# I can't wait for Brazil, India, and Indonesia to become economically more powerful



## boto_mix (Sep 14, 2005)

cello1974 said:


> Well, for living standards of Europe, they have a loooooooooooong way to go. Social security, education, health and others,....


I think as you.


----------



## cello1974 (May 20, 2003)

AcesHigh said:


> GDP Per Capita of southern Brazilian states is at the same level as several east european countries.


But the distribution is not the same level. In the small city of Florianópolis 28% of the population live in favelas! You would never find such things in Poland or the Czech Republic! :sleepy:


----------



## AcesHigh (Feb 20, 2003)

only the strong will survive.


----------



## jd_bond (Sep 13, 2005)

mopc said:


> Brazil and Russia are way more developed than China and India in Human Development. China and India just happen to have huge populations, thus they weigh more.* But the average Chinese worker makes like 4 times less than his Brazilian counterpart.*



and thats in PPP? I don' t think so....

And huge population has it's own pluses (imagine US with only 50 million people!!)..


----------



## Cee_em_bee (May 12, 2004)

cello1974 said:
 

> But the distribution is not the same level. In the small city of Florianópolis 28% of the population live in favelas! You would never find such things in *Poland or the Czech Republic! *:sleepy:



both which have pretty significant elements of Socialism in their societys.


----------



## FAAN (Jun 24, 2011)

Brazil will become one of the highest GDP in the world today, we are the sixth economy (2.556 trillion U.S. dollars) are growing both socially and economically. In 2050 we will be the 3rd or 4th largest economy in the world can overcome even the U.S.


----------



## tikiturf (May 20, 2011)

GDP (nominal) doesn't mean anything, don't be excited ! Look at smaller countries with a small GDP (Switzerland, Norway, Luxembourg ....) They are not in the top 10, but in GDP PPP per capita, they are.


----------



## FAAN (Jun 24, 2011)

tikiturf said:


> GDP (nominal) doesn't mean anything, don't be excited ! Look at smaller countries with a small GDP (Switzerland, Norway, Luxembourg ....) They are not in the top 10, but in GDP PPP per capita, they are.


^^I know, but as I said earlier today you can observe various social improvement of the country with an HDI higher (although still not satisfactory), and improvements in various aspects of the activity is not Brazilian, today only 15% (same as the measured observed in Canada) of the population is considered poor, ie, besides a great growth economy in Brazil is evolving very socially able to further reach developed country status (set by the government for 2020 or 2025). kay:


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

^^ that's all great, but the poverty line in Canada is way higher than the poverty line in Brazil so I'm not sure it really means much that they are both the same.

PS why do you keep resurrecting 7 year old threads?


----------



## NorthWesternGuy (Aug 25, 2005)

What about the overvalued Real? Is it implicating some problems or everything's ok?


----------



## FAAN (Jun 24, 2011)

Jonesy55 said:


> ^^ that's all great, but the poverty line in Canada is way higher than the poverty line in Brazil so I'm not sure it really means much that they are both the same.
> 
> PS why do you keep resurrecting 7 year old threads?


They are about interesting topics that can be updated and have a good discussion. 

And why not rescue topics with good subjects? :dunno:


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

NorthWesternGuy said:


> What about the overvalued Real? Is it implicating some problems or everything's ok?


No problems so far (aside imaginary ones). The exports grew 27% last year. 30 billion dollar trade surplus.


----------



## henrique42 (Dec 5, 2011)

''What about the overvalued Real? Is it implicating some problems or everything's ok?''

Nowadays it is more expensive to produce in Brazil than in the US.

(http://economia.estadao.com.br/noti...r-no-pais-custa-mais-que-nos-eua,106403,0.htm)


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

^^
Insane high taxes, awful infrastructure, crazy bureaucracy have nothing to do with it... It's all about the "overvalued" real...


----------



## henrique42 (Dec 5, 2011)

^^

''O câmbio é o principal vilão por causa do enfraquecimento do dólar, especialmente diante do real, mas não é o único''

I did not say it, it was Gabriel Rico, CEO of the Câmara Americana de Comércio.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

^^
That's an OPINION. Here is the FACT: Brazilian exports grew *27%* in 2011, with a *30 billion-dollar* trade surplus. with an average exchange rate of US$ 1.00=R$ 1.66. For 2012, the average exchange rate is on R$ 1.76. So only Brazil should export? What about the other countries?

I am, as a consumer, loving the relatively strong real. The supermarket I attend (small one) is full of European products with very good prices. Olive oil, chocolate, jams, cheese, wine, etc. Brazilians are profiting a lot of it. I (and the majority of people) don't care about those few big companies always want to export more and more (last year, a 27% growth). 

The governmet (and part of the press, the big tycoons) should drop this and tackles the real issues: high taxes, poor infrastructure, bureaucracy. Actually, real should be even stronger.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Can olives grow anywhere in Brazil? Or maybe northern Chile is better suited, do you import any from there?


----------



## xrtn2 (Jan 12, 2011)

Jonesy55 said:


> Can olives grow anywhere in Brazil


yes, minas gerais state


----------



## henrique42 (Dec 5, 2011)

''That's an OPINION.''

No, it's a fact that, because of the too strong real, the ''Insane high taxes, awful infrastructure, crazy bureaucracy'' (quoting all-knowing Yuri), making industrialized products is nowadys more expensive in Brazil than in the US.

A bubble that will burst (as will the housing bubble), just wait and see

''The governmet (and part of the press, the big tycoons) should drop this and tackles the real issues: high taxes, poor infrastructure, bureaucracy. Actually, real should be even stronger.''

now THAT'S an opinion, and a stupid one, While you are enjoying your european jam, national industries are starting to suffer from the too strong real, the ruthless chinese imports.
Tipical Brazilian short-term thinking.


----------



## NorthWesternGuy (Aug 25, 2005)

henrique42 said:


> ''That's an OPINION.''
> 
> No, it's a fact that, because of the too strong real, the ''Insane high taxes, awful infrastructure, crazy bureaucracy'' (quoting all-knowing Yuri), making industrialized products is nowadys more expensive in Brazil than in the US.
> 
> ...


An example of that:

Brazil turns protectionist: wants Mexico to limit car exports to 1.4bn in three years

*Brazil's government wants Mexico to impose quotas on its own auto exports to the South American nation to ensure the total value does not exceed 1.4 billion dollars over the next three years, the development, industry and foreign trade ministry said*

http://en.mercopress.com/2012/03/14...-to-limit-car-exports-to-1.4bn-in-three-years


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

Jonesy55 said:


> Can olives grow anywhere in Brazil? Or maybe northern Chile is better suited, do you import any from there?


Commercially no. Brazil is one of the largest consumers, but 100% of the olive oil is imported. Few years ago, we've got only a couple of Portuguese brands, one Spanish and a bad Argentinian one. Today, the supermarkets are full of new brands, specially Italian.




henrique42 said:


> now THAT'S an opinion, and a stupid one, While you are enjoying your european jam, national industries are starting to suffer from the too strong real, the ruthless chinese imports.
> Tipical Brazilian short-term thinking.


And why a rich industrial tycoon is more important than myself or other Brazilian consumers? I wanna good and cheap products, and I really don't care where they come from.

Brazilian private sector has a promiscous relationship with the government and that's why we can't solve the real issues. And do you really think Brazil will get away with all these shameless currency manipulation and other jurassic protectionist measures?




NorthWesternGuy said:


> An example of that:
> 
> Brazil turns protectionist: wants Mexico to limit car exports to 1.4bn in three years
> 
> ...


Meanwhile Brazilian consumers cannot get a car for less than US$ 20,000, and those are the cheapest ones. Brazilian cars are the worst and the most expensive of the world. It's disgusting. But you see, the problem is the strong real...


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Until the 1970s pretty much the only place you could find olive oil in the UK was in pharmacies, people used it mostly for softening earwax and conditioning hair. :laugh:


----------



## kurklk (Dec 22, 2004)

I personally feel that The way China, India, Brazil and russia are growing are unsustainable. Too many people are being excluded from development. Atleast thats the case In India. Lots of indians are now living a good life with 2 cars, a nice house, vacations in europe But a LOT more indians are barely able to feed their kids. Obviously this is also an issue here in the US. But I know that in India theres a Lot more people being excluded than included. 
We really need to think of way to bring development to everyone. China's model seems to be working very well, but that system would never work in a democratic country like India or Brazil. Im not sure what the solution is. But Definitely Its an issue that needs to be solved.


----------



## Positronn (Jan 25, 2008)

kurklk said:


> I personally feel that The way China, India, Brazil and russia are growing are unsustainable. Too many people are being excluded from development. Atleast thats the case In India. Lots of indians are now living a good life with 2 cars, a nice house, vacations in europe But a LOT more indians are barely able to feed their kids. Obviously this is also an issue here in the US. But I know that in India theres a Lot more people being excluded than included.
> We really need to think of way to bring development to everyone. China's model seems to be working very well, but that system would never work in a democratic country like India or Brazil. Im not sure what the solution is. But Definitely Its an issue that needs to be solved.


Of course there are a lot of people excluded from the development. If everybody owned 2 cars and a good life they would be developed countries :nuts: . But at least in Brasil, this group of excluded people is getting smaller and smaller; wealth inequality is lessening. All available data points towards this way.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

^^
Totally agree. People should drop for good these kind of condescending clichés. Economic growth is good. Period. 99% of people would benefit from it. Or do people think stagnation or recession is the best answer for poor people in the developing countries?

Specifically about Brazil, few countries in the world have experienced such improvement in terms of inequality in the past decade. For instance, while the economy grew only 2.7% last year, the minimum wage grew 14%. The gap between rich and poor are getting smaller and smaller each year. But even if that were not the case, the economic growth will be always good as Mrs. Thatcher graciously states:


----------



## jecarega (Apr 9, 2011)

^^ Thatcher? Ha!

In the 1970's, during the military dictatorship, Brazil's economy grew at a faster pace than in the last 8 years, but social inequality wasn't reduced like it was in the last 8 years.

Only growth per se is not a guarantee of reduction of social inequality.

The reason why Brazil reduced social inequality in the past 8 years is because our government had policies that are very very different from those preached by Mrs. Thatcher and her friends...


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

^^
You didn't understand what I said. Read the last paragraph again: I said economic growth is good because it improves the life of the vast majority of people, even without inequality reduction. I'd rather see Brazilian (or any other) economy growing 10% a year and keeping the current GINI index, than growing 2%, but reducing inequality. That's my point, and that's what this video is about.


----------



## jecarega (Apr 9, 2011)

Yuri S Andrade said:


> ^^
> You didn't understand what I said. Read the last paragraph again: I said economic growth is good because it improves the life of the vast majority of people, even without inequality reduction.



Tell that to the millions of people who didn't see their lives improve during the "Brazilian miracle" of the dictatorship...


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

^^
What about the millions and millions who actually see their lives improving during the miracle? The country went through amazing transformations during that time precisely because of the strong economic growth. I really don't see what's your point.


----------



## jecarega (Apr 9, 2011)

Yuri S Andrade said:


> ^^
> What about the millions and millions who actually see their lives improving during the miracle? The country went through amazing transformations during that time precisely because of the strong economic growth. I really don't see what's your point.



A small middle class benefited from the "miracle" of the dictatorship.

The huge masses of the population didn't, since during the military dictatorship the *real* value of the minimum wage actually *decreased*, compared to the period before the military coup.



*EDIT *

Just to illustrate my point, here is the graph:










Compare 1960 to 1970 and 1980.


That's what happen when you have a government that persecutes the unions and organized labor, just as preached by Mrs. Thatcher...


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

^^
:lol:

People really don't understand this graphic and that's why it always comes again for propaganda purposes. How many people do you think got the minimum wage in 1940? Virtually no one. And in 1970? Way more. You cannot compare this. And "small middle class"? People all over the country were thrilled in the early 70's, specially in the hinterland. Everybody were making money, construction and infrastructure works everywhere. The president popularity reached the skies.

And please, can you understand Brazilian economic miracle is one thing and the oil crisis is another one? I don't know why, but people tend to merge these two antagonistic things into one.


