http://www2.goldmansachs.com/hkchina/insight/research/pdf/BRICs_3_12-1-05.pdf

Bangladesh
USD
2005 422
2010 505
2015 611
2020 773
2025 1,018
2030 1,371
2035 1,865
2040 2,540
2045 3,379
2050 4,501

What do you guys think?

I kinda agree with the estimations above,as the population is now growing very slowly and the economy at a good rate.I would still hope that the growth in per capita income from 2005 to 2015 is higher than whats been predicted above.

http://www2.goldmansachs.com/hkchina/insight/research/pdf/BRICs_3_12-1-05.pdf

Bangladesh
USD
2005 422
2010 505
2015 611
2020 773
2025 1,018
2030 1,371
2035 1,865
2040 2,540
2045 3,379
2050 4,501

What do you guys think?

ya i think the speed of growth will incrase in the next few years and the difference between 005 and 2020 will be much bigger than you predited. Otherwise i think its a pretty reasonable estimte.

Is this list based on the 2005 value of the dollar? Does it adjust for inflation, or not? After all a dollar will be worth a lot less fifty years than it is today. Whatever formula they used seems to predict that BD's GDP will grow in leaps and bounds after 2035. Is that the magic year for Bangladesh :) ?

These were predictions while the BNP was in power or after the caretaker took over :D ?

I am sorry my friends. I just find this old thread and I am laughing it so much. It's a very ridiculous prediction. Because Turkey's current GDP (nominal) is already 663 billion USD and GDP per capita (nominal) is 9.700 USD (The numbers are from IMF, World Bank, CIA fact books and Turkish ministry of finance)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita

Our 2008 GDP (nominal) will be 748 billion USD and GDP per capita (nominal) will be 10.750 USD. It's a very strong estimation. Moreover many of Turkish financial authorities says that our 2008 GDP may be higher than even 748 billion USD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_future_GDP_estimates_(nominal)

But Goldman Sachs's prediction is 10.600 USD per capita for 2025!!!

Just 10.600 and for 2025!!!!!!!!!

Oh man! Our GDP per capita is already 10.750 USD

Ooooppppps! What a big mistake! I am just laughing.

By the way... in my humble opinion Bangladesh's GDP will be much more higher than these predictions.

I am sorry my friends. I just find this old thread and I am laughing it so much. It's a very ridiculous prediction. Because Turkey's current GDP (nominal) is already 660 billion USD and GDP per capita (nominal) is 9.700 USD.

Our 2008 GDP (nominal) will be 748 billion USD and GDP per capita (nominal) will be 10.750. It's a very strong estimation. Moreover many of Turkish financial authorities says that our 2008 GDP may be higher than even 748 billion USD.

Its actually $80 Billion GDP in 2008.

But the prediction above is 10.600 USD for 2025!!!

Just 10.600 and for 2025!!!!!!!!!

Oh man! Oh man! What a big mistake!

And in my humble opinion Bangladesh's GDP will be much more higher than these predictions.

Yeah those forecasts are way underestimated (which is not surprising :ohno:). GS predicted our per capita to be $611 by the year 2015, which is way off as our per capita is at $600 right now.

I don't understand how a crowded and dynamic country like Bangladesh has only 4.500 GDP per capita even 43 years later. We are talking about 2050, not 2015 or 2020. I think Goldman Sach's employers are either blind or stupid.

I don't understand how a crowded and dynamic country like Bangladesh has only 4.500 GDP per capita even 43 years later. We are talking about 2050, not 2015 or 2020. I think Goldman Sach's employers are either blind or stupid.

Remember that we started off from a extremely low base and due to the high population growth of the past the per capita couldn't keep up.

I don't understand how a crowded and dynamic country like Bangladesh has only 4.500 GDP per capita even 43 years later. We are talking about 2050, not 2015 or 2020. I think Goldman Sach's employers are either blind or stupid.

When you consider that by 2050, population of BD will be over 200 million, and multiply that by $4500, we are talking about a fairly large total GDP. If our population was smaller, we might have a higher per capita GDP...but then again, if our population was smaller, our total wealth would also be smaller...and we would have less economic clout. At any rate, a ten-fold increase in per capita GDP is no small feat with such a large population of the extremely poor. It takes time to alleviate all these masses from abject poverty.

^^
Yeah but, according to the "experts" most of Bangladesh is supposed to be under the bay, by 2050!

^^
Yeah but, according to the "experts" most of Bangladesh is supposed to be under the bay, by 2050!

You never know maybe our policymakers are using this (global warming, "drowning") guilt on the Western World to bring in massive amounts of fund into Bangladesh. :)

^^
Yeah but, according to the "experts" most of Bangladesh is supposed to be under the bay, by 2050!

That's not true. I forget what the average prediction is...1 m sea level rise or something like that?...by 2100. Even if that proves to be true it would affect mainly the Sundarbans and Barisal division. The rest of the country would still not be Atlantis under this scenario :)

That's not true. I forget what the average prediction is...1 m sea level rise or something like that?...by 2100. Even if that proves to be true it would affect mainly the Sundarbans and Barisal division. The rest of the country would still not be Atlantis under this scenario :)

Don't forget -- that there is a massive land mass rising in the bay of bengal below Kuakata area. That land mass would be added to the equation and probably dyked off a la in the Netherlands.

I saw this HD feature piece which showed that the dutch now live in floating houses along canals near the coast where the sea level goes up and down like five feet per day -- as do the corner-anchored floating houses. The utilities are connected using flexible hoses and couplings. If you have money -- these things aren't an issue :)

We'll develop rice varieties that grow in salty or brackish water. Not an issue.

I saw this HD feature piece which showed that the dutch now live in floating houses along canals near the coast where the sea level goes up and down like five feet per day -- as do the corner-anchored floating houses. The utilities are connected using flexible hoses and couplings. If you have money -- these things aren't an issue :)

Yes, I've heard about it on NPR.


We'll develop rice varieties that grow in salty or brackish water. Not an issue.

That agro technology is yet to exist, I think. Under water perhaps, brackish perhaps, but not in salt water. But then, by 2050, who knows?

Yes, I've heard about it on NPR.

Well -- found a couple videos for you :)

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/U0JaHmA6tY8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/U0JaHmA6tY8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/49dp8qIU-QI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/49dp8qIU-QI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

That agro technology is yet to exist, I think. Under water perhaps, brackish perhaps, but not in salt water. But then, by 2050, who knows?

Very possible with genome customization and biotechnology and probably a lot earlier than 2050 :)

Mostly -- brackish water is all we've got to worry about. Sea-water --you can grow fish or have other uses.

^^ Or learn to eat seaweed like the Japanese :D

^^ Or learn to eat seaweed like the Japanese :D

No problem here -- I already have dried seaweed (Wakame) with my Miso soup on dinners. :)

^^
Yeah but, according to the "experts" most of Bangladesh is supposed to be under the bay, by 2050!

that is wrong, I did a study on Bangladesh's land mass, from reports written by "experts", and it seems that we can actually extend Bangladesh's borders beyond the shores of Bangladesh. The Bay of Bengal is getting shallower, all we need is extra silt and granite rocks or just alot of sand, may be from the Sub-Sahara African countries or from Saudi Arabia.

Global Warming will not affect us if we actually build up levels of sand beyond our shores. Look at the Netherlands, their land level is way below Bangladesh's, but with clever engineering they don't experience flooding.

We are Bengalis, our forefathers achieved so much in the ancient times, and our current generation can achieve a lot more, we have the skills and education, we have the motivation, and we have the will.

We are Bengalis, our forefathers achieved so much in the ancient times, and our current generation can achieve a lot more, we have the skills and education, we have the motivation, and we have the will.

