# India to overtake United States by 2050



## gaurav_indian (Jan 24, 2007)

India to overtake United States by 2050



> MUMBAI: Productivity growth will help India sustain over 8% growth until 2020 and become the second largest economy in the world, ahead of the US, by 2050, Goldman Sachs has said, scaling up estimates of the country's prospects in its October 2003 research paper widely known as the BRICs report.
> 
> The original report had projected that India's GDP would outstrip Japan's by 2032 and that in 30 years, it would be the world's third largest economy after China and the US. The new report goes one step further by moving India up from No. 3 and No. 2 in the global sweepstakes of tomorrow.
> 
> ...



source :- *timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India_to_overtake_US_by_2050_Report/articleshow/1411052.cms


----------



## ambandla (Jan 24, 2007)

Most of India's economy depends on US markets and US investments. India will overtake US only when they make everything on their own, for their own use and not do anything for companies in US (oursourcing) and when many of super powers import goods and technology from India, which I don't think will happen in another 40 years.


----------



## PCWORM (Jan 24, 2007)

india can overtake but only if the bastard netajis are taken out of this country.....


----------



## Yamaraj (Jan 24, 2007)

India will *never* overtake US; not in economy, not in science and technology and never in the quality of life of the ordinary man. These are one-sided speculations and half-baked observations. Given the infrastructure of the country, even with future plans taken into account, it's not possible at all to even match that of the China, much less Japan or the USA.

Most of the economy is resting on very weak shoulders of outsourcing and cheap labour. Lack of autonomy in scientific research and development, combined with the extremely weak and fragile infrastructure, along with poor governance and poverty, are the biggest hurdles in the way of becoming a *superpower*[laughable].

Usual TOI crap!


----------



## mail2and (Jan 24, 2007)

Yamaraj said:
			
		

> India will *never* overtake US; not in economy, not in science and technology and never in the quality of life of the ordinary man. These are one-sided speculations and half-baked observations. Given the infrastructure of the country, even with future plans taken into account, it's not possible at all to even match that of the China, much less Japan or the USA.
> 
> Most of the economy is resting on very weak shoulders of outsourcing and cheap labour. Lack of autonomy in scientific research and development, combined with the extremely weak and fragile infrastructure, along with poor governance and poverty, are the biggest hurdles in the way of becoming a *superpower*[laughable].
> 
> Usual TOI crap!



If you cared to read the report, it came from Goldman Sachs.

Whilst India will never overtake the US on a per capita basis, not in the near term i.e., it WILL be the 2nd largest economy in the world around 2050 despite the government, and not because of it.

It's wrong to say that the country depends on outsourcing. Even if IT enabled services bring in $5 billion, even then the share of ITeS in total GDP is very miniscule. This growth is consumption oriented, much like the growth in US post 1930 was.

Whlist our infrastructure isn't upto the mark, our financial sector/institutions are way better than those of China(excluding Hong Kong). Despite being in a developing country, India's financial markets are considered mature and are tracked by pretty much every investment bank on Wall Street and Canary Wharf.

Let's get the real picture out; China is growing because of export of cheap goods, India is growing because of internal consumption.

You may ridicule me, but you can no way in hell ridicule Goldman Sachs economists. They're the best in the world.


----------



## Yamaraj (Jan 25, 2007)

^There are hundreds of such reports every month, but our *nationalist* propaganda media houses are very picky about it.

1. Your assertion that India will be closer to the US by 2050 simply ignores other countries and their economic development. It's not like they're frozen in time and only our mammoth is getting all the attention.

2. Regardless of what our ecomony truly depends on, if the Dollar shapes the World, we cannot beat it. Even by 2050, it'll be a Dollar Vs. Euro scenario.

3. China is closest to the US economy than India will ever be. US depends on China - they need it more than they need us.

4. By 2050, the great Indian infrastructure will be streched thin because of the sheer population, that will surpass that of the China.

I'm not ridiculing anyone, just striking out the real scripture.


