
India to topple Japan as world's 3rd-largest economy - Garbage
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/India-to-topple-Japan-as-worlds-3rd-largest-economy/articleshow/10052481.cms
======
ashishgandhi
India to finally (hopefully) "topple" war-troublled Iraq as the world's 128th
country in terms of income per capita by purchasing power parity.
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_\(PPP\)_per_capita))

Or Mongolia for the 133rd position, depends upon who's list you look at.

Don't forget the huge income inequality.

~~~
jagira
Per capita income is extremely low in India. But things are improving.

India's growth is mainly because of growth of service industry, manufacturing
and modern agriculture techniques. The countries that you have mentioned have
higher per capita income because of huge natural resources and less
population.

Iraq -> Huge Oil reserves / Small population

Mongolia -> Huge mineral resources / tiny population

~~~
ashishgandhi
The countries I mention here are because they are directly above India on that
list.

I'm hoping you are not trying to say you need a lot of natural resources and
less population to be rich.

Singapore -> Almost no resources, pretty dense population. Singapore is much
much ahead.

------
dr_
I'm not sure what it means to be a large economy anymore. If you roam around
any of the cities in India, you see nothing but a third world nation, with
rampant poverty and horrific infrastructure. And of course in the villages,
it's even worse. And businesses apparently have had difficulty dealing with
the corruption in the Indian government.

The country has such a long way to go before it can stand on the same footing
as the US or even some of the European countries whose economies it is
supposedly surpassing.

~~~
josefresco
From what I read you're accurate. You could also make the argument that you
could replace the word "India" with "China" and not be too far off in
describing another huge economy.

~~~
dr_
This may be true on the outskirts, but in the cities, China has made huge
advances, especially with infrastructure, roads, railway, etc. Of course, this
is not true for all of China.

~~~
Symmetry
The bottom 5% of households in the US still earn about the same amount as the
top 5% of households in China. If we were talking about the top 1% it would be
totally different, but still China is overall much poorer than the US - even
in the cities.

EDIT: Also contrast it with Brazil, where the bottom 5% make about the same as
the bottom 5% of China, while the top 5% make almost what the top 5% in the US
make.

~~~
potatolicious
In absolute amounts sure, but that's irrelevant to spending power or quality
of life.

The bottom 5% of households in the US make nominally more than the top 5% of
households in China, but I'm willing to be the bottom 5% in the US lives _far_
worse than the top 5% in China.

------
HSO
terrible headline. my dictionary says:

to topple: verb [ no obj. ] overbalance or become unsteady and fall slowly [
with obj. ] cause to fall in such a way

india rising does not cause japan to fall, in any way.

also, there's a certain triumphalism in such headlines that is, i contend,
unworthy of a confident nation and of HN.

last but not least, the measure used is highly flawed, given that the headline
seems to aim at india's rising "standing" in world affairs. when you do that,
the actual exchange rate counts, not PPP. and there, the picture looks a
little different.

just to be clear: none of which is to detract from india's great progress in
the last 10 or 20 years, or from its talented population. it's just that this
article/headline strikes me as cheap.

~~~
sassyboy
That sort of sensationalist headline is expected from the indiatimes group.

~~~
pnathan
And what media groups are reputable in India?

~~~
mouly
thehindu.com is reputed. They are independent and practice quality journalism

~~~
ashishgandhi
They may be the lesser evil, but I would still say they are nothing close to
what NYTimes is. (If you are looking for reputation on that scale.)

Moreover I've often seen the Times of India publishing most of BBC (India
region) stories from the day before. Might as well follow that.

~~~
zengr
My friend, you haven't read The Hindu I believe.

------
dimmuborgir
Wow lot of pessimism and cynicism here.

> _'...but per-capita income of India is so low'_

No one has said otherwise. Having a big economy has many advantages and India
is expected to grow for decades to come.

> _'...but go to Indian cities and you'll see rampant poverty'_

So? Poor people migrate to cities in search of opportunities. Unlike China
there is no mechanism in India to put restrictions on rural migrants.

> _'...gap between rich and poor in India is growing'_

Show me one country that is growing 5% or more where the gap between rich and
poor is decreasing.

------
sagarun
I am sure India has improved a lot! But India has lot of other problems,

1\. India has a family centric society , where welfare of the family gets
priority than the welfare of the nation, which is one of the factor for
rampant corruption (IMO).

2\. The infrastructure is poor.

3\. The divide between rich and poor is high! (income inequality)

4\. The Public sector is very slow to respond to the growing needs of
infrastructure! They have no clue at all!

5\. There is still caste system in rural India, where they don't respect
fellow country men as a human being.

6\. The politics is only for the rich and heirs of powerful politicians (the
parliament is filled with sons and daughters of old politicians read:family
business)

India has a long way to go!

