₦airaland Forum

vaxx:
Are you the same moniker using Goel. be honest in your reply. There is so much similarity in your writting.

As far as being honest is concerned, you are stupid if you aren't dishonest to claim that there's any similarity in pattern of my arguments with any other member.

I'm strictly sticken to topic where I'm debating and not jumping on others.

rvp2018:
Of course not.Goel if I recall is an Indian electrical engineer who once worked in Nigeria.

Electronics not electrical along with structural engineering. I was there for an EPC project of Dangote on behalf of a North Indian Company ISGEC.

I work in Indian MES (Military Engineering Services) now.

rvp2018:
He is a good read.

I'm a military & defense enthusiast and news junky. A senior member of Indian Defense Forum.
https://defenceforumindia.com/forum/

I hope providing link for other site doesn't invite a ban on me.
I'm not a good or great read. I'm a normal person citing what I learnt in academics. vaxx is a top order idiot releasing one brainfart after other. He even purposely lies to defend himself but fails miserably.

That's why his posts against me are getting shorter & shorter gradually.

rvp2018:
I wish you were not combative and antagonistic maybe you'd learn something.Are you based in Germany?

Leave him. He's an idiot. We have another guy called "Vijyes" on our forum. Damn irritating, always jumps on other side of argument or brings other topic while losing debate.
But will never apologize for his factually erroneous bluffs.

vaxx:
Not just controlling the population growth alone but investing in the direct sector. Even if China China curb her population growth without pumping much investment into the critical sector. The case of China will still not be different from India today. Which further grounded my assessment that demographic dividends is adjust an advantage on paper if investment are not directed into critical sector of the society . Healthy citizens and skilfully population tends to change the dynamic of a nation more positively.

You need to have money to "invest" in these sectors. Curbing population by one child policy has actually slowed down its long term growth.


China invested in required skills according to structural changes it adopted and same was followed by India in 80s.

vaxx:
Countries where education levels are already high, where much investment in transport and communications systems is in place, and where political and economy systems are relatively stable, are well equipped to cope with rapid population grow than vice versa.

That's obvious, they have all these sectors in place. That's why they use immigrants to grow their countries.


However, countries with high educational level, infrastructure, transport and public sector are rich countries. A poor country can't afford things like them. It keeps on investing in sectors according to its ongoing economic growth.


India is a lower middle income economy with indicators same as that of any lower middle income economy. They are improving at a speed in synergy with India's growing income level to transit into an upper middle income one.

vaxx:
Population growth should be maintain in accordance with the economy growth. Overrun it has is own downward effect. North America, Japan has experience economic growth by moderates population growth of recent. .

Once pensioners exceed taxpayers.

vaxx:
Nearly bullshilt.

Bullsh!t was you wrote Chinese GDP exceeds US & Europe combined.

vaxx:
We not be able to cover all the flaws. There is what is know in economics as initial conditions’. India and China are historical known to have some of the world giant economy ( human and agricultural land) both China and India , accounted for more than half of the world industrial production before the Industrial Revolution..
And This is the same reason China and India GDP are projected to overtake usa accordingly.

What kind of logic is this? Just because China & India were largest economies of past, they will become so again? Why not other similar ancient civilizations like Mexico or Egypt? Why not Britain in future because it was one in previous century?

China & India are advantaged because of large populations. And when you manage to get hold of a way grow, it's way to go.

USA isn't very great among developed country. But it's largest ever developed country with population exceeding 300 millions. Even Soviet Union was just an upper middle income country but was world's third most populated country after China & India.

Now, you have to pick what you are talking about. Well being or total national power?
In context total national power, Russia will decline like UK while India will be there along with USA & China as a superpower. It will be last left one as soon as US & China decline.


In case of well being, India had initial 40 years of economic mismanagement and improving lately. So being a developed country is far fetched goal for India.

vaxx:
India only face a major set back in the 60s and 70s due to political instability which is yet to get her self out till date.

India didn't have any political instability till 90s. One party was ruling consistently. Yet this era is responsible for India's economic stagnation and all socio economic problems. Kindly don't make up things, if you don't know, just don't write on that.


India entered an era of instability with coalition governments rising and falling after 90s yet had fastest growth period since independence.


Technically, India is a politically stable country right since its democratization in 1950 with no regime change and coup attempts and internal politics emerging much later.

The reason was Nehruvian Socialism. India's classic liberal and right wing parties which were contemporary capitalists were weak against left. They initially gave impact in late 70s and later merged into forming BJP (India's current ruling party) which got ever increasing popularity since 90s. As stronger opposition, they forced government for reforms while as ruling, they reformed it themselves.

Increased money in system allowed government for tax revenue for better education and healthcare, steep decline in poverty, rapid improvement in all development indicators. Following decade, India changed into a lower middle income country from a low income country.
A lot more is to improve there while transiting to next stage.

vaxx:
Modern China has never been poorer like africa .

Modern China was much poorer than Africa in almost entire previous century until 1980s. At some instances, its GDP per capita was even a fraction of Africa's.

vaxx:
well in compare to india , the whole of Africa is not historically disadvantaged.

Africa was far more advantaged than both China & India after WW2 with GDP per capita much higher than Asia itself (that even at a time when Japan's GDP was more than rest of Asia combined).

vaxx:
Ancient agricultural countries like Egypt , Tunisia and Algeria are fully on par with India in growth potential, and in fact, are much richer than India today.

I'm talking of contemporary Africa and actually on average.
In case of growth outlook however, none of them is advantaged except Egypt.

vaxx:
Apparently you are more obtuse than i thought. You have to quote me twice just to repeat what seems to be difficult for you to understand.

However I logged in nairaland after so many days, your post is more spooking than anything else. Seriously, why do I have to repeat same thing over & over?
Demographic Transition Model, Economic Complexity, Liberalisation, you didn't read anything and actually you didn't even read stats and history and making up things here.
You are arguing just for sake of arguing and commenting on things you don't know anything about nor you bothered to put an effort and confirm through internet, what you've said.

vaxx:
what are you saying? east Asia (particularly China has been known as most populated country in history and it has retain this position as far back as 2000 years.

What you are saying? Why do you comment you don't know anything? Asia's total population is big, not its population growth. Slower than even many developed countries.

vaxx:
The current birth rate of India is 2.4 not much gap of difference from Nigeria with 3.2 growth rate.

First, gap between 2.4 and 3.2 is not a small difference. Former one will keep you near replacement and will cause mild increase of population to maintain demographic dividend over 50 years (by some 20%), later one will double your population in 40 years!!


Second, Nigeria's fertility rate is 5.3, not 3.2.

vaxx:
Africa largest country by population. Nigeria is currently about 2.6 of the world population while India is about 17.4 .

http://www.prb.org/

Population growth rate:
India: 1.098% p.a.
Nigeria: 2.58% p.a.

Fertility rate:
India: 2.34 children per woman
Nigeria: 5-5.5 children per women

The above and the rates of decline in populations of India & Nigeria is enough to pull Nigeria in neck in population race with India within 100 years.

India will add around 275 millions in next 30 years while Nigeria will add 200 millions (take them as percentage of population). And the way continuously Indian population has been overestimated and Nigerian one is underestimated, India will stablize much much before expected 2035.
https://www.livemint.com/news/india/india-s-other-growth-story-where-slow-is-good-1562568729607.html

vaxx:
Not entirely true, China run a close economy during the cultural revolution of mao and she was sluggish opening up her economy. Some city like Shanghai were the the first to open up. And not all sector were open. China recently run fully open market not quite long age.

If you would've read what I had written earlier, you wouldn't responding that. The part of my post you replied to was about necessary things you need first, that is stability. The thing is there in Asia but not Africa.

I had told that how Mao screwed Chinese economy till 1978 and how Deng Xiaoping emerge later on carrying out structural changes to improve production revolutionize it. Yes, Chinese gained from exports a lot, not by closing economy at all.


And Chinese economy had no hope before this economic reform. China emerged after these changes.

vaxx:
And researcher have suggest China was able to run a successful close economy due to a larger size.

Which researcher?
China's population helped it to peg a larger economy, not a richer one.

Seriously, are you talking about national power or well being of people?
You can't change much in India by adding $200 billions to its economy but you will change lives with same amount in a country like Denmark if you add same into this.

Market size doesn't improve your economy, it only enlarges it. Once one market is saturated, you have to move to other one.
Put this into your brain.

vaxx:
Which will be impossible for a country like Togo to-do since she has a few population to stair up the economy.

But it was possible for Singapore somehow.

vaxx:
China will attribute her success rate to the base effect of her demographic boom during the close market.

China's success is attributed to its efforts to boost mass production, engagement with other countries to gain technologies from them, its labour and land reforms and adoption of free market economy within the country.

China ran state controlled capitalism.

vaxx:
You have challenge. Every one know this and nobody is arguing about that. The only issue here is why demographic boom can easily be overturned and programmed properly to the benefit of the economy, the former is seriously and damaging to the sustainability of the growth of a nation. It is one of the reasons why most declining nation in population are experiencing sluggish economic growth.

Challenging me? How many times are you going to insult yourself?
Either you were drunk while writing this over or are unable to focus on any logic.

You understand the difference between "DEMOGRAPHIC DIVIDEND" and "SIZE OF TOTAL POPULATION".
Why do you think Vietnam is growing faster than Japan despite smaller population?
Slowon is due "AGING AND DECLINING POPULATION" and not "ALREADY SMALL POPULATION". A country with barely 50 million people will grow much faster than other one with 1 billion provided it has stability, demographic advantage and economic structure.

Both high & negative population growths have adverse effects on economy. That's why I asked you to study Demographic Transition Model first what you didn't at all.

Belief that country can grow just because its population is big is mental retardation. Many already more populated African nations got population growth rate higher than GDP growth rate and so getting poor every year. Same case isn't there in Europe.

Similarly, China & India grew only after their economic reforms.

vaxx:
You are mad once again. Are you spoonfeeding an India like you here. In 2020, the average Indian will be 29 years old or Nigeria around 19 years compared that with an average age of 37 in China and the United States, 45 in Western Europe, and 48 in Japan. This simply demonsrate that there will be a large and growing labour force in India than above country yet unemployment rate keep rising in India from 5 percent to 7 percent rate. despite the econmy growth, india is Hardwick to fiill up unemployment holes. Since the growing working age are not SKILLFUL enough. India recently pull out of Pisa . Global education ranking which have continuously ranked India below . This is to show something is wrong with India EDUCATIONAl structure.

1. You totally changed the context and actually changed the argument. You could not pose any contradiction to what I said but you are trying to REJECT it by selective approaches in a case study (of India).
2. There has been a period of jobless growth in India for last 10 years and will last at least 3 more years. Whenever a country transits from agriculture to industrial sector, it faces a period of jobless growth due to skill gap, everyone had. Moreover, increasing unemployment rates are trend around world due to trade war. Southeast Asian countries are tapping industries escaping China faster than India.

The problem is short lived however, many developed and developing countries have much higher unemployment rates. As for PISA, it quotes techs which aren't prevalent in India. Indians are good at what is prevalent. However, I don't deny that there's a great scope of improvement in education sector yet.

vaxx:
Therefore , demographic dividend will only be an advantage on paper and if left un-utilized, it will sours into unbearable burden for the nation.

I don't have conflict with you here. Case is different that it wasn't even part of our argument.

India performs bad agaisnt countries it compares itself with again, classic examples of mismanagement are thousands of miles away from shores, in Africa.

vaxx:
Just like I said earlier, . But right choices of goverment in a populated country can transform balloon nation into a healthy, educated, empowered labor force. It is easier when such nation invested heavily on the critical sector ( health and education) This is what lifts people out of poverty in Japan, south Korea, China. We are taliking about the ability of government to invest more in child education and health care here. Doing this will be providing for a healthier cohort of working adults / with ready skills, ready to move into the economy’s expanding job market that primarily have a large populated advantage. You only benefit from demographic dividends when investment in critical sector are possible . Remember the base effect of a control population too.

Goverment's ability to spend on well being of people is determined by how much revenue can generate. A country without demographic advantage won't be able to do it for long.

Initial priority for all these countries and so now for India infrastructure to help business expand.

vaxx:
So a well grounded policy such as investment into above critical sector i made earlier will solve the pussle becuse it will create more entrepreneurial spirit minded population instead of job seeking population.

Well, India ranks very fairly in GEI.

Entrepreneurs can't do any sh!t unless a new idea & consumption is there. Hundreds and thousands of startups open up & close in USA, China & India. They have highest number of startups and densities & can't be classified as best at entrepreneurship.

Your statement "Being entrepreneur instead of job seeking" is good only at motivational lectures.

vaxx:
Larger population with sophisticated idea have more entrepreneurial citizens than smaller nations. China , USA and south Korea. Even by absolute Nigeria as the largest populated black nation has more entrepreneurial individual than most of the sub Saharan black nations.

Even India has one of highest number of entrepreneurs and billionaires. That doesn't help to deny India's socio economic situation. US is one of worst among developed countries, China is still a second world one and Nigeria is worse than all above in health & education.

They are only powerful because of so many industries because they are so big countries.


Funnily, you skipped India and put Nigeria in your argument to emulate me (YOU WERE TRYING TO IMPLY "INDIA" DOESN'T HAVE INDUSTRIAL SECTOR) which in fact is another indication of your knowledge level.

Indian industrial sector exceeds GDP of Nigeria. India is just not enough for itself.

It clearly states it's about density with respect to your population which makes you good.

India is a lower middle income country and has problems faced by any such other country. At the same time, India is ahead of many these countries in other sectors. India is large in size and multiplied with income level, it is translated to India's comprehensive national power. Similar translation is for USA & China.

It neither puts USA ahead of Norway nor China ahead of Japan.

vaxx:
What grows nation are investment in critical sector. Demographic devinded is only an advantage on paper when right choices are not taking.
[quote author=vaxx post=79657812]You must be hyping yourself way above your reasoning. That advice actually is direct opinion you must take seriously. Don't pick nicketing, there are more chances that you might be subjective in your THOUGHT.

I'm not hyping myself. You are acting more & more dumb. I go objective when I provide stats and I get subjective when I give reasons for them.

You are only citing your inconsistent perceptions meanwhile.

vaxx:
what is this madness?
This is called a free market. China benefit from her sheer size of her domestic markets during her close market perioud.

1. Large population didn't enrich China.
2. Market increases with purchasing power & not with breeding like rats.
3. Internal production is needed to be enough for population. China rose after reforms of 1978 to encourage economic complexity and diversity and opened up economy to integrate with globe. Economic Complexity is the key to long term growth while demographic dividend is a lubricant here.
4. China was a failed state in its absolutely Communist & economically closed period.

vaxx:
She is so big enough to do so.

Being big doesn't make you self sustained. It actually puts more burden and reduces natural resources per capita.

vaxx:
Africa is not economically sustainable like Asia becuse it is not as integrated as Asia.

Asia isn't very much integrated either. FTAs and networks around are recent. Asians earned by exporting to west.

And Asia isn't a single entity either. Different region has different economic history, story and future. Any two may or may not be comparable.

Africa's needs are first stability, then to reduce dependency on commodities and promote economic diversification.

vaxx:
Well, that story is about to change. By July 1 of this year. most Africans country are signing into a single trade zone. The market analyst predicted it to worth around 2 trillion dollar.

Just by signing FTAs or connecting Africa with rail & road networks?

vaxx:
Yet India economy growth is not filling up unemployment holes.

Economic growth doesn't necessarily translate into employment. During transition period, any fast growing economy faces unemployment.

Sometimes you are under skilled to do so, sometimes you are over skilled, sometimes salary is low and sometimes you are skilled in other field. Later 3 are reasons for India's unemployment (if you completely read the source).

Unemployed of any developed country have mostly equal to or better living standards than an employed Indian. Same applies for Indian ones against more backward counterparts.

India has mostly engineering graduates as unemployed as sector isn't expanding that fast. Second is wage crisis. Usual wage offered for freshers is $220-$300 per month while people aren't willing to have less than $450 per month.
And the most important one is credibility of this data. India can accurately track formal jobs only. Informal jobs are kept confidential by people.

vaxx:
Those who are benefiting are those who already have enoghh capital and assets, the free market economic model takes wealth from the poor and gives it to the rich. China system was able to outsmart this.

It happened in every case. From China to Myanmar, India & Bangladesh. Free market left poverty ratio just a small fraction of what it used to be.

vaxx:
India had the second lowest score rate of education standard in the entire south Asia. Not until when investment are largely direct to this sector, India will still remain where it is.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/wap.business-standard.com/article-amp/economy-policy/underinvesting-in-health-education-is-now-risking-india-s-economic-future-118092500110_1.html

Education "standard" only quotes average years of schooling. It doesn't takes literacy, youth literacy and institutional rankings into account.

It doesn't even account for kind of industries established all over India (and kind of skills required) that puts India well ahead "South Asian" neighbors at least.

Finally, you've started on putting articles suggesting me "investing on education". Seriously, when I denied that education is important? I said demographic advantage is vital for sustaining growth which is uncontradictable.

vaxx:
Out of 54 states of africa, 35 States has per capital income less than that of india. There js 19 state in Africa that actually has a better economy well-being than India. Your case is still not difference from nit -picking.

Even check inequality adjusted HDIs, population growths, fertility rates and poverty ratio of those countries and compare with India. From South Africa to Botswana.
My statement holds very much strength. Even fewer will be left.

vaxx:
Your input is actually not inteligent enough, what are you trying to pass across.. replying me the question, i earlier ask you.

??
You claimed that India isn't much different from Africa. I refuted.

vaxx:
when you understand this, why then are you using this as a claim to prove India is better cus more Africans migrate there. Don't you see your own logic flawed your initial assumptions. Just as i said migration happen for so many reasons and economic purpose is just single factor.

Migration is something I just used as an example to argue against stupid people here who have never studied about human development indicators or economic history of world.

Africa is a commodity based economy mostly which was left far behind by eastern world who rather produced finished goods.

vaxx:
It is your logic, it flawed you. You erroneously claim Africans are migrating to India cus India is more successful. That is a huge ignorance.

This isn't ignorance. India being far more successful than Africa is a fact.

Only problem was India's economic boom was a bit late. But that too will be covered within a decade more.

vaxx:
what actually will thia growth translated to in a century? Will it kick out India being the highest populated nation. Dressing up to take over from India.

yes it will, Nigeria will surpass or be very close to India in population between 2100-2150. It will surpass China for sure. The way India's population is growing slower than expected in every statement while entire Middle East and Africa doing it faster, time may be hastened close 2120-30.

In fact, India has been drafting a two child policy similar to China's one child. If implemented, India's population estimates for 2100 will further come down to 1.2 billion from 1.4 billion.
India's 8 poorest states account for India's entire population growth rate. Rest of 21 are either stable or declining. The above will stabilize even those 8 states. Indian population won't change thereafter.

vaxx:
This figure absolutely did not favour Asia, since that continent Will still account for the largest people on earth and Africa is not going to take that position not even in a century.

Didn't favour? Asia's population is nearly unchanged while Africa has came across in very close competition. How many times you need to be educated that its population growth and not total population that causes trouble? Asia is a much bigger continent.

In context of Asia, East Asia is declining gradually, both South Asia and Southeast Asia have low population growth rates and turning stable to decline from 2040-50. Without middle east, Asia has a great net decline of population.
In case of Africa, besides a couple of very small states like Seychelles, almost everyone has exponential population growth rate.

vaxx:
It is inapplicable of factual fact and ignorance of you to be putting the total figure of a CONTINENT against a country. That is an abusive approach to education. .

What's wrong with that? India is as big as Africa is in population.


As your wish, just put an individual country Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, DRC, Congo, RSA and start comparison.
Let's see how many of African countries fair better against India. You will not find it favorable. It's better too if we don't make it Asia vs Africa.

vaxx:
The growth of India in a century or right at the moment. Anyway this seems to me mkre accurate as it follow the new adopted figure. https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.timesofindia.com/india/by-2030-world-will-have-8-6-billion-people-1-5-billion-of-them-in-india/amp_articleshow/59277566.cms

Dear, why don't you just read what you share completely?

Accurate? This is a report which itself quotes UN estimates for 2017, a slightly older estimate. I quoted report from UN from 2019.

Nevertheless, you didn't even bother to read that old report and see that India's share of world's population in percentage in 2015 and 2030 is unchanged. New reports suggest that it will decline sooner than we think.
https://population.un.org/wpp/
But just rather than searching media reports for one country, I chose to give you UN site for all countries. Seems that you are lazy too to browse that website. So, here it is.

https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Files/1_Indicators%20(Standard)/EXCEL_FILES/1_Population/WPP2019_POP_F01_1_TOTAL_POPULATION_BOTH_SEXES.xlsx

vaxx:
sure, but it will not replaced India and China taking the first and second spot accordingly.

At least China.

vaxx:
You may need to follow this report again.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.timesofindia.com/india/by-2030-world-will-have-8-6-billion-people-1-5-billion-of-them-in-india/amp_articleshow/59277566.cms

This report doesn't contradict me. I said India's population will stabilize in or before 2030, this report says and new versions, both say will.

vaxx:
No one is contending that fact. Nigeria in the next fifty years wiill still not reached a billion. Even with 2.6 birth rate.

Nigeria's fertility rate is above 5 right now. No way 2.6 birth rate will be achieved anytime soon. Till it will, Nigeria will be more populated than USA.

vaxx:
Any evidence for this?

WTF? Both recorded (near past) and estimated history (many centuries ago) suggest same. Go on IMF and world bank web sites and check recorded and verified GDP or wikipedia for quick summary.

Western nations grew during The Great Divergence (Google it) while China & India remained same until Deng Xiaoping assumed power and revolutionized Chinese economy.
India attempted in 1991 and grew but advantage of experience and head start in western market penetration was to PRC.

vaxx:
Based on the verified data available, China economy is bigger than the whole of Europe and America combine then, and in the mordern era,

WTF? Both China & India were used to account around 25% each of global economy (correction would be no global economy existed in past). That may be slightly bigger than Roman Empire but not way as big as you claim. America didn't exist back then. Only a Latin American civilization used to rule central and South America which was unknown to rest of world before Spanish discovered them.


In modern era, Chinese economy at MER is around 70-75% of one of US or EU and 110-115% (slightly bigger) in PPP against only one of them. Similarly, India at 17-18% at MER while 50-55% in PPP (I told you why Indian MER is low above the in the post due to currency). No way close to US & Europe combined.

Seriously, you haven't even done your basic homework before speaking on this. You are asking me for verifiable evidence which means you never came across data published by international financial institutions.
You are just trolling here.

vaxx:
China has never been equal to the standard of African nations in the entire history of mordern China. while India had once rated at per or even below African States in many data years back.[/QUOTE]
Both China and India were well behind Africa between 50s-70s. Entire Asia was except Japan & Philippines in fact.
[quote author=vaxx post=79517659]. Actually I am fed up of writting,

And I'm fed of reading BS. Seriously

vaxx:
but let me quickly make one or two statement. Two most important resources of life is land and human. And no nation can become a global power without having them in abundant.

Controlling them is more correct word than having them. Partially agreed anyway. A few centuries ago, a couple of European nations learnt to do long range voyages and one day, they enslaved entire world.

vaxx:
India has about 10 percent of the world agriculture land

Indian agriculture sector is better than before but still highly inefficient. Second, Indian green revolution intends to make India self sufficient in food rather than exporting it. Yeah, we started to produce some things in excess. So, we are exporting them. Agriculture in India has a low profit margin nor it does it fit to give India kind of leverage India needs to become a global power. It's just a small feather in cap for food security what we should transfer to more efficient firms than private farming.

vaxx:
( This is natural resources thay is not even available in china).

China has worth $22 trillions reserves of minerals and rare earth metals what India can only dream of. It's essential to make industrial good.

vaxx:
But China produce and export more agricultural product than India. This shows something is wrong somewhere.

Chinese agriculture is far more efficient than India. They have a smaller labor force engaged in agriculture while higher output.
India needs to do same and pull out some population and restrict agriculture to some organizations to have more output. Modern techniques aren't economically feasible on small pieces of land.

vaxx:
China adopt mordern technology to benefit from what India should have gotten freely.

Not exactly, Chinese technological prowess is developed from expertise in industrial sector. Any industrialized country has a relatively smaller (smaller compared to its own size of other sectors) but mote efficient agriculture sector. But their economies aren't based on it.

In the end, highly populated countries who are enriching need resources. India will be last great power to rise on international platform and only one left (declining) after decline China's decline while will stay as semi developed high income country like Russia or East Europe. But won't because of agriculture. Agriculture is a very basic thing we need to sustain our population. Technologies will be generated industrial sector.


As American sphere of influence contracts, Russia is kicked out of big league, China & India will be settled with US as great powers competing for resources and political control of world while all will decline one by one. World will be full of great and middle powers like WW2 era.

Space sector is left where mining may bring back global growth. All these countries have even officially announced their intentions to exploit extra terrestrial resources but is far fetched.

vaxx:
In the space of about 40 years, Brazil another populated country was transformed from a country that could not feed its people into the 'agricultural superpower' that it is today.

Brazil is in a middle income trap now as they didn't focus on industrial sector. They will always remain a middle income economy now.

vaxx:
The secret behind this remarkable transformation. Which was a major investment by the government in agricultural research. New Zealand rake heavily on her agricultural export. Yes diversification is important but agicuture is necessary . Sustainability of all economy sector should be all way round.
http://www.fao.org/3/ag087e/AG087E07.htm

New Zealand itself is an exceptional case. First, its modeen economy was made by European settlers who had seed money to implement all advanced changes. Second, it produces many items that are unique to Australia and New Zealand hence costly. Third, its economy is benefited by large and advanced economy of Australia and West who are willing to buy high quality stuff on high rates. Let's see how a New Zealand style country in Africa would survive which is filled with these industries.

Moreover, New Zealand is dependent on others for technologies of most kind. Without an industrial base, no country can ever be a global power.

Military advances are vital, self reliance is even more.

vaxx:
I will not reply you next time as i will feel lazy to do so. Make it short and Less of flaws.

Flaws are something you have filled it with.

vaxx:
Then have a medical checkup

You would better need that. Statement was stupid.

vaxx:
The madness symptoms identify again.

Mine is very well. Quote your statement and justify it instead of doing personal attack.

vaxx:
population and economic growth grow hands in hands. It quickly creates more labor force and consumers, as well as automatically help on increasing demand for most goods and services.

East Asia which was epicenter of global growth in past decades and South & Southeast Asia who are becoming now have very low population growth rates. Africa has higher population growth rate (even large part of its GDP growth rate comes from population growth rate) while Asia has stagnant and even declining population even with poorest Asian countries outside greater middle east.

Market demand increases when living standards rise, market doesn't only lie inside country but exported too. Prosperity comes from stability, then free market, then diversification and most important factor is demography.

Both declining and rising population are a threat to future of any country.
I think I had asked you to study DEMOGRAPHIC TRANSITION MODEL. BUT YOU DIDN'T AND CALLING ME MAD??

Let me give you a clue, suppose two countries with same and stable population (say A & B).
Both have stable populations.
A: Low population growth rate
Low and same death rate (may be developed country)
B: High population growth rate
High and same death rate (may be a least developed country)

Once you start infesting facilities (say healthcare), population will jump suddenly in B as death rate falls. Population growth graph will form a paraboliv curve. Population will grow, stablise with awareness and will decline with falling fertility.


The median age of population determines how much skilled than can be, how much they can earn, how much they can consume and how much they can produce.

Read on internet yourself. And my humble advice to you, say what you KNOW about anything and not what you BELIEVE about anything. Making up things will only bring embarrassment to you.

You are engaging me in argument with me in anger because I conducted a personal attack on you. But your argument was still foolish. You are defending undefendable and wrong by default.

vaxx:
In general it's increases market size, well,

Population growth doesn't increase market size in general. Increased circulation of money in country's economic system does because it increases purchasing power of people. This is called free market.

This is called a free market. Africa isn't growing despite population.

vaxx:
there may be an exception to country with massive poverty issues such as India.

India has one of fastest growing markets since 1991. Africans moreover should be last people on planet to call Indians poor. We are poor as compared to countries we want to compete with, not against you.


Poverty? We have different standards and we have finished those.
We will apply new ones from 2021 on.
https://worldpoverty.io/index.html

vaxx:
India already failed to invest in the health and education sector which fuel up the progress of the pooulated economy.

India invested very much needed with all its funds wherever it should and could. And that's why economy boomed since 90s.

vaxx:
Japan, China and Korea use this very model to speed up their growth.

How many times are you going to insult yourself?

China curbed its population growth forcefully while Japan and Asian tigers ran awareness programs. All their populations are declining today. Seriously, what you are smoking?

vaxx:
And poor underfunded of India into this critical sector has been identify has one the issue leading to her poor performance..

Underfunded? India has annual budget of $750 billions!! It will even cross $2 trillions by 2030 if keeps on growing as planned.
Poor performance? India was biggest gainer in HDI in this decade.

vaxx:
population increases market size which in turn attract investors and then add up to the market value and then boom the stock exchange while increasing the profit margin of shareholders which majorly are citizens of such a country. And at The long run. The citizens benefit.

Market is never formed unless people have purchasing power. They won't have until they earn high and they won't til their skill is high. What do you expect from countries where median age is 17-18 years? You think they will grow?

Asians started from tapping western markets. We all from Indians to Japanese, still rely on western markets for most of exports.

vaxx:
well saturated market might not pose much of a risk to a bigger populated market, since competition will rises , differentiation will quickly be notice, value for money will also be important and at the end of the day. The country benefit. And more millionaire created.

You said exactly what I said just minus population growth from it. High population growth demands money for development of more people and consumption of more resources.

Saturation doesn't cover entire population but the population which can afford it. It explains why Apple jumped from USA to China and now India without tapping all phone users. It will find even a smaller market in India.

vaxx:
migration has much to do with population since populated city are urban area with more job concentration. That is why city with much imdustry have a bigger population growth. The more industrial a CITY become, the more populated the city becomes..

Simply, it was an argument for bigger & better. For a smaller country, size of population and city will be small so will be bigger for a big country.

The thing that makes difference how they succeed is their income per person. Hence, population different between nations ultimately losses its relevance. It's internal matter of a country.

Total size only defines power as US is far far more powerful than other developed countries but its no way worlds most developed country or fastest growing developed one.

vaxx:
Not necessary.

Most certainly. People just don't wake up and run towards cities.

vaxx:
Both goes hands in hands. An industrialized nation will definitely produce more skilful labours. You can't be industrialised without being skilful. Your input here make no sense.

My input makes very much sense here. You quoted it just because YOU HAD TO REPLY ME.
Read that part again.

vaxx:
. What diffrent does it make, when you factor in per capital as a standard measured of an economy, India case is not really impressive.

India's PPP GDP per capita is nearly double of Africa and makes very much difference as seen on ground.

India's nominal GDP per capita was deliberately held by government by manipulating currency to keep Indian exports competent. We keep on buying $, selling ₹ to maintain a huge forex reserve. US had put us on currency watch list multiple times.
India's real nominal GDP per capita will be around $4,000 and total nominal GDP nearly double of Africa for same population if India's sets ₹ free. But it will create an economic crisis.

We have doubled our GDP in ₹ between 2011 & 19 while in dollars, we grew only some 60%.

China was a net exporter so chose to appreciate its currency and added a trillion dollar every year since 2006 (when it was $3 trillions economy). Most of by currency appreciation and inflation than real GDP growth.

timesup234:
Funny how even Deng is a Moaist. No economy can get to its height without the fight against imperialism. Japan is stagnant today because they are vassal of the United States. Mao freed China from the bondage of outside forces hence the long walk to greatest starts and end with him. Nobody knos Deng in China, while Mao portrait is every in China

History doesn't agree with you. Most countries "fighting imperialism" have collapsed or are still poor. Prosperity as nothing to do with fighting other countries. But planned capitalisation. Mao delayed Chinese dream, actually killed China almost beyond recovery. Deng is the savior of PRC.
He never openly criticised Mao but used to use a jibe "70% right and 30% wrong" for him.

samorobo:
Dont be surprise that goel might be mkenya which is no doubt rvp2018

Why the damn? Both, the family trees; of my father and mother are completey originated in India.
I once sent my photo too. Didn't I?

timesup234:
You are not smart. Western lies got to you. Go to Tiananmen Square and scream Mao didnt do anything lets see if you will come back alive. Unlike Africa, China choose who is their true legend. Xiaoping delayed the China dream. He is a traitor and western puppet thats why you only hear about him in western media. Nobody knows him in China as all Chinese are die-hard Maoist

Factually incorrect. China's own data showed It's economy in shambles during Mao's regime. Deng saved it from failure like USSR.

vaxx:
It is like you want it hot

That's how I argue. The statement was stupid AF.

vaxx:
I hope you can read between my word or you intentionally want to be an idiot.

I have tried multiple interpretations of your argument and all were useless and faulty in same way.

Population doesn't lead to economic growth. Demographic dividend does. Population just helps to have bigger economy.

vaxx:
Bigger population lead to economical boom, because it will increase the market size.

Population has nothing to do with economic boom. It rather just attracts some forex reserves.

Any market booms when it's open. It could be small European country with low population or any biggie like China or India. No one will invest in a closed market.

Once a market is saturated, vendors move to other. Large markets have greater room for vendors to sell their stuff hence larger companies. Large, not exceptional growth.

vaxx:
What ever education you received in India. factor such as mobility will also jump up since migrarion will expand.

Migration has nothing to do with population again. People will go where they get money in any small or largely populated country.

vaxx:
Expanding industries will spring forth and will recruit new workers to the labour force. hardly will a smaller nation benefit form this.

That depends upon the kind of economy adopts.

It depends upon country whether it chooses to industrialize itself and have skilled labor.

vaxx:
if confirmation bias is not your primary problem, you should as well know some few African did way better than you On this comparism.

I agreed on some few. On aggregate, India was much poorer than Africa while has surpassed right now.

And It's not confirmation bias, list up the African countries in all human development indicators, population growth or competitiveness and compare against India. Africa's primary reason of wealth was high natural resources per capita. Only small couple of countries worked upon.

Similarly, Ukraine and Moldava with per capita incomes closer to India are stark different from India.

vaxx:
What are you actually debating . The entire Asia or India against africa? Be sensitive.

I'm debating your opinion about population. Both India or entire Asia are relevant.
India's boom in Asia is a bit later than Far east.

vaxx:
This expose you as an ignorant. Do you know how many Indians who are currently renting container shops in my country now. do you know what your people do in africa. Your people are mostly found everywhere . And majority are into retailing buisness not a white collar industry( west africa for example) . Immigration happen for so many reasons I am not willing to lecture you on this platform.

Indian diaspora even stays in Afghanistan and far more helish African and other countries. Their purpose is generate money from markets around. They don't have to leave for set of reasons like healthcare, education or daily life unlike Africans.

Or applying your logic, westeters reside in Southeast Asia too.

vaxx:
No matter the rapid population growth of africa, no any African country will ever have the population growth of India not even in a century( This should be your strength)

Overall population growth of Africa is almost 4 times of India. India's population is big, not growth.

Even for size, United Nations doesn't agree with you.
https://population.un.org/wpp/

There will be multiple countries from 2050 to 2100 which will have 30% to 50% populations of China & India and will even reach 1 billion in following century.

vaxx:
India is projected to reach all time high of about 1.5 billion in about fifty years time, China probably will be second while Nigeria will be in third position.

It rather favors what I said than you. Going to 1.5 billion from 1.37 billion already isn't a big deal. Indian population growth is slow and will even start to decline around 2050. China already is.
India's population growth rate estimated this year again was 5% less than expected and 2100 forecast has been down from 1.5 billion to 1.45 billion.

It's Nigeria who's going to have its population more than doubled.

vaxx:
Well, China has always been economical stronger than India anyway even in antiquity.

Factually incorrect. China and India had nearly same GDP in ancient and modern times. It was only 30-40 years back where Chinese economic boom made it an upper middle income country while India left as a lower middle income one.

As Chinese population ages, it will slow down to culmination. So forth, the pace at which Indian economy and per capita income has been growing faster than Africa, India's economy (right now 30% bigger) will be many times bigger than African continent with just 1/4th of population.
It's growth will stop like west and Africa will start to grow.

vaxx:
i actually don't get your beef here. Why the foul words anyway, i have respond in kind.

I have put it in most civilized manner I could. Statement of high population being responsible for national growth is stupid.

vaxx:
You actually need the advice better than me. India man.

No, what I said applies on every country who is developed today or growing fast.

Seriously, open things I listed up.

vaxx:
You have a problem of understanding. Historically agriculture is important and it is more sophisticated and diversify now in 21st century..

By diversification, I meant economic diversification. Not agriculture sole. Agriculture is just one sector and that even which produces raw materials which have lowest profit margin of all sectors.

Installing sophisticated machinery for agriculture isn't possible with most countries. Adding, you will lose forex buying machines and services what you don't make at home.

In case of India, I know that agrarian land per farmer is around 3 acres. Even if he manages to purchase stuff, he can't do it on small area. That's why I advocate for private firms doing that. Simply to earn profit, you need a highly modernized farm or farming is useless.

Things won't be even this rosy in case of Africa.

vaxx:
Bigger country with more pragmatic THINKING are modernizing agriculture , diversify product and becoming a multi crop producer instead of focusing on single product. USA ( The third largest country actually earns about hundered of billions on its agriculture annually alone not to talk of China.

I never denied that modernizing agriculture is important but its not basis of prosperity. Agriculture forms less than 1% of US economy. It's rather a feather in cap of USA and PRC than their needs. Agriculture isn't something these countries can't do without. They can produce only to eat and they will be fine.

All of the economic booms recorded till date haven't been based in agriculture. Boom demands increased profitable production (industry) and need for developing technology. Dreaming of developing as an agricultural economy is naive.

We have plenty of such fanboys in India too.

vaxx:
It has something to do.

bigger population means quicker urbanization growth and rapid economic development. This trends did not really favour smaller country. Rich countries have a lot of urban areas . No country has ever reached high income levels with low urbanization. High Presence of bigger population increases density and, together with rural-urban migration, creates higher urban centres.. So in a nut shell, bigger country are not expected to be poor.

How bigger population means quicker urbanization? More population actually more load to handle and transfer to cities. Populations themselves don't make things. If you are Nigerian, I hope you'd know the situation.

vaxx:
i guess you fumble here. By standard, economic wellbeing of countries are measured by GDP per capital and when this are factored. India is even way behind some African countries. You may argue quickly that lower population growth is the reason for that. I will quickly remind you of China. Beating india in population and as well as GDP per capital and so is China having more GDP per capital than many African countries. BOTH OF YOU ARE IN THE SAME CONTINENT.

There are a tonnes of indicators where India is ahead of most African countries. I used the word "average" for a reason. However, a couple of African countries with GDP per capita higher than India. But again, India beats most in poverty, HDI and other indicators. Cost of living in India is very low.
I'm saying again, if India was same as that of Africa. So many Africans wouldn't have been coming to reside here.
China never beat India in population, it was always so. It's GDP per capita growth actually went higher than India when it curbed its population. Chinese population is declining while Indian one is rising but very slowly. Africans alone account for more than half of world's population growth.


And sorry to say that but I think primary reason of Africa's failure is education. Because I see in your comments where you claim to that higher population means progress and China "beating" India in population. Just shows what's your intellectual level.

Seriously, go and study Demographic Transition Model, economic booms of Asia, demographic dividend, economic diversification, industrialization and free market economy.

Right now, you know nothing.

vaxx:
so true, pragmatic THINKING favour the later while natural resources favour the former. But not so quick, this pragmatic countries have also gotten their better share of natural resources ( land ). For example, India has about 12 to 10 percent of the world agricultural land and so it's china with her own share. For most of human history, the wealth was proportional to the food and other agricultural commodities you produced. India perharps is second to China in rice and millet production. Some country in africa are not suitable for agriculture at all if mordern technological equipment is not involved.

For now of human state, agriculture isn't key to success. Diverse economy is.
http://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/rankings/growth-projections/

vaxx:
India case never impressed me. She is too big to be poor but notwithstanding

Being big or small has nothing to do with being poor. Coz so were USSR and PRC.

vaxx:
she is till poor and not much different from Afrika perspective.

If you think India isn't much different from an average African country, you know nothing.

vaxx:
Many country in Asia were poorer than africa 60 years ago, Saudi Arabia, Qatar now one of the richest country depends on charity from Africa country to feed their orphanage then. They were once a poor country.

Saudi Arab & Qatar aren't real examples. They rose because of oils. Real ones are East Asians, Southeast Asians and Indian Subcontinent who had and having growths in all aspects improving technologically and not just by natural resources.

JaceBlaze:
Roasted who? go back to the thread again a see the onslaught of fierce expletives by two South Africans there.Nigerians will never roast anyone,especially now because you have overtaken India as number one most poverty striken country in the world.In my humble opinion,wherever Nigerians see an e-war brewing they should run like when their soldiers run from Boko Haram

India was never no. 1 poverty striken country. Number of poor people was high because India's population was big.
Now, we are turning into an upper middle income country like China and Thailand and at least basic poverty is about to disappear. Sooner you guys realise it, better for you.
India was poorer than Africa sometime in 1970s, not now.

timesup234:
You are not smart. Western lies got to you. Go to Tiananmen Square and scream Mao didnt do anything lets see if you will come back alive. Unlike Africa, China choose who is their true legend. Xiaoping delayed the China dream. He is a traitor and western puppet thats why you only hear about him in western media. Nobody knows him in China as all Chinese are die-hard Maoist

What western lies? Do you know where China would have been if Deng didn't assume power. Or you do have any explanation to support your garbage. Mao's stupidity had landed PRC into a situation worse than LDC of Africa are today.

timesup234:
China has 1.3 billion people, Chinas largest markets for smartphones are India, Africa and Middle East. That is half the globe. US is 300million people? So what who cares about them. They just signed their own death warrants, its utter stupidity but to the benefit of the whole world, we dont need to pay such high prices for their trash tech anymore.

US has technological advantage what China lacks. Hence, they deliever better quality.

China itself depends upon tech from US & British firms for electronics.

timesup234:
Mao always calls them a paper tiger

Mao did nothing. He failed China in fact. It's Deny Xiaoping who actually saved China and modified its fate to become one of largest economies.

He's probably India's most love politician. He has not any wife & family. Hence, no chance of corruption. And with his aggressive foreign policy and pragmatic approach, he's going to repair the damage done by older party for 66 years.
He has created institutions which will continue to work even if his government leaves.

Rossikk:
You are WRONG:


''Pakistan started pursuing space technology on 16 September 1961, when Pakistan's space agency, SUPARCO was created, with renowned physicist Abdus Salam as its first administrator. In its early days, SUPARCO researched on the development of solid-fuel sounding rockets with assistance provided by the United States. On 7 June 1962, with the launch of the Rehbar-I (lit. Teller of the Way) rocket, Pakistan became the tenth country in the world to successfully conduct the launch of an unmanned spacecraft. This rocket had been developed by a team of scientists and engineers of the Pakistan Air Force, led by Air Commodore (Brigadier-General) Władysław Józef Marian Turowicz in collaboration with NASA and was launched from Sonmiani, Pakistan's first space launch facility.

SUPARCO's unmanned space program continued till 1972, with nearly 20 successful launches. SUPARCO's unmanned space program suffered setbacks during the 1970s and the 1980s, delaying the development and launch of Pakistan's first satellite, Badr-I till 1990 when it was launched from China. SUPARCO launched Pakistan's second satellite, Badr-B in 2001 from Baikonur Cosmodrome using a Ukrainian Zenit-2 rocket, followed by Paksat-1R in 2011 which was contracted and actually built and launched by China, was Pakistan's first communication satellite.[42] On 9 July 2018, Pakistan launched two satellites from China's Jiuquan Satellite Launch Centre with Long March 2C Rocket. The Pakistan Remote Sensing Satellite (PRSS-1) was a dual-purpose Earth observational and optical satellite. It was designed and developed by SUPARCO’s engineers.

It was 1,200 kilograms (2,600 lb) weight satellite which will operate at an altitude of 640 kilometres (400 mi). With the launching of PRSS-1 , Pakistan has become one of the few countries to have its own remote sensing satellite in the orbit.[43][44] Another flagship satellite, Pakistan Technology Evaluation Satellite (PakTES-1A) which was also designed and developed by SUPARCO’s engineers, has also co-launched with PRSS-1 by the same launch rocket, Long March 2C. It was a 285 kilograms (628 lb) weight satellite with an optical payload commensurate with national needs. It will operate at an altitude of 610 kilometres (380 mi).[44]

Pakistan intends to send its first national in space onboard a Chinese spacecraft by 2022, as announced by information minister Chaudhry.''

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Asian_national_space_programs

Writing this article doesn't strengthen your point in anyway. Just making a space agency doesn't make you a space power. And over that, sending humans on others' (Chinese) spacecraft isn't an achievement.

Some Pakistani patriot unnecessarily added Pakistan on list. Pakistan isn't even a small player in space.

Rossikk:
Do these ones have brain? India and Pakistan that are pursuing space and nuclear technology, are they not developing countries like Nigeria?