----------



## kumarmohit (Jan 25, 2007)

Dream on, wat with reservations and politicians and our rocketing population 2050 is a bit too optimistic2150 is more like possible...


----------



## Sukhdeep Singh (Jan 25, 2007)

What India has at the moment is *human resource* and tons of it


----------



## mail2and (Jan 25, 2007)

Yamaraj said:
			
		

> ^There are hundreds of such reports every month, but our *nationalist* propaganda media houses are very picky about it.



You surprise me. A Goldman Sachs report is not just another report. Search for Goldman Sachs and check out for yourself. It's the largest investment bank in the world, with the best economists in their fold. Seriously, it's Goldman Sachs! It's not like someone thought let me write something about India one fine morning, and wrote a 3000 word essay on India's economy. Frankly, you would be surprised how much they research before writing even a single word. It's not some silly journalist writing an essay. It's the world's largest investment bank, whose suggestions can make or break hundreds of billions. Oh, btw, I read this on Bloomberg's site and not in TOI.



> 1. Your assertion that India will be closer to the US by 2050 simply ignores other countries and their economic development. It's not like they're frozen in time and only our mammoth is getting all the attention.



The problem with other countries is their 'size'. European nations like the UK, France, Spain and Germany have reached a saturation point in development. No wonder they are witnessing less than 1% growth.

Also, it's not my assertion. It's a report from an investment bank, that chooses its employees from precisely 5-6 univs in the US, 3-4 in the UK, and 2-3 in India. I know a fair bit about Goldman Sachs, and let me assure you, they know what they say.



> 2. Regardless of what our ecomony truly depends on, if the Dollar shapes the World, we cannot beat it. Even by 2050, it'll be a Dollar Vs. Euro scenario.



Japan is the second largest economy, and the Yen is not as important as the Dollar, the Euro, the Pound or the Swiss Francs. That makes no difference at all.



> 3. China is closest to the US economy than India will ever be. US depends on China - they need it more than they need us.



For exports. Frankly, if you look at China's industries, almost all are owned by locals, and these locals enter into contracts with the big firms. So, most of the time, the big MNCs don't have much at stake. They will move to another country, when such a country offers cheaper goods.

Ask any economist worth his salt, an economy based on consumer consumption is more stable than an economy based on exports.

In short, if India breaks all its ties with the rest of the world, we'll be in a much better position than China, whose's economy will crash.

Here is a statistic for you. Out of India's 336 million strong work force, only .5 million work in ITeS, or the low-cost outsourcing sector. Check out China's figures, and you will understand yourself.



> 4. By 2050, the great Indian infrastructure will be streched thin because of the sheer population, that will surpass that of the China.



It's all well to say this. In short, you think economists at Goldman Sachs who have studied at Stanford, IIMs, Harvard, LSE, UCL and LBS didn't think of it?

I'm not sure how much you know about investment banks, but let me assure you, they know what they say. Don't tell me that GS is a greedy corporate that wants to expand in India, and hence they are publishing such a report. They're not. They advice many governments on economic affairs.



> I'm not ridiculing anyone, just striking out the real scripture.



I'm sorry, but you're not. You're completely wrong here. It's not politics, it's not hype, it is economics. Plain and simple economics.

No conspiracy theory can work here. Sorry.
__________


			
				kumarmohit said:
			
		

> Dream on, wat with reservations and politicians and our rocketing population 2050 is a bit too optimistic2150 is more like possible...



And you think economists at Goldman Sachs are fools? They don't know what you know? Tell me how you arrived at the 2150 estimate? Any research? Let me guess.. it was the first thing that came to your mind, right?


----------



## Stick (Jan 25, 2007)

It is possible if We can make Only 2 Political Parties and every Political Leader to Compulsory Have Mcom, Msc, MA or equivalent Degree.

And after 10 years of such implementations when none, even municipal corporator or Sarpunch or Gram Sevak too having such degree (NOT FAKE) at that time we can say that India May Overtake US in Next 100 years, other wise forget.