Good to see there is another person in this world who thinks of Bangladesh as I do. Very inspiring. I definitely agree. We must, we can, we will.

In my personal and humble opinion Bangladesh's GDP per capita will be at least 15.000-20.000 USD in 2050. High population is a bit disadvantageous in some ways but it is also an advantage in many others; labour force, commercial capacity, political influence etc.

Until now Pakistan and Bangladesh were sleeping giants like India and China. And they are awakening nowadays. The future will be very brilliant for both countries.

^^ That would be great :) The important thing for us is not to worry about the predictions of pundits...whether good or bad...but to work hard, reduce political violence, and foster an enviornment conducive to the development of local businesses. If we do that then the GDP will take care of itself.

On the other issue...I am all for extending landmass, if that can be done. But let's not pretend that global warming doesn't pose any danger...we will only end up hurting ourselves if we are unprepared. The floating Dutch houses are a great example of adaptation.

Good to see there is another person in this world who thinks of Bangladesh as I do. Very inspiring. I definitely agree. We must, we can, we will.

I'm all for inspiration but what we need is preparation. Today the country is deeply plunged into all kinds of chaotic situation(s). I found it alarming and deeply troubling to watch on a Channel-i news segment the other day, how most poor daily wage earners can no longer afford rice. They are getting by eating bread and bananas (as stated by one caught on camera).

So if majority of the population is preoccupied with feeding themselves, how are we preparing for 2050?

Good to see there is another person in this world who thinks of Bangladesh as I do. Very inspiring. I definitely agree. We must, we can, we will.

You got that right.

Good to see there is another person in this world who thinks of Bangladesh as I do. Very inspiring. I definitely agree. We must, we can, we will.

Well said bro:)

About Bangladesh being under water by 2050 or 2100. I used to think of it as a possibility, as thats what you would hear all the time. But that was before I studied about the billions of tonnes of sediment being deposited from the Himalayas to the Bangladeshi coast every single year. I think it was about 2.4 billion tonnes of sediment per year or something. That possibly can offset the rising sea levels.

Welcome to our forum @Intoxication :)

^^ Thanks Manbil! :cheers1:

GDP Per Capita in 2050

China = $30,000
India = $20,000
Pakistan = $10,000
Bangladesh = $5000

GDP Per Capita in 2050

China = $30,000
India = $20,000
Pakistan = $10,000
Bangladesh = $5000

And your basis for your estimate is?

If controversy is the only thing you need to generate than there should be other venues you could find...I am not going to take the bait :ohno:

http://www2.goldmansachs.com/hkchina/insight/research/pdf/BRICs_3_12-1-05.pdf

Bangladesh
USD
2005 422
2010 505
2015 611
2020 773
2025 1,018
2030 1,371
2035 1,865
2040 2,540
2045 3,379
2050 4,501

What do you guys think?


Looks like we are already ahead of the game, according to the last government release the per capita GDP is now $600!

But we need to have a growth rate in double digit to make significant progress, with huge population of 150 million, growth of 6-7% is simply not enough to bring majority of the country out of poverty.

^^ nayeem bro, when they say GDP grwth of 6% p.a, do they mean nominal GDP grwth or GDP PPP growth??

also, would 10% grwth p.a would be enuff for us?? if not, what percentage do u suggest? :)

i wonder what will be the value of the then dollar holding 2002/3 as the base year

^^ nayeem bro, when they say GDP grwth of 6% p.a, do they mean nominal GDP grwth or GDP PPP growth??

also, would 10% grwth p.a would be enuff for us?? if not, what percentage do u suggest? :)

I believe it's nominal, if you take the inflation into account it should be less.

I believe it's nominal, if you take the inflation into account it should be less.

Its actually Real GDP growth, Bangladesh clocks double digit nominal GDP growth.

http://clip2net.com/clip/m7984/1247124786-clip-59kb.jpg

http://www2.goldmansachs.com/hkchina/insight/research/pdf/BRICs_3_12-1-05.pdf

Bangladesh
USD
2005 422
2010 505
2015 611
2020 773
2025 1,018
2030 1,371
2035 1,865
2040 2,540
2045 3,379
2050 4,501

What do you guys think?

Haha, these numbers are a tragic joke, GNP is already at $700, and the GDP/capita will probably cross $800 in 2-3 year not by 2020. :nuts:

I believe it's nominal, if you take the inflation into account it should be less.

hmm I think I would agree with Amar tht it is real GDP growth (6%).....because, if you look at the following wiki link, it shows the nominal GDP growth of every country and Bangladesh sees a 11% nominal GDP growth and Azerbaijan being the highest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_growth

hmm I think I would agree with Amar tht it is real GDP growth (6%).....because, if you look at the following wiki link, it shows the nominal GDP growth of every country and Bangladesh sees a 11% nominal GDP growth and Azerbaijan being the highest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_growth

Yup Amar is right, glad to be wrong this time..:)

But in that case we need double digit real GDP growth, simply because the number of people below poverty line, probably around 30-40% in a population of 150 million. If we were a middle income country (per capita of around $4 or 5 thousand) and small population base, 6=7% growth would have been sufficient..

^^ wow 30-40% growth ?!?! (nominal growth or PPP GDP grwoth??)

plus, its 160 million ppl now :)

^^ wow 30-40% growth ?!?! (nominal growth or PPP GDP grwoth??)

plus, its 160 million ppl now :)

No I meant 30-40% of the population are below povery line, GDP growth of around 10-12% is needed..

I think a lot of it also depends how large the population would be by 2050. The good news is because its a relatively smaller nation it should be easier to carry out economic reforms.

I think Dhakka will be one of the largest cities in the world by 2050 and that should help the country a lot.

Considering the rapidly growing population of Bangladesh and even that with an already substantial 160million, I would be very happy if they reach a GDP per capita in US dollars of $5,000. Considering a population of around 250million by then that would place the GDP at $1.25Trillion from the current 80 billion. As you can see that's more than 10 times the GDP of what it is today all in a span of 40 years.

Infact I would happy if Pakistan can do the same - by 2050 estimates for Pakistan's population are around 280-320 million. At 5,000 GDP per capita that would mean a GDP of 1.5 Trillion which is 10 times of what is today.

Having a GDP of 10 times larger in a span of 40 years is substantial progress.

Considering the rapidly growing population of Bangladesh and even that with an already substantial 160million, I would be very happy if they reach a GDP per capita in US dollars of $5,000. Considering a population of around 250million by then that would place the GDP at $1.25Trillion from the current 80 billion.

Bangladesh's population growth rate is actually falling. Ppl are realising how difficult it is to raise more kids. It would be best if something like one-child policy could be adopted but the govtment is encouraging ppl to have not more than 1 kid which is good I guess. There is no place for 250 million ppl in BD. We would be living on each others heads.

^^ haha true :) .......I dont think the population will grow over 200 million by 2030 at least, Inshallah!
Dhaka will indeed be one of the largest city in the world by 2050, it is already guessed that it will be top 20 or sumthin by 2020/2025

I think a lot of it also depends how large the population would be by 2050. The good news is because its a relatively smaller nation it should be easier to carry out economic reforms.

I think Dhakka will be one of the largest cities in the world by 2050 and that should help the country a lot.

Considering the rapidly growing population of Bangladesh and even that with an already substantial 160million, I would be very happy if they reach a GDP per capita in US dollars of $5,000. Considering a population of around 250million by then that would place the GDP at $1.25Trillion from the current 80 billion. As you can see that's more than 10 times the GDP of what it is today all in a span of 40 years.

Infact I would happy if Pakistan can do the same - by 2050 estimates for Pakistan's population are around 280-320 million. At 5,000 GDP per capita that would mean a GDP of 1.5 Trillion which is 10 times of what is today.

Having a GDP of 10 times larger in a span of 40 years is substantial progress.
but the question is will tomorrows one trillion be equal to todays one trillion.

^^ haha true :) .......I dont think the population will grow over 200 million by 2030 at least, Inshallah!


I wish it would stop growing this very moment. There isnt an inch of space left in the country. :(

*Sigh* in 1947 we had 40 million people.

Bangladesh's population growth rate is actually falling. Ppl are realising how difficult it is to raise more kids. It would be best if something like one-child policy could be adopted but the govtment is encouraging ppl to have not more than 1 kid which is good I guess. There is no place for 250 million ppl in BD. We would be living on each others heads.

I know even with a falling population it will still continue to grow. Notice how most nations with fast growing population will double by 2050. For a country with 160million to grow to 220-240million isn't that much actually.

What was Bangladesh's population 40 years ago? In 1969? Does anyone know?

I wish it would stop growing this very moment. There isnt an inch of space left in the country. :(

*Sigh* in 1947 we had 40 million people.

Don't worry there's plenty of land in Myanamar :hahano:

but the question is will tomorrows one trillion be equal to todays one trillion.

I think so, remember technology will increase as well so living standards might actually be more with a trillion in the future than a trillion today?

^^ 1947, we had 40 million. 1971, we had 70 million. Withinn 38 years, it has grown to 160 million wow! We need to develop rural areas so that the population density is equal in almost all places! Otherwise, we might have to look for reclaiming our old lands from Arakan, Myanmar and Indian parts like Assam etc. Also, we need to build more highrise buildings to live on top of each other!

^^ That's what i'm trying to explain within 40 years the population has more than doubled!, So you can imagine if it doubles in another 40 years Bangladesh would have a population of 320million :lol: That's as much as the US!!~

That's why a population of 220-250million by 2050 would still constitute a slowing of population.

^^ 1947, we had 40 million. 1971, we had 70 million. Withinn 38 years, it has grown to 160 million wow! We need to develop rural areas so that the population density is equal in almost all places! Otherwise, we might have to look for reclaiming our old lands from Arakan, Myanmar and Indian parts like Assam etc. Also, we need to build more highrise buildings to live on top of each other!

Not a chance, already there are Indian muslims in Assam who's mother tongue is Bengali are being persecuted and called "Bangladeshi". Did you know there are thousands of Indian Muslims in Assam that are going on trial to prove they are Indians and not Bangladeshi?

Many have already been wrongfully deported to Bangladesh :nuts:

Haha, these numbers are a tragic joke, GNP is already at $700, and the GDP/capita will probably cross $800 in 2-3 year not by 2020. :nuts:

Disagree with you, Amar - nominal GDP per capita last year was between $494 and $539, depending which source you go by...the Goldman Sachs numbers seem pretty good to me. With improved politics / business climates we could exceed the GS predictions...even leapfrog some countries that are currently ahead of us but are less stable in those areas. Of course the reverse could also be true, but here's hoping for the best.

Well 50 years is a long time and lot could change in that periof.It seems that we are trying to make prediction about future based on our current geo-political situation in subcontinent. Maybe there will be greater integration among the south asian nations in terms of free flow of capital, land and labor as seen in Europe? Who would have thought during second world war, that French and German will be working together for unified economy through single currency and free movement of people?

Currently in South Asia Bangladesh, Pakistan, Srilanka and others are sceptical of India because of it's size and regional hegemony. But this could change in 40-50 years...Infact if we have a borderless area like European union among SAARC countries, it will resolve the Kashmir issue for India-Pakistan, water sharing problem between India-Bangladesh and many other issues. But the challenge is, unlike Europe where all the countries are relatively small and do not have unitary influence in "European Union" policies, South Asia is dominated by one country in both size and population. So integration is going to be much harder as other countries will be fearful of it..

Also, more than the overall GDP of the countries, I will concentrate on improving the per capita GDP of the nations. Since ultimately that is what shows the health of a nation and the wellbeing of the population. Just having a huge overall GDP just based on higher population does not mean much. For example: India with 1 billion people might have higher GDP than Switzerland or France, but that has no value, as the general public have a standard of living that is no where close to it.

I know even with a falling population it will still continue to grow. Notice how most nations with fast growing population will double by 2050. For a country with 160million to grow to 220-240million isn't that much actually.

What was Bangladesh's population 40 years ago? In 1969? Does anyone know?

Haha how can it grow with falling population growth rate. Are you Bangladeshi? Do you live in Bangladesh? There is no way on earth 220-240 million ppl can live here. Its pretty bad already now.

I thot we were 140 million tho in population.

^^ 1947, we had 40 million. 1971, we had 70 million. Withinn 38 years, it has grown to 160 million wow! We need to develop rural areas so that the population density is equal in almost all places! Otherwise, we might have to look for reclaiming our old lands from Arakan, Myanmar and Indian parts like Assam etc. Also, we need to build more highrise buildings to live on top of each other!

We need to buy land in north-east India or somehwere. Or else Im outta here in the future.

^^ That's what i'm trying to explain within 40 years the population has more than doubled!, So you can imagine if it doubles in another 40 years Bangladesh would have a population of 320million :lol: That's as much as the US!!~

That's why a population of 220-250million by 2050 would still constitute a slowing of population.

Back in the day our idiotic ancestors had 9-10 kids each. Now one-child is being encouraged.

Back in the day our idiotic ancestors had 9-10 kids each. Now one-child is being encouraged.
not all just the generation of our dada and dadis

most of my friends including me have a lot of chachus fupis, khalas and mamas our parents didnt have that many of uncles and aunties

We need to buy land in north-east India or somehwere. Or else Im outta here in the future.

how much would the land cost? :P

u guys may wanna check out Bangladesh in Google Earth and see how much space we have left! :)

And may Bangladesh one day become the closest that civilization has come to near Coruscant :cheers:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3c/Coruscantsky.jpg

^^ haha whats with the picture??

And may Bangladesh one day become the closest that civilization has come to near Coruscant :cheers:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3c/Coruscantsky.jpg
lawl imagine can travel faster then the speed of light


i think the qyamaat will before such a day could arrive.

And may Bangladesh one day become the closest that civilization has come to near Coruscant :cheers:

Personally, I hope not. I like lots of green spaces and pedestrian friendly streets...neither of which exist in aforementioned imperial capital :)

^^
Looks more like an evil empire out of Star Wars! I expect mother earth shall continue to have lots of green space and other eye candy till the day of "qayamat".

So dope, what you think will happen to the universe after qayamat?

it is far beyond my comprehension and knowledge and any man

Haha how can it grow with falling population growth rate. Are you Bangladeshi? Do you live in Bangladesh? There is no way on earth 220-240 million ppl can live here. Its pretty bad already now.

I thot we were 140 million tho in population.

Check China's population growth since 1979 the year one child policy was adopted. Their population has STILL grown.

Humans don't die right away, even if you only have one child your parents, you and your child will still be alive for some time.

If you have 2-3 kids per family the population will still continue to grow.

So although the population growth rate is falling the population is still rising, they might not be having 6-7 kids per family but they are still having 2-3.

We're in for some gada gadi then. :ohno:

^^ As for China...it is entirely possible...that when they eventually move away from centralised govt...there will somewhat of a population boom. Luckily for them by that time they will likely be mostly developed...so that the increase in birth rate won't likely be too great.

As for us...we were making good progress in cutting birth rate in the 1990s...but I think we are becoming complacent again...and need to reinvigorate our efforts. There are two very important reasons.

1. Food. The predictions of Malthusian doom for Bangladesh did not really materialise in the past few decades...largely because the introduction of high yield varieties of crops allowed increases in food production to outpace even population growth. The high yield varieties have maxed out though, and unless there is a second green revolution (which is possible, but still a big unknown) food increases will no longer keep up with population growth. Also food will likely be affected negatively by climate (as below).

2. Climate change. There is no doubt that global temperature is increasing, and it's probably irreversible. Sediment deposition in the delta cannot forever offset rising sea levels, and we are bound to lose land both for habitation and food. Add to this, our main source of water are Himalayan glaciers and snow...which are likely to start to gradually disappear, as most glaciers elsewhere in the world are already doing. This will mean initially an increase in flooding, but then a permanent reduction in water supply. Both these changes in water flow can be worsened if dams are built upstream from Jamuna and Meghna, as already has been the case with the Padma and Farakka.

One solution is of course to make ourselves less dependent on agriculture, which we are doing, albeit slowly. The other of course is to curtail population growth, and although we've made progress, we've got to do better.

Year - Birth rate --Rank -- Percent Change
2003 - 29.9 -------61
2004 - 30.01 ------57 ---- +0.37 %
2005 - 30.01 ------58 ---- ±0.00 %
2006 - 29.8 -------57 ---- -0.70 %
2007 - 29.36 ------54 ---- -1.48 %
2008 - 28.86 ------53 ---- -1.70 %

birth rate is consistently going down - but not at the desired rate.

http://www.indexmundi.com/bangladesh/birth_rate.html

We have to encourage some of our population to go live and work abroad, and send remittances to bangladesh, they can go to new countries in Europe, Africa, and Latin America where the Bangladeshi diaspora is quite low, and reside there! :)

^^ Its not easy to go live in a country away from home. I say more condoms.

Check China's population growth since 1979 the year one child policy was adopted. Their population has STILL grown.

Humans don't die right away, even if you only have one child your parents, you and your child will still be alive for some time.

If you have 2-3 kids per family the population will still continue to grow.

So although the population growth rate is falling the population is still rising, they might not be having 6-7 kids per family but they are still having 2-3.

How come developed countries or countries like Korea, Singapore stop growing even thou ppl have 1-2 kids there.

^^ Yes, a country will stop growing, moreover even shrink when the women fertility rate falls below 2.1 child/woman. But it take time to see population contraction, if Bangladesh's women starts to have only 2 kids right now there will still be population growth for some time then no growth then contraction.

^^ Yes, a country will stop growing, moreover even shrink when the women fertility rate falls below 2.1 child/woman. But it take time to see population contraction, if Bangladesh's women starts to have only 2 kids right now there will still be population growth for some time then no growth then contraction.

Japan and Korea had big populations for a small space (just like us in the seventies).

Because of industrialization started in the sixties -- Japan has high negative population growth and Korea will follow soon.

Industrialization and high income/education is a huge contributor to decreasing the fertility rate for women (they have more options outside the home than making and raising babies).

^^ I hope we can achieve the economic growth rate of Japan or South Korea otherwise we will be stuck with a huge population while still being underdeveloped. Without industrialization, unemployment rate will be high leading to social unrest and caos..

^^ I hope we can achieve the economic growth rate of Japan or South Korea otherwise we will be stuck with a huge population while still being underdeveloped. Without industrialization, unemployment rate will be high leading to social unrest and caos..

Before Bangladesh can get there, it can take cue from China and India, in terms of what works, what does not.

Before Bangladesh can get there, it can take cue from China and India, in terms of what works, what does not.

Is it really so?

I don't see a Grameen Bank come up either in China or India. I think they can take cues from us in many ways as well -- especially our neighbors. My belief always has been that grassroots progress is better than the progress of a certain educated class -- as has happened in India.

^^ True our social indicators are better than India. Our population growth rate is lower than India and Pakistan and so is our fertility rate. Dunno much abt how China is doing on the social front.

Is it really so?

I don't see a Grameen Bank come up either in China or India. I think they can take cues from us in many ways as well -- especially our neighbors. My belief always has been that grassroots progress is better than the progress of a certain educated class -- as has happened in India.

While you're analyzing it at a micro level I meant it in the macro sense, with those two countries having the largest population. Furthermore, cues i.e. lessons learned can be positive and/or negative. That is what I meant by "what works and what does not". That way a lot of experimentation may be avoided/skipped altogether.

While you're analyzing it at a micro level I meant it in the macro sense, with those two countries having the largest population. Furthermore, cues i.e. lessons learned can be positive and/or negative. That is what I meant by "what works and what does not". That way a lot of experimentation may be avoided/skipped altogether.

Yup you're probably right. These countries have a much bigger population hence bigger experience pool.

Can anyone tell me what the fertility rate in our country is as of now?

Can anyone tell me what the fertility rate in our country is as of now?

3.1

http://www.pregnantpause.org/numbers/fertility.htm

Its amazing how even the poorest European country Moldova (with a GDP per capita only slightly higher than ours) can have a declining population. Even developing countries like Vietnam and Indonesia have stable population and Thailand has a declining population. The most developed in South-east Asia though Malaysia has a fertility rate higher than ours.

Well the good news use we need to drop two places to 2.9 and we will be stable.

.........................................

Well the good news use we need to drop two places to 2.9 and we will be stable.
like the conclusion. to me - trend is more important than the current position

Its amazing how even the poorest European country Moldova (with a GDP per capita only slightly higher than ours) can have a declining population. Even developing countries like Vietnam and Indonesia have stable population and Thailand has a declining population. The most developed in South-east Asia though Malaysia has a fertility rate higher than ours.

Well the good news use we need to drop two places to 2.9 and we will be stable.

I think it has to be 2.1 in order for population to be stable.

Actually, in a lot of places of the world, population is either stable or declining. The only place where population is actually growing consistently is South Asia and the Middle East.

I think it has to be 2.1 in order for population to be stable.

Actually, in a lot of places of the world, population is either stable or declining. The only place where population is actually growing consistently is South Asia and the Middle East.

Plenty of space in the middle east.

I think it has to be 2.1 in order for population to be stable.

Actually, in a lot of places of the world, population is either stable or declining. The only place where population is actually growing consistently is South Asia and the Middle East.

Hmm the link said 2-2.9= stable and 0-1.9=declining. But most African countries have fertility rates in the 6-7 range. In South Asia Sri Lanka is stable. I think it has a lot to do with literacy rates and life expectancy.

For GDP growth rate our target should be to follow the likes of South Korea or Japan. They have similar(not exact same ofcourse) challenges and advantages starting from high population density to low baseline economy..

Taiwan is a much smaller nation(thus not a good nation for comparison), but still their per capita GDP growth rate has been extraordinary and can be a source of encouragement for us.

1962, Taiwan had a per capita gross national product (GNP) of $170, placing the island's economy squarely between Zaire and Congo. By 2008 Taiwan's per capita GNP, adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP), had soared to $33,000 (2008 est.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan


Can we reach atleast per capita of $20,000(in today's term) by 2050? With proper industrialization and trade liberalization, I believe it's achievable. Shoot for the stars you can atleast reach the moon!

I think it is very important to go by PPP rates. According to that our GDP per capita is around $1500. If any economoy grows by 10% than GDP than per capita GDP doubles every 7 years. So if we start growing by 10% from next year, then in 7 yrs we would have GDP per capita of $3000 in 14 yrs $6000 in21 years $12000 and in 28 years $24000. Obviously thats not going to happen but just wanted to show how its possible to go if he have consistent high growth.

We are having gorwth no doubt and our standard of living is increasing. What this means is there is going to be higher demand for electricity, there will be more vehicles on the roads and ppl will be moving from rural to Urban areas. What is the govt. doing to prepare for this. We will need to increase power output and develop urban areas and cities other than Dhaka. They should be laying the gorundwork now.

Per capita income increases to USD 690

Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha . Dhaka
Despite decrease in the Gross Domestic Product, the per capita income increased in the 2008-09 fiscal year, ended on June 30.
The latest data of the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistic shows per capita income rises to US690 dollars at the end of June this year, which was US608 dollars in 2007-08 financial year.
‘The per capita income rises due to the increase in the remittance inflow and export earning,’ said economist professor Abu Ahmed.
Besides, he said the GDP declined slightly last year, but growth in agriculture sector was positive, which also helped increase per capita income.
According to the BBS statistic, the per capita income in local currency was Taka 47,373 and the population was 14.42 crore in the 2008-09 financial year.
The statistic also showed law inflation during the period, which was a major contributory factor to the increase in the per capita income.
The point-to-point inflation decreased to a six-year low of 2.25 in the end of June. Earlier in 2003, the country saw the lowest 2 per cent inflation on point-to-point basis. The inflation, however rose to a record high of 11 per cent in January 2008, according the BBS statistics.
http://www.newagebd.com/busi.html#5

^^ wow, almost $700 i see, very good news, lets hope it rises to 800-900$ by Q4 2010 :)

[SIZE="5"]
The point-to-point inflation decreased to a six-year low of 2.25 in the end of June. Earlier in 2003, the country saw the lowest 2 per cent inflation on point-to-point basis. The inflation, however rose to a record high of 11 per cent in January 2008, according the BBS statistics.
http://www.newagebd.com/busi.html#5

Is it safe to say that this one of the achievements of the present government?

Is it safe to say that this one of the achievements of the present government?

I don't have in depth knowledge about the variables that impact Bangladesh's economic indicators(agricultural output due to favorable weather, oil and other commodifty price in international market etc) to make a judgement... but this year inflation in general across the world has been kept low due to the economic turmoil. Infact our neighboring country, India, which has seen double digit inflation for a decade experienced their first negative inflation.

This is not too surprising since Inflation is inversely related to unemployment (Phillips Curve).. as jobs were shed across the industries inflation also went down.

Per capita income reaches $750

http://www.thedailystar.net/photo/2010/05/28/2010-05-28__b1.jpg

Rejaul Karim ByronThe per capita income crossed the $700 mark in the current fiscal year, mainly because of a healthy GDP growth.

The people of lower strata have got a share of the rise in the income as small-scale industries have shown a rapid growth and employed the poor segment.

The per capita income has reached $750 this fiscal year from $676 last year.

For Bangladesh to graduate to a mid-income country, its per capita income should be $975 now.
World Bank senior economist Zahid Hussain said Bangladesh can quickly reach the mid-income group of countries only if its GDP grows at a faster rate of around 7.5 percent to 8 percent. The GDP (gross domestic product) growth rate is 5.5 percent now.

Hussain said the growth is healthy in the existing economic scenario.

Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) early this week finalised the provisional account of GDP for the current fiscal year and the actual GDP calculations for the last year.

"If we can't make a rapid progress, we won't be able to reach the level of per capita income required for becoming a mid-income country," Hussain said.

"From the growth pattern it seems that the low-income people have benefited from the rise in the per capita income."

In the manufacturing sector, small-scale industries, which are more labour intensive, have shown the most rapid growth.

The WB economist also said the country fetched a huge amount of remittance this year, which gave a rise to non-farm activities such as in small teashops, biscuit factories and small toy shops in the rural areas.

This has helped the lower strata people get a share of the increased per capita income, said Hussain.

He said the growth has almost doubled this fiscal year in public administration and education sectors. The income of the government staff, workers and teachers increased as the pay scale was implemented.

The government repeatedly projected the GDP growth rate to be 6 percent but the BBS provisional account shows that the growth was 5.54 percent this fiscal year.

The BBS in the final calculation of last fiscal year's GDP growth showed a slide to 5.74 percent, which was 5.9 percent in earlier estimate.

The services sector showed a good growth this year, but the overall GDP growth was lower because of a fall in the agriculture and industries sectors.

The growth rate in the agriculture sector dropped almost by half due to the declining growth in crop. The growth rate in crop sector was 2.20 percent this fiscal year, down from 4.02 percent last year.

BBS officials said the main contributor to the crop sector is rice. In the last fiscal year crop sector saw a bumper production of rice at around three crore tonnes. Although Aus crop was hampered this year, the harvest is expected to be around three crore tonnes. As the production remained the same, the crop sector did not rise.

In the manufacturing sector, the growth rate fell by 1.40 percentage points compared to the last fiscal year, due to a poor performance by the export sector.

The inflow of a big amount of remittance and the implementation of pay scale in the public sector contributed to the growth in the services sector.

http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=140346

^^ Looks like Bangladesh can graduate to middle income country within the next 3-4 years with the current GDP growth rate..

thats bs, the dollar is at an all time low, it should be counted in gold standards

thats bs, the dollar is at an all time low, it should be counted in gold standards

How about platinum standard? :lol:

How about platinum standard? :lol:
even more awesome, the dollar losing value and the trend continuing how much bang for buck is there?

even more awesome, the dollar losing value and the trend continuing how much bang for buck is there?

Yup... and the Euros and pounds are gaining value :lol:

Yup... and the Euros and pounds are gaining value :lol:

Are you serious?...or joking, I couldn't tell...

Euro and pound are at their lowest levels in a long time...

There is no perfect standard...gold now is very high in value due to people's insecurities, but that will drop once the global economy is back on track.

Are you serious?...or joking, I couldn't tell...

Euro and pound are at their lowest levels in a long time...

There is no perfect standard...gold now is very high in value due to people's insecurities, but that will drop once the global economy is back on track.

Ofcourse I was joking :) Gold standard is no longer a viable option for currency valuation due to several reasons the primary one being:


The total amount of gold that has ever been mined has been estimated at around 142,000 metric tons.Assuming a gold price of US$1,000 per ounce, or $32,500 per kilogram, the total value of all the gold ever mined would be around $4.5 trillion. This is less than the value of circulating money in the U.S. alone, where more than $8.3 trillion is in circulation or in deposit

The newest financial proposition is "market basket of currencies or commodities", this will remove the reliance on the value of one currency like Dollar or one precious metal like gold.

Ofcourse I was joking :) Gold standard is no longer a viable option for currency valuation due to several reasons the primary one being:


The total amount of gold that has ever been mined has been estimated at around 142,000 metric tons.Assuming a gold price of US$1,000 per ounce, or $32,500 per kilogram, the total value of all the gold ever mined would be around $4.5 trillion. This is less than the value of circulating money in the U.S. alone, where more than $8.3 trillion is in circulation or in deposit

The newest financial proposition is "market basket of currencies or commodities", this will remove the reliance on the value of one currency like Dollar or one precious metal like gold.
Don't forget the political dimension behind the so called world currency, i.e. the US Dollar. The United States wanted it to be so. This way it can afford to be the biggest spender yet not pay for it.

Ofcourse I was joking :) Gold standard is no longer a viable option for currency valuation due to several reasons the primary one being:


The total amount of gold that has ever been mined has been estimated at around 142,000 metric tons.Assuming a gold price of US$1,000 per ounce, or $32,500 per kilogram, the total value of all the gold ever mined would be around $4.5 trillion. This is less than the value of circulating money in the U.S. alone, where more than $8.3 trillion is in circulation or in deposit

The newest financial proposition is "market basket of currencies or commodities", this will remove the reliance on the value of one currency like Dollar or one precious metal like gold.
funny isnt it how a piece of paper can get so much value

maKes me wonder why cant a taka be equal to a dollar

maKes me wonder why cant a taka be equal to a dollar

This will make Bangladeshi products non-competitive in the International market then. Higher prices will lead to less sales.. I.e downfall of export oriented textile, garments, jute, tea and frozen foods industries.

Anyways,there was a time when many currencies were pegged to US dollar:

At the Bretton Woods Conference in July 1944, international leaders sought to insure a stable post-war international economic environment by creating a fixed exchange rate system. The United States played a leading role in the new arrangement, with the value of other currencies fixed in relation to the dollar and the value of the dollar fixed in terms of gold—$35 an ounce. Following the Bretton Woods agreement, the United States authorities took actions to hold down the growth of foreign central bank dollar reserves to reduce the pressure for conversion of official dollar holdings into gold.

During the mid- to late-1960s, the United States experienced a period of rising inflation. Because currencies could not fluctuate to reflect the shift in relative macroeconomic conditions between the United States and other nations, the system of fixed exchange rates came under pressure.

In 1973, the United States officially ended its adherence to the gold standard. Many other industrialized nations also switched from a system of fixed exchange rates to a system of floating rates. Since 1973, exchange rates for most industrialized countries have floated, or fluctuated, according to the supply of and demand for different currencies in international markets. An increase in the value of a currency is known as appreciation, and a decrease as depreciation. Some countries and some groups of countries, however, continue to use fixed exchange rates to help to achieve economic goals, such as price stability.

http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed38.html

This will make Bangladeshi products non-competitive in the International market then. Higher prices will lead to less sales.. I.e downfall of export oriented textile, garments, jute, tea and frozen foods industries.

Anyways,there was a time when many currencies were pegged to US dollar:
why would bangladesh need to be stuck to exporting cheap goods, they need to climb up the ladder,

and bangladesh imports more then it exports had our money been exchange rate been closer to the us dollar our import bills would have plunged a lot and our domestic economy would flourish then

in 2010 we imported goods worth $20,220,000,000
and exported goods worth $15,910,000,000, our exports grew by 68% and imports by 67% on a year on year basics.

why would bangladesh need to be stuck to exporting cheap goods, they need to climb up the ladder,

and bangladesh imports more then it exports had our money been exchange rate been closer to the us dollar our import bills would have plunged a lot and our domestic economy would flourish then

in 2010 we imported goods worth $20,220,000,000
and exported goods worth $15,910,000,000, our exports grew by 68% and imports by 67% on a year on year basics.

Bangladesh is a developing country mostly reliant on agriculture, industrialization is minuscule compared to any developed nation with strong currency. The fact that a country of 160 millon only needs 5000 MW of electricity clearly indicates this.. even a small US town has more power generation than that.

Exchange rate is just a reflection of the overall state of the economy. Once we industrialize, start importing goods for manufacturing plants and per capita income increase, automatically our currency will get stronger. Good indication of this is our neighbour India, Rupees have considerably strengthened over the past few years due to their rapid economic growth.

Most of the materials imported by Bangladesh are food crops, oil and other consumer products. A very small percentage is actual industrial raw materials, and lowering duty on those products is a better fiscal policy than changing currency exchange rate.

If a country could just develop by matching their currency value to US dollar, then by now the whole world would have done it, starting from Nigeria, Pakistan, Indonesia etc. The high exchange rate is not the source of underdevelopment for Bangladesh or any other developing nations. Highly industrialized and developed nations like UAE, Japan or Singapore have a currency that is valued higher due to the free floating system.

Bangladesh is a developing country mostly reliant on agriculture, industrialization is minuscule compared to any developed nation with strong currency. The fact that a country of 160 millon only needs 5000 MW of electricity clearly indicates that.. even a small US town has more power generation than that.

Exchange rate is just a reflection of the overall state of the economy. Once we industrialize, start importing goods for manufacturing plants and per capita income increase, automatically our currency will get stronger. Good indication of this is our neighbour India, Rupees have considerably strengthened over the past few years due to their rapid economic growth.

Most of the materials imported by Bangladesh are food crops, oil and other consumer products. A very small percentage is actual industrial raw materials, and lowering duty on those products is a better fiscal policy than changing currency exchange rate.

If a country could just develop by matching their currency value to US dollar, then by now the whole world would have done it, starting from Nigeria, Pakistan, Indonesia etc. The high exchange rate is not the source of underdevelopment for Bangladesh or any other developing nations. Highly industrialized and developed nations like UAE, Japan or Singapore have a currency that is valued higher due to the free floating system.
I couldn't disagree with anything you said except that the UAE and perhaps most the Arabian Gulf nations are really not industrialized to that extent other "industrialized/developed" nations. They have the purchasing power solely because they are high volume energy exporting countries with very low (indigenous) population.

TIslam bhai beat me to what I wanted to say. Not to mention the slave labour they have from South Asia and Phillipines helps them have that high per capita income.

Also I dunno how much industrialized Singapore is. They seem to rely on services a lot. Apparently all their food is imported.

...........

Also I dunno how much industrialized Singapore is. They seem to rely on services a lot. Apparently all their food is imported.
Makes sense though, doesn't it? Hardly any room to grow anything, but I understand that they have a thriving fishing industry. The same holds true for Hong Kong. Even when it was a British colony, Hong Kong depended on mainland China for food and water supplies.

Other than the petrochemical complexes, the GCC countries are yet to industrialize in a manner commensurate with their high incomes. The tourism/real estate sector in Dubai is a boom or bust industry as seen by the handout/bailout received from Big Brother Abu Dhabi. Also, the population of these countries is minuscule and hence everything is cheaper to import than manufacture. I know the Saudis tried to setup an agro complex and were self sufficient in wheat production for a while, but pretty soon realized Australia could sell them the same wheat at 20% of their cost.

Nayeem mentions 5000 MW of electricity, but we all know that at times even 3000 MW generation is not possible in Bangladesh. I believe a large scale increase in reliable power generation is needed to usher in the industrialization that we sorely lack. If a fertilizer factory has to be shut down to prevent countrywide load shedding, how can one expect heavy industries to take root?

Other than the petrochemical complexes, the GCC countries are yet to industrialize in a manner commensurate with their high incomes. The tourism/real estate sector in Dubai is a boom or bust industry as seen by the handout/bailout received from Big Brother Abu Dhabi. Also, the population of these countries is minuscule and hence everything is cheaper to import than manufacture. I know the Saudis tried to setup an agro complex and were self sufficient in wheat production for a while, but pretty soon realized Australia could sell them the same wheat at 20% of their cost.

Nayeem mentions 5000 MW of electricity, but we all know that at times even 3000 MW generation is not possible in Bangladesh. I believe a large scale increase in reliable power generation is needed to usher in the industrialization that we sorely lack. If a fertilizer factory has to be shut down to prevent countrywide load shedding, how can one expect heavy industries to take root?
Spot on.

My question is though, how come these oil rich countries aren't thinking and preparing for the eventuality when their wells run dry? It may be expedient and make financial sense to import wheat from Australia in the present time but what about in the future?

Spot on.

My question is though, how come these oil rich countries aren't thinking and preparing for the eventuality when their wells run dry? It may be expedient and make financial sense to import wheat from Australia in the present time but what about in the future?

Well, I asked some Gulf friends this question but didn't get a satisfactory answer. Some of the conservative ones replied in a religious tone, "Tawakkul AlaAllah" meaning Allah will take care when oil runs out. Others said they will return back to being Bedouins like their forefathers less than 50 years ago. I doubt anyone will go back to that life after enjoying the entrappings of luxury living.

Interesting trivia..Kuwait actually promotes a holiday called "Utlat Al Barr" or Outdoors Holiday during which thousands of Kuwaitis go out into the desert and pitch tents to experience the Bedouin heritage. They stay for 15 days, but unlike their predecessors, the tents are air conditioned and have generators and satellite dishes :ohno:

On a government level, some GCC rulers are piling away cash in sovereign funds to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars for a rainy day. In Kuwait's case, it was the $100 billion "next generation fund" that helped the country get back on its feet very quickly after the Iraqi invasion.

I agree that countries that manage natural resources like oil and gas properly can have a strong currency without massive industrialization.

Personally I don't care much if Saudi Arabia or Kuwait wants to waste their petro money in luxury and useless entertainments. My primary concern is with Bangladesh, what can we do to help our country, make things better back home.

Bangladesh is a developing country mostly reliant on agriculture, industrialization is minuscule compared to any developed nation with strong currency. The fact that a country of 160 millon only needs 5000 MW of electricity clearly indicates this.. even a small US town has more power generation than that.

Exchange rate is just a reflection of the overall state of the economy. Once we industrialize, start importing goods for manufacturing plants and per capita income increase, automatically our currency will get stronger. Good indication of this is our neighbour India, Rupees have considerably strengthened over the past few years due to their rapid economic growth.

Most of the materials imported by Bangladesh are food crops, oil and other consumer products. A very small percentage is actual industrial raw materials, and lowering duty on those products is a better fiscal policy than changing currency exchange rate.

If a country could just develop by matching their currency value to US dollar, then by now the whole world would have done it, starting from Nigeria, Pakistan, Indonesia etc. The high exchange rate is not the source of underdevelopment for Bangladesh or any other developing nations. Highly industrialized and developed nations like UAE, Japan or Singapore have a currency that is valued higher due to the free floating system.
why industrialize now when we can import the stuff at a cheaper price the goal should be sustaining food supply what baffles me is that bangladesh has good fertile land its not being used and then why not focus on the services sector looks at india its number one revenue earning source is the it sector and to be industrialized we would need resources at a very cheap rate we cant just go to britain or america and colonize it and get their resources out for free

I agree that countries that manage natural resources like oil and gas properly can have a strong currency without massive industrialization.

Personally I don't care much if Saudi Arabia or Kuwait wants to waste their petro money in luxury and useless entertainments. My primary concern is with Bangladesh, what can we do to help our country, make things better back home.
thats the not question the question is how willing are you to do something for bangladesh and to what lengths will you go to achieve it

why industrialize now when we can import the stuff at a cheaper price the goal should be sustaining food supply what baffles me is that bangladesh has good fertile land its not being used and then why not focus on the services sector looks at india its number one revenue earning source is the it sector and to be industrialized we would need resources at a very cheap rate we cant just go to britain or america and colonize it and get their resources out for free

Industrialization is THE most important thing for a developing country. How else can you employ this massive massive labour force. Look at how China is doing better then India. India's service sector grew but its manufacturing didnt hence a lot of its problems.

thats the not question the question is how willing are you to do something for bangladesh and to what lengths will you go to achieve it
I can speak only for myself. At this point in my life, nothing, because I have obligations and responsibilities. To paraphrase Sean Penn, if I was single and without any obligations, I would have devoted most of time to pick up a cause in Bangladesh and run with it, as Sean Penn has been doing in Haiti.

thats the not question the question is how willing are you to do something for bangladesh and to what lengths will you go to achieve it

Well,this will vary from person to person. For example: Zafar Ikbal (prominent writer and professor) left his cushy job at Bell Labs and moved to Shahjalal University in Sylhet with his family and working endlessly to improve the educational system there. Many expatriateds like myself are making some contributions like supporting part of family expense(in Bangladesh), getting involved in sponsoring a child's education for the year or participating in basic relief fund raising through aid agencies. Ofcourse they are very insignificant compared to what many great minds like Fazle Ahmed have done though BRAC. But still it's something more concrete than saying "Bangladesh government is not doing this or that or Kuwaitis are wasting money on luxury". We can all help in our own small ways..

Some feel that leaving US or Uk and settling in Bangladesh is the ultimate sacrifice. But that is only true, if you can use your skills to create industries and employment. If you are just going to Dhaka to get an average 9-5pm job in a private company, then you might aswell stay abroad and help people back home financially. This will remove some load from the competitive job market and also the monetary impact will be more.

Well,this will vary from person to person.
.........
Some feel that leaving US or Uk and settling in Bangladesh is the ultimate sacrifice. But that is only true, if you can use your skills to create industries and employment. If you are just going to Dhaka to get an average 9-5pm job in a private company, then you might aswell stay abroad and help people back home financially. This will remove some load from the competitive job market and also the monetary impact will be more.

Well, that's exactly what I am doing. I try to help in a very small way by providing funds to many people/organization on a continuous basis in Bangladesh. Even though, I feel that is very insignificant. Moreover, the romantic in me, wishes to make a qualitative difference by forcefully eradicating the small minded pettiness among the people in Bangladesh in order to move the country forward.

EXPATRIATES CONTRIBUTE 30 PERCENT TO GDP-BANGLADESHI MINISTER

DHAKA, June 5 (NNN-BSS) -- Minister for Labour and Employment, Expatriate Welfare and Overseas Employment Engineer Khondoker Mosharraf Hossain has said the people of Bangladesh working in different countries of the world are contributing 30 percent to the GDP every year by sending home remittances from their hard- earned foreign currencies.

"As many as 70 lakh Bangladeshis are now working in around 100 countries of the world and sending remittances home regularly, contributing enormously to the national economy every year," he said while addressing as the chief guest the concluding ceremony of the annual convention of Lions Clubs International Multiple District 315 here last night. (One Lakh:100,000)

Presided over by outgoing Council Chairperson Lion Engr M Shahjahan Khadem, the function was also addressed by Lions Sheikh Kabir Hossain, Qazi Akramuddin Ahmed, Moslem Ali Khan and P K Roy, among others, as special guests. Several Members of Parliament elected from the Lions' family were especially honoured at the function.

Engineer Khondoker Mosharraf Hossain said around 500,000 Bangladeshis went abroad with jobs last year and this year it would be more as the present government as part of its election pledges has been pursuing a pro-people policy to provide employment to the unemployed youths at home and abroad.

"The way the present government is running the governance by upholding the national interest, I foresee around 10 million Bangladeshis will be able to work abroad after a few years and they will be the main contributors in the national economy," he said.

Referring to the global recession that even brought the world's biggest economies on the brink of collapse last year, the Minister said Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's excellent managerial efficiency and farsightedness saved the Bangladesh economy from the wrath of that adversity in the global economy.

"Inshallah, we will go ahead with our vision and mission towards fulfilling the Vision-2021 under the able and dynamic leadership of Bangabandhu's daughter and Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina," he said.

Later, Engineer Khondoker Mosharraf Hossain joined a Lions Club being imbued with their spirit of service to humanity and congratulated them on their instant contribution of Taka 25 lakh to Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina for helping the city's Nimtoli fire victims.-- NNN-BSS


http://www.namnewsnetwork.org/v2/read.php?id=122682

why industrialize now when we can import the stuff at a cheaper price the goal should be sustaining food supply what baffles me is that bangladesh has good fertile land its not being used and then why not focus on the services sector looks at india its number one revenue earning source is the it sector and to be industrialized we would need resources at a very cheap rate we cant just go to britain or america and colonize it and get their resources out for free

I must disagree on one point...I feel that it is good to have the primary emphasis on manufacturing during development, because it is exactly those jobs that lower class people need in order to move out of poverty. The problem with India's focus on high tech industries is that less educated people have no chance of getting a piece of the pie. There was a recent NPR article exactly on this, about how a lesser emphasis on manufacturing is hurting India relative to other countries and exacerbating the gulf between its halves and halve-nots. I feel this observation has real merit.

