myself, "Global inequality is on the rise. The figures are similar everywhere."
Spiritual-Fan5642 t1_j6o5wd3 wrote
....and historically speaking not much has really changed besides population and concentration of wealth.
But nah, go right ahead and be pedantic about it with incomplete context.
Youngerthandumb t1_j6o9hk8 wrote
pedantic because I'm using numbers to make an argument? That's a new one.
[deleted] t1_j6nml1o wrote
[deleted]
Youngerthandumb t1_j6npuy7 wrote
How is 50% of the population, which has grown numerically, sharing 40% less wealth a good thing? Great news for the already wealthy I guess.
[deleted] t1_j6nroin wrote
[deleted]
Youngerthandumb t1_j6nt984 wrote
And what about the other 900 million people? What are they one small step away from? Abject poverty. They're certainly not improving their lot.
Also: The top 10% are, by definition, relatively wealthy. Stop trying to pretend otherwise.
Indus-ian t1_j6mj6u1 wrote
Did the national income overall increase?
autotldr t1_j6mdvow wrote
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 62%. (I'm a bot)
> The International Monetary Fund on Tuesday released its latest projections on world economic growth and predicted a dip in the Indian economy from 6.8 per cent in 2022 to 6.1 per cent in 2023.
> The global economy is estimated to take a plunge to 2.9 per cent in the next fiscal year, slowing down from 3.4 per cent in the current fiscal year until March.
> A marginal rise in growth has been projected for emerging market and developing economies from 3.9 per cent in 2022 to 4 per cent in 2023, while advanced economies are expected to slump with a decline from 2.7 per cent to 1.2 per cent and 1.4 per cent this year and next.
Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: per^#1 cent^#2 economy^#3 growth^#4 year^#5
[deleted] t1_j6o6pne wrote
[deleted]
henna74 t1_j6mfgaa wrote
Ah China and their 100% not artifically manufactured growth numbers
Solitude20 t1_j6p3k9k wrote
That’s what the IMF predicts, not China.
henna74 t1_j6p4ftf wrote
And how do they predict it? By asking for projected company growth. And as far as i know, the majority of chinese companies are state owned ..
[deleted] t1_j6nzctw wrote
[deleted]
DemonsRage83 t1_j6mfgl8 wrote
Who knew CALL CENTERS could be so PROFITABLE!
i_miss_my_childhood t1_j6mycyg wrote
Too bad, peeps working in call center have sent probe on Mars
DemonsRage83 t1_j6n45qg wrote
If you're working in a call center, you have not sent a probe to Mars.
i_miss_my_childhood t1_j6nah4k wrote
But according to you, everyone in India works in call center. Apparently India has also sent probe to mars. So you contradicted yourself
DemonsRage83 t1_j6nbt1t wrote
Show me where I said, "Everyone in India works in a call center". Yes, I know they've sent a probe. Proud of them. Space centers and call centers are not the same thing. Where's my contradiction?
i_miss_my_childhood t1_j6nclee wrote
Too bad, you didn't get it
DemonsRage83 t1_j6neogx wrote
Anyone working in a call center isn't sending a probe to Mars.
I'm not sure there's anything for me to get. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
henna74 t1_j6nqrlw wrote
Bro just stop. You fucked up.
DemonsRage83 t1_j6ntd87 wrote
I didn't fuck up anywhere, Henna.
If you can't differentiate between a call center and a space center, that's your own goddamn problem.
[deleted] t1_j6nu320 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6o6t2b wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6mvadi wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6nnahz wrote
[deleted]
pplanes0099 t1_j6mauhd wrote
Yay go India 🇮🇳