No one can stop Shaik Chille to Day Dreaming.


----------



## mail2and (Jan 25, 2007)

Stick said:
			
		

> No one can stop Shaik Chille to Day Dreaming.



That was a sad attempt at a joke. Atleast make an effort to read a thread/report before commenting.


----------



## koolbluez (Jan 25, 2007)

India might overtake America, but it'll b _India of 2050_ overtakin _America of 2007_.

With this _population_... with this _corruption_... with this communal _harmony_*www.unixboard.de/vb3/images/smilies/sm-nachdenk.gif, with the _Kashmir issue_... with the _Noida killings_... with the _Mumbai blasts_... with the _Gujarat riots_... *no doubt, it'll. *img463.imageshack.us/img463/6357/huh4lc.gif
*


----------



## Yamaraj (Jan 25, 2007)

mail2and said:
			
		

> You surprise me. A Goldman Sachs report is not just another report. Search for Goldman Sachs and check out for yourself. It's the largest investment bank in the world, with the best economists in their fold. Seriously, it's Goldman Sachs! It's not like someone thought let me write something about India one fine morning, and wrote a 3000 word essay on India's economy. Frankly, you would be surprised how much they research before writing even a single word. It's not some silly journalist writing an essay. It's the world's largest investment bank, whose suggestions can make or break hundreds of billions. Oh, btw, I read this on Bloomberg's site and not in TOI.


Scientific theories are known to have become no more than meaningless mathematical equations. And, economics is no hard science still. No matter how brilliant these economists are, they're only making *predictions*. 'nuff said!



			
				mail2and said:
			
		

> The problem with other countries is their 'size'. European nations like the UK, France, Spain and Germany have reached a saturation point in development. No wonder they are witnessing less than 1% growth.


There is some truth to it. But India has nowhere near the the kind of technical expertise and scientific development compared to them. It's the scientific research and development that decides the future of a country today. They're, in fact, in charge of the actual research works, and they're only handing out the menial work here.



			
				mail2and said:
			
		

> Also, it's not my assertion. It's a report from an investment bank, that chooses its employees from precisely 5-6 univs in the US, 3-4 in the UK, and 2-3 in India. I know a fair bit about Goldman Sachs, and let me assure you, they know what they say.


Institutionalization at its best!



			
				mail2and said:
			
		

> Japan is the second largest economy, and the Yen is not as important as the Dollar, the Euro, the Pound or the Swiss Francs. That makes no difference at all.


That's because Japan's economy was entirely fabricated by the US itself, and it still depends on them.



			
				mail2and said:
			
		

> For exports. Frankly, if you look at China's industries, almost all are owned by locals, and these locals enter into contracts with the big firms. So, most of the time, the big MNCs don't have much at stake. They will move to another country, when such a country offers cheaper goods.
> 
> Ask any economist worth his salt, an economy based on consumer consumption is more stable than an economy based on exports.
> 
> ...


China excels in manufacturing, while India is leaning towards services. The day India closes its boundaries for all, the internal fabric will be torn apart due to the manufacturing incapability. MNCs are not going nowhere, or at least they're not coming here.

Remember, rest of the World effectively cut us off after 1974. And we still don't have the capability to build nuclear reactors on our own. Man set feet on the Moon in 1969 and we're still struggling with low-quality rockets. Can you even compare the number of patents in abroad with those of us? There is no quality high-education here. Almost no scientific research and development. But we have cheap engineers and doctors, cheap IT workers and self-abusing call center people; we also have lots of unproductive beaurocrats and worthless corrupt politicians. Be proud if you want to, not because you have to.



			
				mail2and said:
			
		

> It's all well to say this. In short, you think economists at Goldman Sachs who have studied at Stanford, IIMs, Harvard, LSE, UCL and LBS didn't think of it?
> 
> I'm not sure how much you know about investment banks, but let me assure you, they know what they say. Don't tell me that GS is a greedy corporate that wants to expand in India, and hence they are publishing such a report. They're not. They advice many governments on economic affairs.