----------



## Positronn (Jan 25, 2008)

jecarega said:


> A small middle class benefited from the "miracle" of the dictatorship.
> 
> The huge masses of the population didn't, since during the military dictatorship the *real* value of the minimum wage actually *decreased*, compared to the period before the military coup.
> 
> ...


To illustrate your point, you need the total income, the income per capita, the GINI at each period. It would be good to show the share of each income class, too. This graphic, as claimed by Yuri, means nothing.


----------



## ArchiMos (Jan 18, 2011)

Gross domestic product based on purchasing-power-parity (PPP) *per capita* (current int. dollar) WMF:

2000

Russia - 7.661,47
Brasil - 7.207,00
China - 2.378,74
India - 1.534,26


2005

Russia - 11.881,88
Brasil - 8.603,36
China - 4.102,46
India - 2.190,48


2011

Russia - 16.735,78
Brasil - 11.769,07
China - 8.386,68
India - 3.662,69


----------



## null (Dec 11, 2002)

China's GDP change:

*The top 50 fastest-growing cities, by GDP per capita, are practically all in the developing Asian world. The top 18 are in China. The rest are in China, Indonesia (Jakarta), India (Chennai), and Australia (Perth). 


Of the world's fastest-shrinking cities, 42 of the bottom 50 were in the EU. The others included Dubai, Adelaide, Australia, and Albuquerque.*











Source: Brookings Global MetroMonitor

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...-and-fastest-shrinking-cities-in-2012/265781/


----------



## null (Dec 11, 2002)

ArchiMos said:


> Gross domestic product based on purchasing-power-parity (PPP) *per capita* (current int. dollar) WMF:
> 
> 2000
> 
> ...


*2017 GDP forcast by IMF (Nominal)

Brazil: 15,919
Russia: 21,351
India: 2,428
China 9,528*


India is kinda slow in GDP growth...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...)_per_capita#IMF_estimates.2C_2010.E2.80.9317


----------



## ArchiMos (Jan 18, 2011)

null said:


> *2017 GDP forcast by IMF (Nominal)
> 
> Brazil: 15,919
> Russia: 21,351
> ...


Nope, if we go to the IMF web and form a report we can see the new data for this forecast and it is:

Gross domestic product based on purchasing-power-parity (PPP) *per capita *GDP

*2017

Brasil - 15.388,07
Russia - 23.643,79
India - 5.392,59
China - 14.566,2*


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Guys it's just reverting back to norm after the Industrial Revolution>colonialism>post-colonialism era from 1820. Basically the world will be mostly 'middle class' once more with economies defined by the size of their populations rather than inequality and exploitation (a method of rise to the top then burn the ladder behind you). The West will still be rich, but so will most everyone else, and thus the West will take a lesser share, thasall. Like Fareed Zakariah, editor of Newsweek, says it's not so much the fall of the West but the rise of the rest.

If you look at the long picture over 1000 years. By 2050 the West will still garner 20% of GDP with only 15% of the population, and heading back toward the equal rates before the dramatic increase with the Industrial Revolution in 1820 (an equal 25% of world GDP for 25% population):

From the Economist 2050 Megachange


----------



## Ulpia-Serdica (Oct 24, 2011)

^^

I guess you are right to some extant, with the only difference being that growth is not a simplistic and linear thing as most of these 40-50 years forecasts make it look. They don't take into consideration political & economic changes, nor technological breakthroughs. The argument about the size of the population is not the same today as it was back in the days. If up until 10 years ago, we were talking about the demographic dividend, the future of overpopulated countries due to the aggressive automation of production in many industries & 3-D printing development, might resemble more a demographic burden than anything else. The first signs are already appearing, more and more companies resort to 3D-printing for many of their products. Factories are getting complete automation and production process are moving back to Europe, USA or Japan.

You should read this article by Ruchir Sharma, he is a Managing Director and the head of the Emerging Markets Equity team at Morgan Stanley Investment Management. I have highlighted some of the interesting points that he discusses.

*Broken BRICs - Why the Rest Stopped Rising*

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138219/ruchir-sharma/broken-brics?page=show



> The notion of wide-ranging convergence between the developing and the developed worlds is a myth. Of the roughly 180 countries in the world tracked by the International Monetary Fund, only 35 are developed. The markets of the rest are emerging-and most of them have been emerging for many decades and will continue to do so for many more. The Harvard economist Dani Rodrik captures this reality well. He has shown that before 2000, the performance of the emerging markets as a whole did not converge with that of the developed world at all. In fact, the per capita income gap between the advanced and the developing economies steadily widened from 1950 until 2000. There were a few pockets of countries that did catch up with the West, but they were limited to oil states in the Gulf, the nations of southern Europe after World War II, and the economic "tigers" of East Asia. It was only after 2000 that the emerging markets as a whole started to catch up; nevertheless, as of 2011, the difference in per capita incomes between the rich and the developing nations was back to where it was in the 1950s.
> 
> This is not a negative read on emerging markets so much as it is simple historical reality. Over the course of any given decade since 1950, on average, only a third of the emerging markets have been able to grow at an annual rate of five percent or more. Less than one-fourth have kept up that pace for two decades, and one-tenth, for three decades. Only Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and Hong Kong have maintained this growth rate for four decades.





> Initially labeled as "exotic," many emerging-market countries were then opening up their stock markets to foreigners for the first time: Taiwan opened its up in 1991; India, in 1992; South Korea, in 1993; and Russia, in 1995. Foreign investors rushed in, unleashing a 600 percent boom in emerging-market stock prices (measured in dollar terms) between 1987 and 1994. Over this period, the amount of money invested in emerging markets rose from less than one percent to nearly eight percent of the global stock-market total.
> 
> This phase ended with the economic crises that struck from Mexico to Turkey between 1994 and 2002. The stock markets of developing countries lost almost half their value and shrank to four percent of the global total. From 1987 to 2002, developing countries' share of global GDP actually fell, from 23 percent to 20 percent. The exception was China, which saw its share double, to 4.5 percent. The story of the hot emerging markets, in other words, was really about one country.