Pakistan doesn't have any space technology. In fact not even proper nuclear technology. They only have basic linear implosion HEU based nuked which are nothing against Indian set.

India is the only lower middle income developing country in the world with substantial industrial ability and technological power in all sectors, from civil to military & from medical to space.

martineverest:
are u sidelining European Union?

European Union is rather a highly integrated supernational body than a nation and it's constituent nations have been losing interests in it themselves.

EU never kicked off any major thing. It acted only as sidekick of USA.

martineverest:
even India will soon be landing on moon..Iran,india and every time dick and Harry have been launching satellites. that's because they all did reverse engineering and study on space exploration by the fore runners.those countries can never get to the level of advancement space tech of USA, Russia and eurozone. just like the way many countries now manufacture vehicles but the advancement in vehicular technology still lies in top manufacturers like Volkswagen, Toyota,GM etc

Iran can't compete everywhere.

A superpower should be a world leader in every aspect. Only US, Russia & China are at this status and India is catching up. There is no fifth country in the race.

Like the big four of world war 2, new big four are emerging.

Relax, Nigeria can't be number one. But its on top 10 for sure.

asuustrike1:
Nigerian market is competitive and very elastic. Don't underestimate the power of market leaders because when they sneezed the rest feel cold.

Elastic only, not competitive.
A competitive manufacturing country is one who produces goods at low cost meanwhile a country with a competitive market is one whose citizens are rich enough to buy lot of things.
Either of above traits, doesn't exist in Nigeria.

somehow:
You actually think we overtook India based on population? 2011-2013, we had 114 million extremely poor Nigerians
Now we have 89 million.

In numbers, how come we are now the highest in the world?

Simple logic should tell you that while ours dropped by 26 million people, that of India must have dropped farther lower by their numbers.

So Making it obvious that they still have more poor people but per population, it's less.


Simple example : you have ₦100k with you but indebted to the tune of ₦40k, but paid 2k from it, reducing your debts to ₦38k meaning you have ₦58k net.

While someone else has ₦1m with him but indebted to you tune of ₦200k, but paid ₦50k from it, reducing his debts to ₦150k, meaning he's got ₦750k net.

Even though his debts is higher than yours, he's still richer and must more financially secured than you.

Actually, poverty has dropped in India very fast in last two decades. India is in a transition stage to become an upper middle income economy from a lower middle income one.

In meantime, its poverty ratio has fallen superfast that it has remained lower than Nigeria and Congo despite India's massive population.

By the way, India itself isn't going to use this poverty line anymore. Extreme poverty has almost been eradicated. So, Indian government going for more respectful definitions of poverty.

Indian People's Party (ruling one) has set a target to make India a developed country on 100th independence day (2047 A.D.). Honestly saying, they are working very hard, specially on infrastructure.

Wow, why the hell you got to blame Indians just because company belongs to India?
Don't accident happen with companies from other countries. Or Nigerian companies don't have accidents at all? If you don't like India, just don't work with Indians. Very simple.

tsdarkside:
you dont know that much about this world....

You know nothing John Snow.

Modi is here to stay

tsdarkside:
a nation that has people in it that order pizza from london....

think about it....

whealth is just unequaly spread out....thats all....

many are not that poor,many own land,many are self employed....

if you wan use european standard to measure a african country,then maybe....

but for african standard nigeria is not that poor....

and this two nations you mentioned are not that rich either....they have alot of poor people too living in slums or villages....

why do you think your smartphones from china are so cheap....??

their workers dont earn that much like in europe....

You are simply comparing apple & oranges. Countries like China & India or countries in Southeast Asia are industrialized. They are exceptional case. They have developed technology and are able to provide better life even after lower income levels. Same isn't true for Africa.

And even if we adjust cost, Nigeria still has most poor people. I'm not saying that Africa or Nigeria is as bad as seen in pictures. But I'm an Asian. I've visited China, Indonesia, Vietnam, RSA, Nigeria & Kenya. And I know what's on ground.
No offense intended. But Nigeria isn't upto there yet.

tsdarkside:
think about it....nigeria has half population of america....

and russia doesnt have that much more population either....

if you talk about only landmass then you are right....

Nigeria's population is just a fraction of China and India. Big is a relative term and Nigeria isn't big at all when compared to these countries.
While Nigeria has bigger number of poor people than combined poors of China & India.

tsdarkside:
nigeria is not a small country....

Relative to countries you are comparing with it, it's very small. Nigeria is a small fraction of China/India.

sapele914:
Learn to know Afghanistan is in South Central Asia.

It's Central Asia essentially. South Asia is not a real term. It was used for countries left after break up of India. Americans used to not get confused between Mongoloids (East Asians) and Indians while those countries use it to feel "less Indian".

Irony, Afghanistan or the state of Kandhar was actually the Hindu empire of "Gandhar" destroyed by invaders. It's a very much part of India in reality.

Rosskii:
Yawwwnnn. Dude, India and China once had more poor than anyone else. It is not a permanent situation. You wouldn't know that because your drug addled brain works like a toddler's.

China and India are massive countries with areas and populations comparable to complete continents. It's not fair to compare them in numbers with small countries.
If they have highest number of poors, they got highest number of non-poor and rich people as well.
That's why percentage matters. In terms of percentage, they both are better by miles when compared to other countries with high number of people living in poverty.

Asian countries are not fragile states. They are emerging economies undergoing resurrection and renaissance to challenge dominance of west.

Yeah pretty much self respect guys you got. Your fragile is falling, your population growth rate is higher than that of your GDP. You are even probably aware of ground realities between India and Nigeria. DON'T BITE THE HAND THAT FEEDS YOU.

India is a sh!thole and poor place as compared to countries India wants to be like, much better than hell holes of Africa.
Wait, this place is sh!tty, why so many of you people are wasting time in my country?

Awail India's subsidized education, scholarships, medical treatments and all other things from the taxes I pay and then compete with my children for jobs. Even if we forgive that all unlike whites, you guys are abusing us.

Seriously, I'm a highly cited person in India and if I post something about Africans, I will be declared a xenophobe and racist in no time. DO YOU GUYS HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT COULD HAPPEN IF THIS THREAD IS CIRCULATED EVERYWHERE IN NEW DELHI?

Come on, you guys are spewing so much ego here, an ego of achieving nearly nothing. Show us how much self respect your people have. Leave our sh!thole India and go back to stellar state of Nigeria.

Leave it

Great Powers are divided in tiers now,
First Tier is US, Rusaia & China
Second is India, France and UK
Third may be Japan & Korea etc..
The powers in two successive tiers have great gap between their powers. Russia will soon fall down to second tier and UK even lower while India enters first in upcoming decade.