Why should they think of it, if jumping onto the "India Strong!" bandwagon is considered mature and cool? If you know about Gartner, you'll understand the difference between *expert predictions* and the reality.



			
				mail2and said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but you're not. You're completely wrong here. It's not politics, it's not hype, it is economics. Plain and simple economics.
> 
> No conspiracy theory can work here. Sorry.


Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe I'm not. But there are a few facts that you and the brilliant economists are not taking into account. That, investors don't go to places where people can't defend themselves. There's no point in investing billions in a country which is on the verge of breaking itself into pieces. We talk of becoming a superpower, much like the US, but we can't even cope with a failed neighbour state. We can't even make tanks, guns, jets or even armour and we dream of a seat in UNSC. We are really too busy beating out chest like Gorillas to even analyze our real potential. You can buy resources, but you can't buy respect and strength.


----------



## hemant_mathur (Jan 25, 2007)

I hope its true.


----------



## mail2and (Jan 25, 2007)

Yamaraj said:
			
		

> Scientific theories are known to have become no more than meaningless mathematical equations. And, economics is no hard science still. No matter how brilliant these economists are, they're only making *predictions*. 'nuff said!



I won't say anything about this. Do yourself a favour. Read the full report. It;ll be there on GS'  website. Meet the people who made the report. You will understand what I mean.




> Man set feet on the Moon in 1969 and we're still struggling with low-quality rockets.



Well, did man actually step on the moon in 1969? As far as I remember, George Bush talked about going to the moon again by 2020. As of today, even the US can't send a man to the moon.



> There is no quality high-education here.



LOL! I have met Oxford Computer Science students. All of them tell me that they aren't sure they could cope up with IIT syllabus.

I have an admission from the 19th best B-school in the world. I couldn't even come close to getting into the IIMs. 

Well, if there is no quality education here, how come IIM grads are CEOs of so many american firms? 

It's alright talking about fancy stuff, but as far as education goes, I can tell you for sure that Indian b-schools are right up there with the best. Now don't tell me I'm saying that because I am no one. I have an admission from 5 top 40 B-schools, and I can tell you that the IIMs are better than each one of them.




> If you know about Gartner, you'll understand the difference between *expert predictions* and the reality.



You are actually comparing Gartner with Goldman Sachs? My god! That's like saying Intel can't make a processor because a company in Bangladesh can't. Yes, that's the difference between Gartner and Goldman Sachs. GS actually advices governments on economic affairs.




> Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe I'm not. But there are a few facts that you and the brilliant economists are not taking into account. That, investors don't go to places where people can't defend themselves. There's no point in investing billions in a country which is on the verge of breaking itself into pieces. We talk of becoming a superpower, much like the US, but we can't even cope with a failed neighbour state.



Well get up. Investors are coming to India. Bloomberg has started tracking India as a separate market. Almost all investment banks worth their salt are here. Along with Brazil, India has probably the most attractive markets as of today.

British and French students are coming in hundreds to do internships at Indian banks to get the 'Indian' experience. 

As far as Pakistan goes, India has tolerated them well. I think war is not an alternative. War will destabilize India, and that is a fact.

But, I must understand that you will try to defend yourself at any cost, even if you are wrong, which you are. Please give me facts. Go out and read the GS report and then talk. Also, do me a favour and talk to a person who knows about China. You will get lots of facts about their economy, which you would never have known. It's the fastest growing economy, but it's no way as stable as the second fastest growing economy.

Using language to your advantage and talking about 'pride' does not make one clever. Stating facts does.

As far as GS not taking investors into account, I can't believe how weird your reasoning is. GS is actually the biggest investment bank on this planet. And it will not consider investments? LOL!


----------



## Yamaraj (Jan 25, 2007)

Sure, IITs are the best. So what if there's no actual R&D work there. So what if there has not been a single Nobel laureate from there. So what if their syllabus is only designed to suit the needs and requirements of the MNCs. So what if no sane person would even compare it with the institutions of US, Japan, EU, Korea and China. And so what if the IITians contribute little to their own country. Hey ho! IITs are the best.