> Whether or not pundits continue using the acronym, sensible analysts and investors need to stay flexible; historically, flashy countries that grow at five percent or more for a decade -- such as Venezuela in the 1950s, Pakistan in the 1960s, or Iraq in the 1970s -- are usually tripped up by one threat or another (war, financial crisis, complacency, bad leadership) before they can post a second decade of strong growth.





> In the decade to come, the United States, Europe, and Japan are likely to grow slowly. Their sluggishness, however, will look less worrisome compared with the even bigger story in the global economy, which will be the three to four percent slowdown in China, which is already under way, with a possibly deeper slowdown in store as the economy continues to mature. China's population is simply too big and aging too quickly for its economy to continue growing as rapidly as it has. With over 50 percent of its people now living in cities, China is nearing what economists call "the Lewis turning point": the point at which a country's surplus labor from rural areas has been largely exhausted. This is the result of both heavy migration to cities over the past two decades and the shrinking work force that the one-child policy has produced. In due time, the sense of many Americans today that Asian juggernauts are swiftly overtaking the U.S. economy will be remembered as one of the country's periodic bouts of paranoia, akin to the hype that accompanied Japan's ascent in the 1980s.





> Another casualty will be the notion of the so-called demographic dividend. Because China's boom was driven in part by a large generation of young people entering the work force, consultants now scour census data looking for similar population bulges as an indicator of the next big economic miracle. But such demographic determinism assumes that the resulting workers will have the necessary skills to compete in the global market and that governments will set the right policies to create jobs. In the world of the last decade, when a rising tide lifted all economies, the concept of a demographic dividend briefly made sense. But that world is gone.


----------



## TEBC (Dec 26, 2004)

The "developed" Brazil

São Paulo


mopc said:


> If you don't mind a little comparision between different times... 12 years apart





xrtn2 said:


>





xrtn2 said:


> P1010867 by dekkardnexus5, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> P1020974 by dekkardnexus5, on Flickr


----------



## zaphod (Dec 8, 2005)

Too many pictures!


----------



## krkseg1ops (Mar 19, 2009)

deekshith said:


> Also it is worth mentioning that India would be in second place ahead of Russia and brazil in GDP @ $37.668 Trillion.
> There is some error in that list. India's nominal GDP was at $1847.92 Billion in Dec 2011 itself but that survey tells that India will reach $1,900 billion by 2015.. that is clearly an underestimation of India's GDP/potential.


How is India going to obtain such GDP figures? It is just not possible, not even China will be able to do that and they are 30 years ahead of India in terms of development. I say India will be number 5 economy in 2050.


----------



## englishisgood345 (Jan 10, 2013)

I've always wondered why BRIC doesn't include Indonesia, since it's an underdeveloped, high population economy, like IBRIC. Or iBric


----------



## aAedol (Jun 7, 2010)

englishisgood345 said:


> I've always wondered why BRIC doesn't include Indonesia, since it's an underdeveloped, high population economy, like IBRIC. Or iBric


BRIC has been made ​​since 2001, at that time Indonesia was in a state of emergency and economic crisis, even many of the international observers predicted Indonesia would follow in the footsteps of the Soviet Union, but it turns out they were all wrong, 13 years later Indonesia was transformed into the country with the 16th largest economy in the world, from nowhere in 2001. Within 5 years Indonesia can doubled its GDP percapita, but they still underestimate Indonesia even today, even HSBC predicted Indonesia will have 1.8 trillion GDP in 2050, while Indonesia has had a GDP PPP 1.2 trillion and GDP nominal 940 billion USD in 2012. Indonesia always overlooked by international observers. Although there are some observers who are now starting to turn its attention to Indonesia.


----------



## deekshith (Oct 8, 2010)

krkseg1ops said:


> How is India going to obtain such GDP figures?


You will see for yourself in the next couple of decades.


----------



## xrtn2 (Jan 12, 2011)

The last brazilian HDI has datas from 2004 ,so Brazil will increase a lot in the next HDI 2013 INDEX.


----------



## Phayer (Oct 18, 2012)

The America should fear the growing Russian? hahahaha , joke.

No offense but I can not see big growth in India , social growth, India has so much misery , violence , diseases , disaster ... and more corrupt government.

I think the future will be:

1. America
2. China
3. Russia
4. Japan
5. Brazil
6. Germany
7. India
8. France
9. Canada
10. Korea
11. Mexico
12. UK
13. Italy
14. Indonesia
15. Australia
16. Turkey
17. Poland
18. Spain
19. Netherlands
20. South Africa


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

http://www.2point6billion.com/news/...-top-economy-in-2020-india-in-2050-10921.html

China is set to overtake the US economy (PPP) within the next 4 years.

According to the OECD

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/nov/09/china-overtake-us-four-years-oecd

and the IMF:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/apr/27/china-imf-economy-2016


----------



## Phayer (Oct 18, 2012)

LMAO , INDIA ?


----------



## Phayer (Oct 18, 2012)

I can not believe this Index, America in third? hahahahahahahaha


----------



## FAAN (Jun 24, 2011)

I believe that the USA will be in second place ahead of India (3rd), Brazil (4th) and behind China.


----------



## FAAN (Jun 24, 2011)

xrtn2 said:


> The last brazilian HDI has datas from 2004 ,so Brazil will increase a lot in the next HDI 2013 INDEX.


Like the HDI of brazilian cities that have their data based on studies of 2000.


----------



## Phayer (Oct 18, 2012)

I do not think we're so bad , America can keep ahead of china. China took a downturn in the economy. America Despite having a huge debt =O, still managed to keep the world.


----------



## Phayer (Oct 18, 2012)

...I still think Russia and Brazil are higher than India.


----------



## n20 (Oct 13, 2012)

Phayer said:


> ...I still think Russia and Brazil are higher than India.


Russia and Brazil presently have a higher GDP(PPP) per capita than both China and India. However, both China and India already have much larger economies (GDP - PPP) than both Russia and Brazil.
China and India are already at the 2nd and 3rd positions in the world in terms of total GDP(PPP), only behind the USA.

Regarding HDI and social development, both China and India are already undergoing a massive social revolution of sorts. Countries of this magnitude take time, unlike say, a relatively small country of 50 million people.


----------



## philbern (Jun 14, 2005)

Phayer said:


> I can not believe this Index, America in third? hahahahahahahaha




You'll be surprised what other countries made it to the top 20 list for year 2050.


----------



## Phayer (Oct 18, 2012)

Do not know.The America is still very influential in the world, although we have several problems.I hope that China will pass us by 2070 or so there.

China and India have many many more problems , Not only can we say that are already solving their problems because no season, no imagination as to be complicated to solve with a population of 1 billion. Has many things to do to be developed. Recalling that the government is extremely corrupt and authoritarian. Only time will tell who is right


----------



## eddeux (Jun 16, 2010)

Why do some of you sound so pressed over India?:? I mean they already are #4 going by PPP, so being #2 by PPP in another 37 years doesn't sound unreasonable to me. They may not surpass America in nominal GDP by then, but I do think they will be in a comfortable 3rd place. It won't take much to surpass Japan, Germany, UK, etc. especially when you have 1.2 billion people.



Phayer said:


> The America should fear the growing Russian? hahahaha , joke.
> 
> No offense but I can not see big growth in India , social growth, India has so much misery , violence , diseases , disaster ... and more corrupt government.
> 
> ...



- How is the UK below Canada, France, Korea and Germany? 
- How are the Netherlands & Australia going to stay in the Top 20?
- If any African nation is going to be in the top 20, it's going to be Nigeria (160 million today, potentially near or over 300 million by then; already not too far behind SA as well, not growing at full potential despite already achieving 7%+ growth, etc.) 

My predictions:

1. China
2. America 
3. India 
4. Brazil or Indonesia
5. Brazil or Indonesia 
6. Russia or Mexico 
7. Russia or Mexico
8. Japan
9. UK
10. Germany


----------



## n20 (Oct 13, 2012)

èđđeůx;99194676 said:


> Why do some of you sound so pressed over India?:? *I mean they already are #4 going by PPP*, so being #2 by PPP in another 37 years doesn't sound unreasonable to me. They may not surpass America in nominal GDP by then, but I do think they will be in a comfortable 3rd place. It won't take much to surpass Japan, Germany, UK, etc. especially when you have 1.2 billion people.


*India is already at #3 going by GDP(PPP)*; it overtook Japan nearly two years ago.

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-04-19/news/31367838_1_ppp-terms-india-s-gdp-power-parity

World Bank data on World Bank data here


----------



## eddeux (Jun 16, 2010)

^^My bad thanks for the correction.


----------



## calaguyo (Nov 28, 2008)

Phayer said:


> Do not know.*The America is still very influential in the world,* although we have several problems.I hope that China will pass us by 2070 or so there.


Wait until Bollywood movies and Jackie Chan produced chinese movies that will dominate the entertainment industry. Hollywood will be a thing of the past hno:


----------



## oliver999 (Aug 4, 2006)

FAAN said:


> *IMF estimates between 2010 and 2017*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


wrong table. china,2012-2014 only increase 1675000???? while2010-2012 increase 2200000?


----------



## calaguyo (Nov 28, 2008)

Even if China surpasses USA in terms of GDP in the near future, USA remains to be a consumer/knowledge based economy while China may still keeps relying on exports which is volatile in economic point of view.


----------



## Candido (Aug 5, 2012)

calaguyo said:


> Even if China surpasses USA in terms of GDP in the near future, USA remains to be a consumer/knowledge based economy while China may still keeps relying on exports which is volatile in economic point of view.


China was the biggest economy in the World for several centuries and by a much longer time than USA or UK. And it is inevitable they will get back that position. You are completely mistaken if you think China is just a great "copied things" exporter. Don't forget that China is investing a lot on research, education and technology. Soon they'll be able to beat USA in that matter too just like they did to Europe a long time ago.

Nowadays, World's growth rates are maintained by China and in coming decades, spacial and military advances will be driven by China as well. Just a sign of the times and a proof that History is cyclical. There're no eternal Super Powers, although China has been proving they'll reign much longer than the West on that Podium.


----------



## ArchiMos (Jan 18, 2011)

Candido said:


> China was the biggest economy in the World for several centuries and by a much longer time than USA or UK. And it is inevitable they will get back that position. You are completely mistaken if you think China is just a great "copied things" exporter. Don't forget that China is investing a lot on research, education and technology. Soon they'll be able to beat USA in that matter too just like they did to Europe a long time ago.
> 
> Nowadays, World's growth rates are maintained by China and in coming decades, spacial and military advances will be driven by China as well. Just a sign of the times and a proof that History is cyclical. There're no eternal Super Powers, although China has been proving they'll reign much longer than the West on that Podium.


All that you have whritten here is beyond critics, these are just your fantacies together with the selected facts you have taken from the context. 
China spacial programe is a total copy of the Russian special researches, by the way, the same as their military "advances". And, alsou, I´m just curious in what China has beaten Europe?


----------



## Candido (Aug 5, 2012)

ArchiMos said:


> All that you have whritten here is beyond critics, these are just your fantacies together with the selected facts you have taken from the context.
> China spacial programe is a total copy of the Russian special researches, by the way, the same as their military "advances". And, alsou, I´m just curious in what China has beaten Europe?


China has beaten Europe in the past. They were the biggest Super Power several centuries ago and had much more developed economy, technology and social systems than Europe by then.


----------



## ArchiMos (Jan 18, 2011)

So what do you want to say that the big economies of the past will be the largest economies of the future :nuts: ?!?

So Egypt, Iran (Asiria, Persia), Iraq (Mesopotamia, Babilonia) and Grecia will also be the largest economies in future ?!?


----------



## Candido (Aug 5, 2012)

ArchiMos said:


> So what do you want to say that the big economies of the past will be the largest economies of the future :nuts: ?!?
> 
> So Egypt, Iran (Asiria, Persia), Iraq (Mesopotamia, Babilonia) and Grecia will also be the largest economies in future ?!?


Those countries you nominated are economies of the Ancient World. Not the same case. You forget that 300-200 years ago, China was the ONLY superpower. While many Europeans lived in mud huts and tilled the soil with wooden sticks, China was the greatest military and economic power on Earth by then. 