~~~
tsycho
I agree with most of your points, but I don't think #1 (family-centric
society) is the problem, or even a direct driver of corruption. If you were
referring to nepotism, then I think that exists all over the world. An overall
corrupt climate just makes it easier to practice nepotism.

~~~
mynameishere
I know nothing about India but the "family-centric" stuff is easier to
understand as a problem if you phrase it "clannish". And that is actually a
huge problem in some areas.

------
pixpox30
Triumphalism without much actual substance. The Japanese have an amazing
standard of living, superb infrastructure, world beating products and awesome
tech.

If you wander around a big city in India you'll see wild dogs and malnourished
children, enormous shanty towns and slums. How this nationalistic rag called
the india times can proclaim "victory" as having "toppled" Japan is beyond me.

Also - claiming that Russia and India are coming to the aid of European
countries is completely ridiculous. India currently receives £1billion + in
aid from the UK.

Having a "big" economy because there are 1 billion citizens within that
economy doesn't mean anything in itself.

------
rrrazdan
I see lots of comments about income inequality in India. I find them very
amusing. Refer
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equ...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality).
You would see that India's income inequality is less than Switzerland, France
and the Netherlands. The pressing problem in India right now is not income
inequality. Its the lack of income, really. At this stage of development all
India should worry about is earning wealth. Trying to redistribute that is a
'premature optimization'. :)

~~~
hristov
Not true. If you look at the GINI index (which is probably the most accurate
measure for high inequality) India is quite higher than all those countries.
And almost every country higher than India has significant economic problems.
The only exception is Hong Kong and that is because its income inequality is
obviously caused by capital flight from mainland China.

The other indexes do not capture the true nature if income inequality in these
modern times. Comparing the top 10% of income earners with the bottom 10%
washes things out because the truly rich are a very small group. They are a
mere fraction of the top 1%.

~~~
chakde
Well comparing GINI across similar sized countries: India (36.8), Russia
(39.9), US (40.8), China (46.9), Brazil (49.3), India is the lowest of the
group.

While its true that most european countries have slightly lower GINI, they
also have a higher 10% ratio (highest to lowest) than India.

So it's pretty hard to argue from the actual statistics that inequality is the
outstanding problem of India as it is often made out to be.

But it's perhaps true that the contrast is more visible in India than
elsewhere - with slums next to high rises.

I think the reason for this is that growth is relatively narrowly focussed
around a few metros, which then attracts a big influx of job seeking rural
population. The other big countries never had such a big rural population to
begin with.

------
csomar
There is something that I'm missing. World Bank says that India GDP is $1.377
trillion, Wikipedia too.

But there is this "PPP" thing, which turns India GDP to $4 trillion. Which one
is more relevant in this case?

~~~
train_robber
To put it really simplistically : From the perspective of everything within
India - PPP is what matters; because it takes into consideration the cost of
living. But from the perspective of everything outside India - the absolute
figure is what matters.

~~~
csomar
If we are talking of things from the perspective within India, then it doesn't
make sense to compare to Japan? If I'm comparing to Japan, then I'm going
outside and I should use the nominal GDP, right?

~~~
train_robber
You are right. Times of India is not a newspaper you would consider as
'sensible'. They love sensationalism and hyperbole.

~~~
csomar
I don't find this hyperbole, but rather a completely misleading title and
analysis.

------
amolsarva
One point many commenters are missing.

Yes the country is plainly less rich than Japan and the first world, and it
shows in big cities. Even comparing big cities in China to India there is a
big gap.

But here is what you are missing: as total wealth in India is growing there
are indeed some places (which the casual tourist driving around will not see)
centered in Mumbai, Bangalore, Delhi that are super rich. One way to spy on it
is visit one of the "five star" hotels like JW Marriots etc -- they are
numerous, massive, and full of quite rich people with loads of servants and
fancy places to live.

By the way, you can find loads of disgustingly miserable poor places in the
rich USA too. Maybe they all have sewers and electricity but that's about all
that separates parts of the rural US (deep south) or bad urban poverty (right
nearby me in NYC) and some villages in India.

~~~
byoung2
_By the way, you can find loads of disgustingly miserable poor places in the
rich USA too. Maybe they all have sewers and electricity but that's about all
that separates parts of the rural US (deep south) or bad urban poverty (right
nearby me in NYC) and some villages in India._

Even the poorest place in the US has access to electricity, clean water,
sewage disposal, trash disposal, law enforcement, emergency response, phone
service, broadcast television, postal service, and the list goes on. This is
definitely not true in India or China, and there is a long way to go before
they reach that level.

~~~
jesseendahl
It's not quite true that the poorest areas of the U.S have access to those
things. Check out these two links about colonias:

[http://journalism.berkeley.edu/projects/border/elpasocolonia...](http://journalism.berkeley.edu/projects/border/elpasocolonias.html)
<http://www.sos.state.tx.us/border/colonias/faqs.shtml>

And two New York Times articles from July:

<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/us/08ttconditions.html>
<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/us/10tthealth.html>

~~~
mturmon
Thanks for those links, I didn't know about colonias. You can go to some
unincorporated areas around LA and find similar surprising backwardness --
like people living in unheated garages without running water.

