Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: It is the Population -Stupid

  1. #1

    Arrow It is the Population -Stupid

    The following news was headlined by several Indian newspapares, including Hindustan Times. Feels good - doesn't it - to know that we are 12th richest nation in the world and even wealthier than Australia.
    **************
    India 12th richest nation in 2005: World Bank

    Press Trust of India

    Washington, July 8, 2006

    India has emerged as the 12th wealthiest nation in the world with its GDP touching $785.47 billion or Rs 35,34,615 crore in 2005, calculated by the World Bank.
    US was the wealthiest nation with GDP of $12.46 trillion, according to a list of 15 wealthiest countries prepared by the World Bank in terms of their gross domestic product.
    The GDP figures have been adjusted to reflect purchasing power.
    While India was way down compared to China, positioned fourth with $2.23 trillion of GDP, it was wealthier than Mexico, Russia and Australia.
    The first nine countries had GDP of more than $1 trillion.
    The United States was followed by Japan with $4.51 trillion and Germany $2.78 trillion.
    Britain, France and Italy occupied fifth, sixth and seventh rank with GDP of $2.19 trillion, $2.11 trillion and $1.72 trillion, respectively.
    Next came Spain, Canada, Brazil and South Korea with their GDP estimated at $1.124 trillion, $1.115 trillion, $794.10 billion and $787.62 billion, respectively.
    There was no African country among the 15 richest nations, while India was the only south Asian country in the list.

    ****************

    But let us not stop here. Analyze further. Our joy may be overplayed.

    Below I cite the populations of the 12 nations with GDP listed above,and their per capita income. The first figure is GDP, the second number is population in millions and the figure in brackets in per capita income in US dollars.

    USA 12.47 T 299 M ($41706)
    JAPAN 4.51 T 127.76 M ($35300)
    GERMANY 2.78 T 82.47 M ($33709)
    CHINA 2.23 T 1308 M ($1704)
    BRITAIN 2.19 T 60 M ($36500)
    FRANCE 2.11 T 60.65 M ($34790)
    ITALY 1.72 T 58.1 M ($29604)
    SPAIN 1.124 T 40.34 M ($27863)
    CANADA 1.115 T 32.8 M ($35061)
    BRAZIL 794.1 B 186.1 M ($4267)
    S. KOREA 787.62 B 48.6 M ($16206)
    INDIA 785.47 B 1100 M ($714)

    __________
    Now poor Australia had 2005 GDP worth 730 billion US dollars only. This number is surely less than the GDP of India - a whopping 785.47 billion. BUT the population of Australia is about 20 million only. Then the 2005 per capita income in Australia was $36500, which makes Australia next to only the US and equal to England in per capita income.

    Moral: It is the population stupid in India, that is why the country is poor! We are busy producing babies rather consumer goods.
    Keep thinking, it always helps !!!!!

    Budh Nashier, M.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.

  2. #2

    We Don't Want To Do Any Thing Either

    Dear Budh Ji,

    A good analysis.

    It is for the decades we know our problem with family planning and effects of large population on the economy, however we seems to be doing nothing to solve that problem.

    During emergency a population control drive was tried by the government, however due to poor implementation it turned out to be a political fiasco for the ruling party.

    Since then "population control" has become untouchable agenda. We are unable to force family planning policies specially to the section of the society that is largely responsible for the population growth. The minority tag further complicates the problem. While many Islamic countries do observe the birth control measures, in our country it becomes against the religion.

    No political party is taking up this agenda for petty political reasons. We need to come out of it and take up the issue afreash at national and regional level rising above party politics. Let no religion interfere with the law of the land.
    Col (Retd) Virendra Tavathia


    "A person should not be judged by the nature of his/her job, but the manner in which he/she does that".

  3. #3
    I just couldnt resist myself from headbutting into this thread.

    Pupulation hardly makes any difference. There is no such thing as ove-population. We have been screaming about over-population for a long time now. Yet, people are living longer. Standard of living is alsy improving. For some reason things are getting better, and the world is a becoming a much better place to live in.

    I know manyof you will disagree with me. But, back your argument with facts. If you personally think that the world is not a much better plac to live in becuase of all the wars going on, that would be an invalid argument becuase even in the worst places in the world the economic sitution for an average person is improving in general. Extremes are always there.

    I believe that instead of focussing on general indicators like Per capita income, we must focus on individual entreprenurial capabilities. A highly entreprenurial person can create more wealth than thousands lacking the skills, put together.

  4. #4
    Hi Sumit,

    Bhai over population does matter....esp if the country is poor.

    Burden on Natural (and all other) resources at every level, slow or no progress of the society.

    India does need population control.

    Deepak
    Last edited by deepakchoudhry; July 14th, 2006 at 01:27 PM.
    "Mine is a peaceful religion, I will kill you if you insult it"

  5. #5
    Budh Ji,

    Thanks for raising an interesting topic. Production is only half the story. Cycle does not get completed unless we take into account consumption by our population. It’s the difference of two, which matters more I suppose than anything lese if we just take a purely commercial approach to whole thing. Our population might be producing less, but it certainly consumes even lesser. I don't know what one would say to that. Consuming less might be a poor indicator for some, but to me its not so. Selective less consumption might be rather good environmentally and even otherwise.

    RK^2

  6. #6

    point missed

    Dear Sumit:

    Yes, the world is moving at a faster pace with all the developments. But the precise point here that it is the number of people at any place that plays in the equation.

    Think as basic as this. A given amount of resources/production being divided among 10 people or 100 people! A single bus being boarded by 20 or 80 people! A given job opportunity being eyeing at by 15 or 1500 people! It is as simple an economics as this.

    Hope this clarifies the issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by dahiyarules View Post
    I just couldnt resist myself from headbutting into this thread.

    Pupulation hardly makes any difference. There is no such thing as ove-population. We have been screaming about over-population for a long time now. Yet, people are living longer. Standard of living is alsy improving. For some reason things are getting better, and the world is a becoming a much better place to live in.

    I know manyof you will disagree with me. But, back your argument with facts. If you personally think that the world is not a much better plac to live in becuase of all the wars going on, that would be an invalid argument becuase even in the worst places in the world the economic sitution for an average person is improving in general. Extremes are always there.

    I believe that instead of focussing on general indicators like Per capita income, we must focus on individual entreprenurial capabilities. A highly entreprenurial person can create more wealth than thousands lacking the skills, put together.
    Keep thinking, it always helps !!!!!

    Budh Nashier, M.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.

  7. #7

    Indeed,

    Rajendra Bhai:

    You just said it. We are producing less and consuming even lesser. And that defines our poor standards of living as nation, where 70 percent of people are living below poverty level by any measures. We got a population problem out of control.

    Quote Originally Posted by rkumar View Post
    Budh Ji,

    Thanks for raising an interesting topic. Production is only half the story. Cycle does not get completed unless we take into account consumption by our population. It’s the difference of two, which matters more I suppose than anything lese if we just take a purely commercial approach to whole thing. Our population might be producing less, but it certainly consumes even lesser. I don't know what one would say to that. Consuming less might be a poor indicator for some, but to me its not so. Selective less consumption might be rather good environmentally and even otherwise.

    RK^2
    Keep thinking, it always helps !!!!!

    Budh Nashier, M.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •