Why are you talking about accomplishments? It was never under discussion. I agreed that there is poverty and inequality in India. It is you insistence on fake appearance, deception and cosmetic behavior that i object too.
Well its true is it not?
India is a cosmetic miracle! Pound for pound, your problems weigh as heavily as those in Pakistan, but somehow, you manage to cover up those issues through marketing.
I mean, westerners arent generally patronizing or rude, so they always tend to mention only the good things about India, but ask anyone honestly and they will tell you of a violent country, with rampant poverty, massive corruption, and populous so overly sensitive and prickly, that even the smallest criticism, even if accurate is answered with indignation.
I never said anything about Pakistan being "naive," "innocent," or "direct." That's nothing but your own native biases coming into play.
If you go back and read my original post that started this discussion, I said that Indians have a tendency to respond to any criticism of India with "well, things are worse in Pakistan" (even when they aren't) and that India has done a better job at marketing itself to the outside world than Pakistan has. I still stand by both statements; and if anything, I think Pakistan should try and emulate India's marketing strategies in order to get investors to ignore its own massive problems and focus on its successes.
Pakistan also suffers from the problem of being lumped in with a general western bias against anything Muslim aswell... Particularly since the start of the so called war on terror. So our marketing problem is somewhat more complicated to Indias, whos problems are generally confined to its own borders.
Yea, because one proudly claims to be a communist country and other i have no clue about.
Well he isnt Pakistani. Thats a fact. According to INDIANS like you, he is infact an Indian, just like you!
Loyalty is irrelevant when all your doing is commenting on fact. It just so happens that the facts are not in your favor.
WELL, your assertion was that its Indias democracy that is so appealing to your investors. But then im sure you would admit that there is as much or more investment in those countries, despite the fact that they arent democratic by any means.
[/QUOTE]
I said the reason India is appealing to investors despite open knowledge of its poverty is because it has a critical mass of middle class that the west can deal with. And the kind of economy that allows such business to take place thrives mostly in a stable democracy. I never said economies cannot exist in other cases. You are misinterpreting just to suit your own arguments.
India is a cosmetic miracle! Pound for pound, your problems weigh as heavily as those in Pakistan, but somehow, you manage to cover up those issues through marketing.
It is not because of marketing. It is because we have some thing that you do not. A large middle class in a stable enough environment to do business in.
I mean, westerners arent generally patronizing or rude, so they always tend to mention only the good things about India, but ask anyone honestly and they will tell you of a violent country, with rampant poverty, massive corruption, and populous so overly sensitive and prickly, that even the smallest criticism, even if accurate is answered with indignation.
So they know about India's poverty. That you agree on. So what would India's marketing achieve?
*So, for example, just as an interesting thought for you, there are 350 million people in India who are classified as middle class. That’s bigger than America. Their middle class is larger than our entire population.
*
According to Indian govt. “official” guidelines if you make 11 rupees ~(25 Cents) a day you are above the poverty line. That is a genius way to reduce poverty.
It is not because of marketing. It is because we have some thing that you do not. A large middle class in a stable enough environment to do business in.
So they know about India's poverty. That you agree on. So what would India's marketing achieve?
Well if you go back and read your own posts, you will see that you mentioned Indias democracy as a reason behind investment.
And I already agreed on your large middle class. But thats not a real accomplishment. Thats simply due to your overwhelming birth rate.
Stable enough:) Thats marketing right there.
And yes they know there is poverty because they have seen India themselves. Had they not seen it themselves and relied only on Indian sources, they would have thought India was a modern paradise !
president bush had some other idea just three years back..
This is the same problem that I already pointed out with your poverty figures. "Middle class" is a self-defined, ultimately meaningless term. The figures often quoted in India are based off of a newspaper study that suggested that an Indian household could be considered "middle class" if they owned a telephone, a scooter/motorcycle, and a TV, and estimated that under those terms roughly 20% of India's population was middle class. ** That is not remotely comparable to European and American definitions of a middle class standard of living**, and certainly does not translate to the kind of actual buying power that international companies are interested in.
The Indian National Council of Applied Economic Research uses much more stringent definitions - and defines middle class as a yearly income of $4,000-$21,000 US (which corresponds to an income of $20,000-$120,000 in the US after you adjust for cost of living); under those definitions, less than 6% of India's population qualifies as middle class. That group has actual, international-standard buying power, and it was based on them that I gave my 5-10% figure.
I said "India actually has rich, middle class and poor people. The presence of the rich and the middle class is not an cosmetic appearance. The foreigners are here to do business with the rich and the middle class. The phirangs are not a bunch of fools to fall for cosmetic appearances when billions of dollars are involved. They need a functioning and strong economy to do business in. Such an economy flourishes mostly in a stable democracy and India has one."
Phirange countries also do business with China, the Middle east etc... And yet no one would every confuse either of those of being stable democracies...
I said "the reason India is appealing to investors despite open knowledge of its poverty is because it has a critical mass of middle class that the west can deal with. And the kind of economy that allows such business to take place thrives mostly in a stable democracy. I never said economies cannot exist in other cases. You are misinterpreting just to suit your own arguments."
WELL, your assertion was that its Indias democracy that is so appealing to your investors. But then im sure you would admit that there is as much or more investment in those countries, despite the fact that they arent democratic by any means
Well if you go back and read your own posts, you will see that you mentioned Indias democracy as a reason behind investment.
I say again "the reason India is appealing to investors despite open knowledge of its poverty is because it has a critical mass of middle class that the west can deal with. And the kind of economy that allows such business to take place thrives mostly in a stable democracy. I never said economies cannot exist in other cases. You are misinterpreting just to suit your own arguments."
And I already agreed on your large middle class. But thats not a real accomplishment. Thats simply due to your overwhelming birth rate.
Who said it was an accomplishment? I just said it is a fact that Indians have a large enough middle class for the foreigners to do business with.The way you keep talking about "accomplishment" that nobody's claimed shows that you have a problem with some facts.
Stable enough:) Thats marketing right there.
It is not marketing. If it was not stable enough for them, why would the investors come to India?
This is the same problem that I already pointed out with your poverty figures. "Middle class" is a self-defined, ultimately meaningless term. The figures often quoted in India are based off of a newspaper study that suggested that an Indian household could be considered "middle class" if they owned a telephone, a scooter/motorcycle, and a TV, and estimated that under those terms roughly 20% of India's population was middle class. That is not remotely comparable to European and American definitions of a middle class standard of living, and certainly does not translate to the kind of actual buying power that international companies are interested in.
.
so, you want to suggest that bush was misled by an indian newspaper' study.....
so, you want to suggest that bush was misled by an indian newspaper' study.....
Bush was never known for his intelligence and accuracy, so this would hardly be the first time someone has suggested that.
Regardless, I don't really see how he was mislead. As I already pointed out, the term "middle class" is highly subjective with varying definitions (which is why I specifically avoided using the term...you're the one who dragged it into this discussion). If you set the standards low enough, then the figure he gave for the "middle class" is valid. But, again, that's not what we were discussing. We're talking about people with enough disposable income to be a major market for American and European companies, and I stand by my original estimate.
I'm also suggesting that you would be utterly delusional if you actually thought there were anything near 300 million people in India with incomes comparable to that of the American middle class.
Bush was never known for his intelligence and accuracy, so this would hardly be the first time someone has suggested that.
Regardless, I don't really see how he was mislead. As I already pointed out, the term "middle class" is highly subjective with varying definitions (which is why I specifically avoided using the term...you're the one who dragged it into this discussion). If you set the standards low enough, then the figure he gave for the "middle class" is valid. But, again, that's not what we were discussing. We're talking about people with enough disposable income to be a major market for American and European companies, and I stand by my original estimate.
I'm also suggesting that you would be utterly delusional if you actually thought there were anything near 300 million people in India with incomes comparable to that of the American middle class.
Then why for gods sake are the europeans and Americans in India. Charity?
And we have to believe your No. of less than 300 million because?
Bush was never known for his intelligence and accuracy, so this would hardly be the first time someone has suggested that.
Regardless, I don't really see how he was mislead. As I already pointed out, the term "middle class" is highly subjective with varying definitions (which is why I specifically avoided using the term...you're the one who dragged it into this discussion). If you set the standards low enough, then the figure he gave for the "middle class" is valid. But, again, that's not what we were discussing. We're talking about people with enough disposable income to be a major market for American and European companies, and I stand by my original estimate.
I'm also suggesting that you would be utterly delusional if you actually thought there were anything near 300 million people in India with incomes comparable to that of the American middle class.
do we really need certification from a spokesperson of pakistan.....
why donot you bother for debts of your mentor nation......new debts taken to clear the old debts......istead of noising for comparisan with us.
i wonder if kashmiri business people who are making money anywhere in india will agree with your preconditions???
Then why for gods sake are the europeans and Americans in India. Charity?
And we have to believe your No. of less than 300 million because?
I said 5-10% of India's population had significant purchasing power that would interest international companies.
Assuming your math is as poor as your reading skills, that's still 55-110 million people, which is a large market nonetheless.
It's not "my number," rather it's based on the Indian National Council of Applied Economic Research's estimate that less than 6% of India's population had purchasing power on par with the American/European middle class.
All of this has already been clearly explained in prior posts, which you would know if you actually bothered to read anything before hitting the reply button.
do we really need certification from a spokesperson of pakistan.....
No. You also don't need certification from me.
But at this point, you're suggesting that your personal (and patently false) interpretation of an off the cuff comment (made by Bush no less) is somehow more valid than data from your own nation's premier economic research agency. I think even you can realize how absurd and desperate that is.
I said "India actually has rich, middle class and poor people. The presence of the rich and the middle class is not an cosmetic appearance. The foreigners are here to do business with the rich and the middle class. The phirangs are not a bunch of fools to fall for cosmetic appearances when billions of dollars are involved. They need a functioning and strong economy to do business in. Such an economy flourishes mostly in a stable democracy and India has one."
I said "the reason India is appealing to investors despite open knowledge of its poverty is because it has a critical mass of middle class that the west can deal with. And the kind of economy that allows such business to take place thrives mostly in a stable democracy. I never said economies cannot exist in other cases. You are misinterpreting just to suit your own arguments."
I say again "the reason India is appealing to investors despite open knowledge of its poverty is because it has a critical mass of middle class that the west can deal with. And the kind of economy that allows such business to take place thrives mostly in a stable democracy. I never said economies cannot exist in other cases. You are misinterpreting just to suit your own arguments."
Who said it was an accomplishment? I just said it is a fact that Indians have a large enough middle class for the foreigners to do business with.The way you keep talking about "accomplishment" that nobody's claimed shows that you have a problem with some facts.
It is not marketing. If it was not stable enough for them, why would the investors come to India?
What sort of investment are you referring to exactly, that thrives more robustly in a democratic setup?
From my understanding, India's democracy has created a number of hurdles. Your Bureaucracy is infamous.
I dont believe stable economy really depends on a flourishing in democracy, as there are number of examples where the economy has flourished without a proper democratic system in place. Democracy may be helpful in the long run, but is it essential to gaining investment? Certainly not.
There are many countries with a middle class. Indias only appeal is its relative size. Again has nothing to do with its democracy or its supposed stability. If tommorow Indias democratic system collapsed only to be replaced with a relatively stable dictatorship, investors would still show up, just to cash in on the population.
Its Indians that claim their middle class is some grand accomplishment.
There are many countries that are "stable enough" who still dont get very much investment. Infact, many of these countries have environments that are far more inviting for investors, with less corruption, and are simply easier places to do business, yet they dont get nearly as much investment. Chalk the difference up to Indias huge population and smart marketing.
My math is fine but I guess you kept your comprehension skill in your Madrassa.
Read this: http://mckinsey.webscience.it/storage/first/uploadfile/attach/139854/file/trin07.pdf
You took the lowest estimate while others take the highest estimate.
Your post started with lampooning indian media of hyping the middle class. Yes it might be 10% of the population but with the growth of Indian economy it is the fastest growing segment of indian population. By 2015 it will overtake the poor people in India.
I guess you understand that but you dont want to admit it. I cannot fault you Janabi. i have seen you enough. You are a clever person and can twist facts to support your claims. I hope you could use your cleverness for the good of your people.
Actually, this post demonstrates just how poor your reading comprehension is.
Apparently you didn’t even bother reading your own evidence.
Let me explain this in a manner that even you will understand.
Go to page 55
Look at the nice colorful picture at the bottom of the page.
Look at the 2005 column within that picture.
Notice how strivers and seekers (who according to this graph, comprise the middle class, and correspond with incomes between INR 200,000-1,000,000/year) made up 5% of the population.
If anything, my 5-10% estimate was generous. Also, if you recall, you’re currently trying to defend the ludicrous idea that there currently are 300 million+ people in India (27% of the population) with incomes comparable to that of the American middle class? Please point out where the report says that.
Actually I started with a comment lampooning the Indian government for demonstrating its priorities by diverting tens of millions of dollars of development funds and evicting 100,000+ poor people from their homes in order to put on a display display of economic well-being and success at the Commonwealth Games. I never mentioned the “middle class” till your compatriots brought it up.
First of all, I was speaking about the situation in India today, not what may happen 50 years down the road. In any case, these pie in the sky projections are from 2007 and predate the global economic recession, so I doubt the authors of the paper would stand by their original estimates today. Even if we do accept their projections as unquestionable fact, it’s clear that you weren’t able to understand the paper. In 2015, the authors projected that 20% of India’s population would be “middle class,” while 35% would be “deprived”/poor, so even according to your own source the middle class still would not have overtaken the poor by 2015.