Man didn't land on the Moon? Now, you're relying on a conspiracy theory to validate your point. And I thought you posted against the same only a post ago. Let me remind you of that:



			
				mail2and said:
			
		

> No conspiracy theory can work here. Sorry.


Hmm?

Gartner and Bangladesh? Sorry, bad analogy! Better luck next time.

Not all wars destabilize countries. Some top level economists will disagree with you. The second World War boosted US economy to new levels, after the bad 20s-30s. And US has been using wars ever since then to enhance their economy. I can't see how all these wars have destabilized them. Sure, if you want to compare India with African trash countries, I'm all ears. But there nothing funnier than hoping for a superpower status with a p*ssycat attitude. No UNSC seat for you, sorry!

But who cares! We'll finally become a superpower in 2050 maybe. Hey ho, lets deflower a Champagne to celebrate a day in future. Hey ho!


----------



## mail2and (Jan 25, 2007)

Yamaraj said:
			
		

> Sure, IITs are the best. So what if there's no actual R&D work there. So what if there has not been a single Nobel laureate from there. So what if their syllabus is only designed to suit the needs and requirements of the MNCs. So what if no sane person would even compare it with the institutions of US, Japan, EU, Korea and China. And so what if the IITians contribute little to their own country. Hey ho! IITs are the best.



I'm sorry, but you're wrong again. Microsoft has 2 research centers outside of the US, one is at Cambridge and the other is at IIT. I agree Indian educational institutions are light on the R & D side, but the overall teaching quality is right up there with the best. Not my words, actually. Oxford Comp Science students say this. I wonder how you know more than these CS students from a top 5 univ?

It's very interesting how you pick and choose while replying. Wonder why you did not make any point about B-schools?
*



> Gartner and Bangladesh? Sorry, bad analogy! Better luck next time.



Compared with Goldman Sachs, Gartner is very very small. It's not a bad analogy. You're trying to be smart because you have no point to argue with me. Go check out Gartner's and GS' profiles, and you will know why I made that analogy.

In 2006, GS' revenues were $37.67 billion and their net profit was $9.54 billion. It has an employee base of 30,335.

In 2005, Gartner's revenues were $989 million. It has an employee base of 3,700.

Gartner is an IT consulting and research firm.

GS is an investment bank.

*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_Sachs

*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gartner

You actually tried comparing GS and Gartner!



> Not all wars destabilize countries. Some top level economists will disagree with you. The second World War boosted US economy to new levels, after the bad 20s-30s.



The main reason why the Second world War boosted the American economy was because it was never fought on American land(except Pearl Harbour). Europe was in a mess, and American companies capitalised on that. It's funny how you don't even know history. That is the reason why America prospered after World War II.

If India wages a war on Pakistan, then there is every chance Pakistan will nuke one of India's cities. That will de-stabilize the economy. 

Even today, America is waging war on Iraq, but it's not being fought on its land. As a result, it doesn't affect America's economy much. On the contrary, American companies are getting huge contracts in Iraq.

If Pakistan was in Africa, I can assure you that they would have been wiped off the map by now.

As for the UNSC seat, even Germany and Japan do not have a UNSC seat. I wonder what you will call their attitude?

Of course, you may need to think of more smart words to counter my facts with your fantasies.


----------



## hailgautam (Jan 25, 2007)

don't think so, but if we keep growing like this in population we will overtake the world by around 2100. we will swell over our national boundaries and we will take  over all our neighbors' land for rent.


----------



## Yamaraj (Jan 25, 2007)

@mail2and,

I'm not talking about *XYZ's research center in India*. You seem to have purposely ignored the original statement. How many of the Indian institutions, IITs included, can actually be compared to those of the other mentioned countries - in terms of R&D? Moreover, knowledge doesn't depend on institutions or their education. Most of the real scientists never went to *Top 5* universities. In fact, I'm wondering how you can compare me with them without having the slightest of idea and information about me. Care to explain for getting personal?