What i said is just that nowadays, the history is repeating itself. What we see is China recovering what they have lost in the last three or two centuries. And as i said, in the "recent history", they were the Super Power that lasted for more time on the top. So its kind of interesting when some people say "China is the New Superpower", as they've never been there already. I just don't wonder about China. I know the Potential they have and its far superior to that found in the West till now.


----------



## deekshith (Oct 8, 2010)

China will sure beat USA in overall GDP (both nominal and PPP) in near future but no one will gonna consider china as super power until they surpass US in terms of per capita GDP which is next to impossible for china.
I am talking about large economies here.... So, don't give example of countries having higher per capita GDP than USA like Luxembourg or Qatar.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Repost:



the spliff fairy said:


> Guys it's just reverting back to norm after the Industrial Revolution>colonialism>post-colonialism era from 1820. Basically the world will be mostly 'middle class' once more with economies defined by the size of their populations rather than inequality and exploitation (a method of rise to the top then burn the ladder behind you). The West will still be rich, but so will most everyone else, and thus the West will take a lesser share, thasall. Like Fareed Zakariah, editor of Newsweek, says it's not so much the fall of the West but the rise of the rest.
> 
> If you look at the long picture over 1000 years. By 2050 the West will still garner 20% of GDP with only 15% of the population, and heading back toward the equal rates before the dramatic increase with the Industrial Revolution in 1820 (an equal 25% of world GDP for 25% population):
> 
> From the Economist 2050 Megachange


----------



## FAAN (Jun 24, 2011)

oliver999 said:


> wrong table. china,2012-2014 only increase 1675000???? while2010-2012 increase 2200000?


Tell that to the IMF. :nuts:
The table is right, show only the reality and perspective of growth for the next years.


----------



## Candido (Aug 5, 2012)

deekshith said:


> China will sure beat USA in overall GDP (both nominal and PPP) in near future but no one will gonna consider china as super power until they surpass US in terms of per capita GDP which is next to impossible for china.
> I am talking about large economies here.... So, don't give example of countries having higher percapita GDP than USA like Luxembourg or Qatar.


Not only its possible but it'll happen. China will surpass not only USA but Europe in GDP Percapta. But not in the near future. Of course, that will result in scarce resources on the planet if China does not grow sustainably.


----------



## Phayer (Oct 18, 2012)

China still has much work to pass the United States .....

First the corrupt government, it greatly hinders development of a country.

Will not eliminate 100% of poverty, because they depend on their slaves to grow.

Pollution taking account of Chinese cities, big health problem for the population.

Chinese infrastructure is still cheap and of dubious quality, it needs to improve a lot. An example are your high-speed train that already suffer various injuries.

diseases, do not know much about it in China, but surely there must be a lot, especially in its slums.

and many other challenges that China must face. is easy to have a great economy enslaving his people want to see China become a developed country or a European level Japanese. (Hong Kong does not count because the UK has developed territory to china).


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

wow, just wow.#
Someone give this guy a pHD!


----------



## Ulpia-Serdica (Oct 24, 2011)

the spliff fairy said:


> Repost:


I guess I will repost my answer to this graph as well.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=98973470&postcount=78


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)


----------



## Candido (Aug 5, 2012)

Phayer said:


> China still has much work to pass the United States .....
> 
> First the corrupt government, it greatly hinders development of a country.
> 
> ...


Time is not static. Neither are the countries on the Globe. China is developing VERY fast. In almost everything... I agree that politically they're still behind schedule. But its just a matter of time till Chinese people start fighting for their political rights. 

And about challenges, i think Every country on Earth need to face many. USA and Europe are just the proof that even the developed countries still have to face challenges to keep their development standard. You're just underestimating 1.3 billion human beings and as we know, humans are very very complex and, when work together, can achieve great deeds.


----------



## Erran (Feb 10, 2010)

Phayer said:


> China still has much work to pass the United States .....
> 
> First the corrupt government, it greatly hinders development of a country.
> 
> ...


It's obvious that you underestimate China. 

Nowadays, USA becomes more and more dependent on China, economic wise, from cheap made in China products to government debt. AFAIK, the largest single holder of U.S. government debt currently is China as well, isn't it? CMIIW

With pretty moves, it can turn the fortune upside down. Just be careful! Higher GDP percapita is meaningless when you face bankruptcy like Greece. Ups, just kidding. :lol:


----------



## Ulpia-Serdica (Oct 24, 2011)

Erran said:


> the largest single holder of U.S. government debt currently is China as well, isn't it? CMIIW


7% of total US debt. The single largest holder of US debt is the federal government held in trust funds (around 30%)


----------



## garum0 (Jul 26, 2010)

Candido said:


> Those countries you nominated are economies of the Ancient World. Not the same case. You forget that 300-200 years ago, China was the ONLY superpower. While many Europeans lived in mud huts and tilled the soil with wooden sticks, China was the greatest military and economic power on Earth by then.
> 
> What i said is just that nowadays, the history is repeating itself. What we see is China recovering what they have lost in the last three or two centuries. And as i said, in the "recent history", they were the Super Power that lasted for more time on the top. So its kind of interesting when some people say "China is the New Superpower", as they've never been there already. I just don't wonder about China. I know the Potential they have and its far superior to that found in the West till now.


:rofl:


----------



## Candido (Aug 5, 2012)

garum0 said:


> :rofl:


All your argument is reduced to an emoticon? Very predictable. 

And the graphic above just corroborate to what i said. USA and Europe were benefited by an abnormal economic situation, specially during the XX century.


----------



## cfredo (Jul 9, 2012)

Phayer said:


> Will not eliminate 100% of poverty, because they depend on their slaves to grow.


So the US eliminated all its poverty?



Phayer said:


> Chinese infrastructure is still cheap and of dubious quality, it needs to improve a lot. An example are your high-speed train that already suffer various injuries.


It was one train crash. Even in developed countries there are train crashes (with more casualties), e.g. here in Germany the crash in Eschede. I guess that doesn't make Germany a third world country? How about the non-existant high speed train network in the US?



Phayer said:


> diseases, *do not know much about it* in China, *but surely* there must be a lot, especially in its slums.


Wow, what a profound statement...


----------



## Candido (Aug 5, 2012)

^^

Yes LOL

Some people from America and Europe are used to see themselves as the Top. If they're not anymore, they start to using any unfounded argument to disqualify other's development.

We're not living Cold War anymore. There is no such thing as Third, Second and First Worlds. Nowadays there're just countries with divers levels of development. The World is moving towards a future when most people will be middle class and disparities between countries will be much less intense and in some cases, will be insignificant. That mean the future World will be multipolar and there will be no place to Super mega hyper powers acting freely. And it is, actually, a great advance to Human kind.


----------



## Adde (May 8, 2011)

Candido said:


> Those countries you nominated are economies of the Ancient World. Not the same case. You forget that 300-200 years ago, China was the ONLY superpower. While many Europeans lived in mud huts and tilled the soil with wooden sticks, China was the greatest military and economic power on Earth by then.


Wait, are you seriously arguing that "many Europeans lived in mud huts and tilled the soild with wooden sticks" 200-300 years ago? That's just historically incorrect. 

While there were certainly much poverty in Europe in the 1700- and 1800's (just like everywhere else), the region was also highly developed both economically and technologically. In fact, it was a period of industrialization, exploration and colonization. 

By the way, few people lived in mud huts in Europe at the time (in fact, in much of Europe, there's never been mud huts since the climate just isn't right for mud as a building material), and Europeans have been tiling the earth with iron implements since the iron age.


----------



## Candido (Aug 5, 2012)

Adde said:


> Wait, are you seriously arguing that "many Europeans lived in mud huts and tilled the soild with wooden sticks" 200-300 years ago? That's just historically incorrect.
> 
> While there were certainly much poverty in Europe in the 1700- and 1800's (just like everywhere else), the region was also highly developed both economically and technologically. In fact, it was a period of industrialization, exploration and colonization.
> 
> By the way, few people lived in mud huts in Europe at the time (in fact, in much of Europe, there's never been mud huts since the climate just isn't right for mud as a building material), and Europeans have been tiling the earth with iron implements since the iron age.


No. Europe during Industrial Revolution were, actually, DEVELOPING. But it was NOT developed and advanced. Not when compared to Far East. Military and economically, till middle of XIX century, Far East were much more advanced. So we don't need to be surprised when we see the fast development of China or Russia. We need to be surprised when someone talks about the achievements of Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Indonesia etc They are the proof that the World is changing.


----------



## Yuree (May 31, 2012)

Candido said:


> No. Europe during Industrial Revolution were, actually, DEVELOPING. But it was NOT developed and advanced. Not when compared to Far East. Military and economically, till middle of XIX century, Far East were much more advanced. So we don't need to be surprised when we see the fast development of China or Russia. We need to be surprised when someone talks about the achievements of Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Indonesia etc They are the proof that the World is changing.


+1


----------



## Phayer (Oct 18, 2012)

> So the US eliminated all its poverty?


Assure that poverty in America does not compare with the Chinese.



> It was one train crash. Even in developed countries there are train crashes (with more casualties), e.g. here in Germany the crash in Eschede. I guess that doesn't make Germany a third world country? How about the non-existant high speed train network in the US?


Everyone knows the Chinese quality, not innocent, most things from china are fakes


----------



## cfredo (Jul 9, 2012)

Phayer said:


> *Everyone knows* the Chinese quality, not innocent, most things from china are fakes


Sentences that start this way are never good valid arguments... How about some facts, that China's infrastructure (or HSR) is inferior in terms of quality?


----------



## Adde (May 8, 2011)

Candido said:


> No. Europe during Industrial Revolution were, actually, DEVELOPING. But it was NOT developed and advanced. Not when compared to Far East. Military and economically, till middle of XIX century, Far East were much more advanced. So we don't need to be surprised when we see the fast development of China or Russia. We need to be surprised when someone talks about the achievements of Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Indonesia etc They are the proof that the World is changing.


Again, seriously? As far as I know, China and the Far East wasn't industrialized either, and not really on the way. Give me a couple of actual examples of way's in which the far east was more developed than Europe in the 1700's. 

If you were talking about the Middle Ages, then you'd have a point. European culture had declined in certain ways after the fall of the ancient world (though the "dark ages" weren't as dark as people often believe), and there were certainly other parts of the world that pulled ahead. But with the Renaissance and "Age of Reason", Europe quickly caught up between the 15th and 17th century.


----------



## Phayer (Oct 18, 2012)

then talks about some Chinese company? 

China has automotive company?
Any software company?

or someone that you know it is good quality and is respected worldwide.


----------



## garum0 (Jul 26, 2010)

Candido said:


> All your argument is reduced to an emoticon? Very predictable.
> 
> And the graphic above just corroborate to what i said. USA and Europe were benefited by an abnormal economic situation, specially during the XX century.


My friend, I'm laughing because you even lack the most basic understanding of history. :lol:

Anyway there's never been any abnormal event and there wont be in future, cause there're no rules, "Divine Providence" or "Manifest Destiny" that govern the historical process. Everything is changing due to things like war, migrations, climate change, cataclims, natural resources,people's will, desires and hopes, new scientific discoveries and inventions, financial crisis and bankrupt, new religions, new markets to open and so on...21st century will be different from 20th, that in turn was different form 19th, that was different from 18th, that was different from 10th or 1000 BC. 
As you "author" Voltaire used to say:


> “History never repeats itself. Man always does.”


----------



## Candido (Aug 5, 2012)

Adde said:


> Again, seriously? As far as I know, China and the Far East wasn't industrialized either, and not really on the way. Give me a couple of actual examples of way's in which the far east was more developed than Europe in the 1700's.
> 
> If you were talking about the Middle Ages, then you'd have a point. European culture had declined in certain ways after the fall of the ancient world (though the "dark ages" weren't as dark as people often believe), and there were certainly other parts of the world that pulled ahead. But with the Renaissance and "Age of Reason", Europe quickly caught up between the 15th and 17th century.