Nothing like India, though, where you don't have to go out of your way to find
really exceptional poverty and deprivation.

~~~
byoung2
_You can go to some unincorporated areas around LA and find similar surprising
backwardness -- like people living in unheated garages without running water_

I think you are confusing the availability of infrastructure with the ability
to pay for it. Anywhere in the US that is zoned for residential use will have
access to clean water, sewage, trash pickup, mail, broadcast television,
landline phone, police, fire, etc. So this garage, if it is in a residential
area, and is up to code, will have access to these services, assuming the
owners or occupants are willing and able to pay for it. I could go live in the
garage at the Playboy Mansion, and I wouldn't have running water or heat their
either. That says more about my personal living conditions than the
infrastructure the government provides.

~~~
mturmon
OK, I guess I don't see such a clear distinction between the two concepts
("available, but can't afford it" and "not available").

As I tried to say above, I agree that it's a denial of reality to equate India
with the U.S. along the "poor infrastructure" axis -- based on some
particularly bad examples. I believe we're in agreement about that.

------
brainless
Sitting in India, and looking at that headline makes me feel journalism is
absolutely wrong here, or at least in India Times.

There is no doubt India will become one of the richest economies, but right
now we have so many problems we must fix. This headline gives the illusion
that everything is just about perfect.

~~~
thewisedude
There will always be problems. You think USA does not have significant
problems ? You think Europe does not have significant problems?

I dont think any country at any time was "perfect" and I dont think the
headline is conveying that in any form

------
mihaifm
In terms of nominal GDP they are still far behind (India 10th place, Japan
3rd), but they score well at PPP due to low costs of living.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomin...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_\(nominal\))

------
cottonseed
I think per-capita GDP is much more interesting than total GDP. Japan: 34k/yr,
India: 3k/yr (source: wikipedia).

------
Triumvark
India has almost 10 times the population:
[http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=population+of+india+%2F...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=population+of+india+%2F+population+of+japan)

~~~
brador
So it's basically quantity over quality?

------
aita
I wonder how people of india are so happy when compared to developed nations.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Planet_Index>

~~~
jquery
HPI = (Self-reported happiness + Life Expectancy) / (Eco-footprint) ?

Yeah, no. The HPI is not a measure of the happiness of a nation, it's a
measure of _self-reported_ happiness per unit of "imposition on nature." And
according to that index, we should all strive to be like the Dominican
Republic, Vietnam, Columbia, and Cuba. No thanks.

~~~
chakde
Sustainability and environment count for something. Perhaps a lot. Self-
reported happiness obviously counts for a lot.

GDP does'nt take any of that into account.

~~~
jquery
Nor should it try, because it's an objective measure, whereas HPI is
completely subjective measure. Apples and oranges.

I'm also not convinced self-reported happiness is accurate across cultures.
How do you control for cultural variations in the question "are you happy?"
Diverse cultures have deep differences of understanding when approaching that
question.

~~~
chakde
Well what gets measured gets improved.

What's subjective to you is pretty objective to me - the health impact of
unhappiness, for example, will reflect in healthcare costs. Which btw makes up
15% of US GDP. Now is that even real GDP or just a manufactured problem - with
doctors and lawers and insurance guys all making money off of health problems
of consumers.

See this -
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:International_Comparison_-...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:International_Comparison_-
_Healthcare_spending_as_%25_GDP.png)

~~~
jquery
I don't think you understood me.

For the same baseline level of internal well-being, people will respond to the
question "how happy are you?" differently depending on their culture. Do you
understand how this presents a problem when measuring happiness across
cultures? That is why I refer to it as subjective. Cultures change over time,
so a change in the HPI might simply be a reflection of that.

That being said, I do not believe that just because a measure is subjective,
it is useless. Of course it's useful. It's just important to understand what
_exactly_ you're measuring.

~~~
chakde
My point is that it is culture that affects happiness, not merely internal or
material well being.

So taking into account cultural variations is meaningless when what I'm
interested in measuring is the end result.

------
digamber_kamat
All this "large economy" chest beating is useless if you cant prevent a
million deaths because of malnourishment.

------
dramaticus3
From the paper that brought you

[http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-10-28/man-w...](http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-10-28/man-
woman/28271451_1_rapist-small-town-girls-victim)

Should a woman marry her rapist?

KALPANA SHARMA, Oct 28, 2010, 12.00am IST

When a rapist offers to marry the victim, one would think it's the perfect
solution. But isn't this victimization of the victim all over again?