As for the B-schools, well ...some are good enough for a developing country like ours, but definitely not in line with those like Harvard etc.

I've had enough history lessons by now. Stop acting smart and read between the lines. I didn't ask for the reason why US economy became stronger after WW2. Both Germany and Japan rebuilt themselves after the war and their economy grew at astonishing rates.

I'm surprised that you don't know why Germany and Japan don't have a seat in UNSC. It's because of their role in WW2. They lost a war they started, and UNSC was erected on that grave.

If you ask me, a nuclear capable country can be attacked without a threat of nuclear backlash. US won the Cold War without having fired a single missle at USSR. Our political and military leaders simply don't have the courage and guts for that.

2050 - A Superpower Odyssey!


----------



## mail2and (Jan 25, 2007)

Yamaraj said:
			
		

> As for the B-schools, well ...some are good enough for a developing country like ours, but definitely not in line with those like Harvard etc.



Lol. IIMs are in the league of Harvard, Stanford and INSEAD. As I said, I've got admission into top univs in the UK, and I can tell you that they just don't stand a chance against the top league ones, which includes the IIMs. Just go to a UK student forum like thestudentroom.co.uk or ibtalk.com and check out the respect these students have for the IIMs.




> I've had enough history lessons by now. Stop acting smart and read between the lines. I didn't ask for the reason why US economy became stronger after WW2.



You said 'Not all wars destabilize countries. Some top level economists will disagree with you. The second World War boosted US economy to new levels, after the bad 20s-30s.'.

I gave an explanation for it. If you knew history, then why would you make such a statement?



> I'm surprised that you don't know why Germany and Japan don't have a seat in UNSC. It's because of their role in WW2. They lost a war they started, and UNSC was erected on that grave.



India was offered a seat in 1948/9, which Jokerlal Nehru happily passed onto the Chinese.



> If you ask me, a nuclear capable country can be attacked without a threat of nuclear backlash. US won the Cold War without having fired a single missle at USSR. Our political and military leaders simply don't have the courage and guts for that.



It was because USA was richer and more influential than the USSR. India, at present, can't risk a war, because finally we've got a stable, fast growing economy. They can't risk a slowdown because some kids want to see fireworks. But, this economic growth is despite the govt. and not because of it.

I know of so many ministers even today, who openly ask for money from top execs. of MNCs. But, my point is that this won't and doesn't affect the economy. It's accepted a part and parcel of setting up business in India.


----------



## Yamaraj (Jan 25, 2007)

mail2and said:
			
		

> Lol. IIMs are in the league of Harvard, Stanford and INSEAD. As I said, I've got admission into top univs in the UK, and I can tell you that they just don't stand a chance against the top league ones, which includes the IIMs. Just go to a UK student forum like thestudentroom.co.uk or ibtalk.com and check out the respect these students have for the IIMs.


*www.ft.com/cms/s/af7e3c34-9135-11d...uid=991cbd66-9258-11da-977b-0000779e2340.html
*www.ft.com/cms/s/c6f038fa-6041-11d...uid=f2df71ea-6052-11db-a716-0000779e2340.html
*www.ft.com/businesseducation/mba

Sure, a LOT can change in 43 years. But my point is - without the backbone of technology and R&D, it's not possible to develop beyond a saturation point. The same GS ranked India 3rd-to-be-in-2050, in its 2003 report. Next year, it may be Brazil, China or Russia.



			
				mail2and said:
			
		

> India was offered a seat in 1948/9, which *Jokerlal Nehru* happily passed onto the Chinese.


There is at least one thing we both agree on.

Last, but not the least, a better GDP won't change anything unless the government draws concrete plans for the ordinary man. Otherwise, by 2050, 5% of Indians will consume 95% of the resources, and that will a destabilizing factor more severe than any war in human history.


----------