Be or not be industrialized doesn't mean you're developed or not. Europe only surpassed Far East about middle of XIX century, due to a series of abnormal conditions. Your example is the Meiji Era in Japan. Google about it and you'll see. 

Even the concept that the English people started the Industrial Revolution is just a fairytale to tell the History according to an Eurocentric vision.


----------



## Candido (Aug 5, 2012)

garum0 said:


> My friend, I'm laughing because you even lack the most basic understanding of history. :lol:
> 
> Anyway there's never been any abnormal event and there wont be in future, cause there're no rules, "Divine Providence" or "Manifest Destiny" that govern the historical process. Everything is changing due to things like war, migrations, climate change, cataclims, natural resources,people's will, desires and hopes, new scientific discoveries and inventions, financial crisis and bankrupt, new religions, new markets to open and so on...21st century will be different from 20th, that in turn was different form 19th, that was different from 18th, that was different from 10th or 1000 BC.
> As you "author" Voltaire used to say:


I don't lack understanding of History. I just don't accept everything they try to force to us as a fully truth.


----------



## Adde (May 8, 2011)

Candido said:


> Be or not be industrialized doesn't mean you're developed or not. Europe only surpassed Far East about middle of XIX century, due to a series of abnormal conditions. Your example is the Meiji Era in Japan. Google about it and you'll see.
> 
> Even the concept that the English people started the Industrial Revolution is just a fairytale to tell the History according to an Eurocentric vision.


I'm not talking about surpassing, just saying that it's not true that Europe was some backwater before the 20th century, and that the development at that time was some kind of anomaly (what were these "abnormal conditions" you're talking about?). 

And I googled the Meije Era. It's both later than the period I'm talking about (I'm talking about the 17th and 18th centuries, not 1868-1912), and as far as I can tell, not in any way more advanced than Europe at the time. In fact, it's considered the period of industrialization in Japan, more than a century after it began in England and France. 

And where did the Industrial Revolution begin according to you?


----------



## Candido (Aug 5, 2012)

Adde said:


> I'm not talking about surpassing, just saying that it's not true that Europe was some backwater before the 20th century, and that the development at that time was some kind of anomaly (what were these "abnormal conditions" you're talking about?).
> 
> And I googled the Meije Era. It's both later than the period I'm talking about (I'm talking about the 17th and 18th centuries, not 1868-1912), and as far as I can tell, not in any way more advanced than Europe at the time. In fact, it's considered the period of industrialization in Japan, more than a century after it began in England and France.
> 
> And where did the Industrial Revolution begin according to you?


It began exactly in Far East, but for several reasons it were postponed.


----------



## Adde (May 8, 2011)

Candido said:


> It began exactly in Far East, but for several reasons it were postponed.



That's very inexact. 

Where exactly in the Far East? And when? How did it begin there? And what do you mean when you say it was postponed? 

By all means, do your best to rewrite accepted world history, but do it with specifics, not just general statements that can't be verified in any way.


----------



## VECTROTALENZIS (Jul 10, 2010)

Phayer said:


> then talks about some Chinese company?
> 
> China has automotive company?
> Any software company?
> ...


For automotive companies the are over 20 that mostly haven't got international yet. But some have and are doing quite good like Chery, BYD, Great Wall, Geely for example. Other large automotive companies in China are:
SAIC
FAW
Changan
Lifan
JAC
Brilliance

Here are some electronic companies that are internationally known are one of the biggest in their fields.

Haier ( world's largest market share in white goods)
Lenovo (worlds largest PC vendor)
Huawei (largest telecommunications equipment maker in the world)
TCL (fourth-largest television producer)

Dont forget the sportswear brand Li Ning which makes several country outfits during olympic games for example.


----------



## eddeux (Jun 16, 2010)

Phayer said:


> America = 14 trillion
> China = 7 trillion
> 
> I think they're far from us. Yeeeeeees they can give us, most do not think that will be so fast in 2016? i think it will take a little longer for that to happen


I meant in PPP. Nominally it will take at least another 10-15 years.



Ulpia-Serdica said:


> You guys are too focused on the GDP.
> 
> Economic power and influence especially in this globalized world is not solely based on GDP.


True, however I think it's safe to say regions where wealth creation is growing the fastest (East and slowly global south) will probably not only have higher GDPs, but also over time greater economic influence (more corporations in top 500, greater foreign investment, etc.).


----------



## Ulpia-Serdica (Oct 24, 2011)

èđđeůx;99420941 said:


> I meant in PPP. Nominally it will take at least another 10-15 years.
> 
> 
> 
> True, however I think it's safe to say regions where wealth creation is growing the fastest (East and slowly global south) will probably not only have higher GDPs, but also over time greater economic influence (more corporations in top 500, greater foreign investment, etc.).


Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe the majority of the emerging markets will simply remain a source of consumers, raw materials and investments destinations instead of countries with leading companies and global reach. Look at Mexico for instance, it has the opportunity to be right next to the USA and has ultimately seen relatively good growth over the decades (apart from the 1994 crisis), but at the same time all emerging markets have went through crises (1997 Asian crisis, Turkey & Russia in 2001, etc...) Mexico is currently 2.15 times larger than Sweden, yet in terms of companies in the Global 500 or 2000, FDI attractiveness (inward stock) or corporate global reach (outward stock), Sweden leads by quite a lot.

Same thing if we compare USA to China. Whatever people talk about Chinese invasions. The outward FDI stock of the USA is $4.5 trillion, for China it is $365 billion, much more comparable to Sweden's $360 billion.


----------



## onosqaciw (Feb 13, 2011)

i think it comes to the nature of the countries itself....most developing nations have a large population, and most of it have the ideas to be self reliant (thus some developing nations have an import substituted industry) although in many ways that plans have many flaws and creating a not competitive industry......on the contrary the developed nations have much smaller population yet have a tremendous technological advantage, in order to find a larger market for their products (hence more profit) they go to invest or sell the product to developing nations...so in the terms of outward FDI, it would be hard for developing nations to beat developed ones.......keep in mind that most developing nations exporting goods are commodities and natural resource (no need to do outward FDI) whereas developed nations are the opposite


----------