While I do agree that agriculture will always be important to us...we must decrease then degree to which we depend upon it. Maybe it won't happen, but the combined factors of climate change and damming of rivers upstream has at least the potential of significantly reducing our agricultural capacity. So alternate opportunities for livelihoods must be in place.

The problem with India's focus on high tech industries is that less educated people have no chance of getting a piece of the pie. There was a recent NPR article exactly on this, about how a lesser emphasis on manufacturing is hurting India relative to other countries and exacerbating the gulf between its halves and halve-nots.


Spot on.

Here is a good article by Professor Anu Muhammad on this topic but in the Bangladeshi context. Excerpt below. Full article at:

http://www.meghbarta.org/nws/nw_main_p01b.php?issueId=6&sectionId=27&articleId=63

From 'Mills to Malls':
Polarization, Decomposition and New Formation in Bangladesh
Analysis , by Anu Muhammad , 2-October-2005
[Blog]

The movement of an economy from agriculture to service, bypassing or degenerating manufacturing, may not go with the text book notion of development but this is very significant to study this direction of peripheral economy like Bangladesh. Growth of Malls has become a shining star here over dismantled mills. Anu Muhammad elaborates.


The road map to Bangladesh's emergence as a Nation State began with the partitioning of British India into India and Pakistan in 1947. At that time, Pakistan consisted of two geographically separated territories. The Eastern section which later became Bangladesh, had been experiencing regional and ethnic discrimination in different forms. From the very beginning Pakistan has been highly dependent on military-civil bureaucracy. Moreover, it became a test laboratory for the western development theories that emerged during the period of swift decolonisation. Its client position was defined by the Pakistan-US military pact and by a long and decisive involvement of US consultants in shaping Pakistan's planning, development and institutions.

After independence, in contrast to continuous promise and rhetoric, Bangladesh failed to alter the power matrix in social and economic fields that had prevailed in Pakistan period. The structures and hierarchies of civil and military institutions, which had been created during British rule, were kept intact in Bangladesh; similarly, the legal and judicial systems remained untouched; and the land administration, despite land reform measures taken in 1972 and 1984, remained merely unchanged until today.

Despite the changes in political power and governance and the bloody conflicts among groups wishing to govern, the economic front experienced a continuity of policies and ideology. Soon after independence, 'Bangladesh aid consortium' was formed with the World Bank as its head 'on the same lines as the Pakistan consortium'. From a review of thirty years of the Bank's assessment of government's policies, its suggestions and its policy recommendations to the government of Bangladesh, it becomes clear that the Bank has been consistent in its policy prescription and ideological framework.

Since the early 70s global agencies including the World Bank started emphasizing structural changes according to its line of 'reform'. Funding started flowing which, in many ways, influenced or guided government programs. GATT agreement in 1995 can be termed as the single most important document that created a global foundation of integrating all economies. The programs sponsored by global institutions (GI) including the World Bank and IMF, have played key role in accelerating the process of integrating peripheral economies including Bangladesh with the centre economies. Those include:(i) the 'Green' Revolution (ii) Structural Adjustment Program (iii) 'Poverty Alleviation' Programs (iv) GATT agreement and (v) Foreign 'aid' supported trade, technical assistance, reform, consultancy, training and education. The current Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) is the latest in the series. These programmes also have played crucial role in determining the shape and direction of the economy and creating strong support base amongst ruling classes...........

While I do agree that agriculture will always be important to us...we must decrease then degree to which we depend upon it. Maybe it won't happen, but the combined factors of climate change and damming of rivers upstream has at least the potential of significantly reducing our agricultural capacity. So alternate opportunities for livelihoods must be in place.

You will see developed countries have only 1% of their population working in agriculture. So we need to move ppl from agriculture to manufacturing.

Industrialization is THE most important thing for a developing country. How else can you employ this massive massive labour force. Look at how China is doing better then India. India's service sector grew but its manufacturing didnt hence a lot of its problems.
do you think that if we start industrializing we can compete in the international market?

if you draw comparison like that why not draw singapore hong kong?

I can speak only for myself. At this point in my life, nothing, because I have obligations and responsibilities. To paraphrase Sean Penn, if I was single and without any obligations, I would have devoted most of time to pick up a cause in Bangladesh and run with it, as Sean Penn has been doing in Haiti.
it just depends on the options you want to prioritize over the others :P

Well,this will vary from person to person. For example: Zafar Ikbal (prominent writer and professor) left his cushy job at Bell Labs and moved to Shahjalal University in Sylhet with his family and working endlessly to improve the educational system there. Many expatriateds like myself are making some contributions like supporting part of family expense(in Bangladesh), getting involved in sponsoring a child's education for the year or participating in basic relief fund raising through aid agencies. Ofcourse they are very insignificant compared to what many great minds like Fazle Ahmed have done though BRAC. But still it's something more concrete than saying "Bangladesh government is not doing this or that or Kuwaitis are wasting money on luxury". We can all help in our own small ways..

Some feel that leaving US or Uk and settling in Bangladesh is the ultimate sacrifice. But that is only true, if you can use your skills to create industries and employment. If you are just going to Dhaka to get an average 9-5pm job in a private company, then you might aswell stay abroad and help people back home financially. This will remove some load from the competitive job market and also the monetary impact will be more.
respect to your contributions! then again if experienced people from abroad come here they wouldnt be killing of local competition they would just kill competition for the foreigners since they take up most of the hierarchy in the b\ig corps here

I must disagree on one point...I feel that it is good to have the primary emphasis on manufacturing during development, because it is exactly those jobs that lower class people need in order to move out of poverty. The problem with India's focus on high tech industries is that less educated people have no chance of getting a piece of the pie. There was a recent NPR article exactly on this, about how a lesser emphasis on manufacturing is hurting India relative to other countries and exacerbating the gulf between its halves and halve-nots. I feel this observation has real merit.

While I do agree that agriculture will always be important to us...we must decrease then degree to which we depend upon it. Maybe it won't happen, but the combined factors of climate change and damming of rivers upstream has at least the potential of significantly reducing our agricultural capacity. So alternate opportunities for livelihoods must be in place.
the key to industrialization is resource utilization, we have a lot of agri resource why not use it, there is reason you know why agri is highly subsidized in the western world

which specific industrial route would u recommend banglaesh to take?

do you think that if we start industrializing we can compete in the international market?

if you draw comparison like that why not draw singapore hong kong?

Read mine and Tanzirian's posts above including the article I posted a link to. The biggest priority for us should be to get ppl out of poverty.

Singapore and HK are too small to compare to. They are cities essentially and not countries. Anyways I dont know much about them hence I cant comment.

which specific industrial route would u recommend banglaesh to take?

The same routes Korea and Japan took. And China and Vietnam are taking. Japan and Korea used shipbuilding to rebuild their entire industrial infrastructure. They built a steel industry and then built other industries.

Read mine and Tanzirian's posts above including the article I posted a link to. The biggest priority for us should be to get ppl out of poverty.

Singapore and HK are too small to compare to. They are cities essentially and not countries. Anyways I dont know much about them hence I cant comment.
before you want to pull em out you must make sure that you have the resources and you can use them efficiently, and do you think industrialization will help? makes me wonder can we produce goods at the international standard and make profits? we are going well in the garments sector since china is slowly pulling out and moving to other sectors china is doing what taiwan did 15-16 years ago i remember most of my toys would be made in taiwan and so were my other stuff

in my opinion bangladesh should chase the agri sector once we have surplus food the economy will start shifting

and do you think industrialization will help? makes me wonder can we produce goods at the international standard and make profits?


It will absolutely help. In order for local industries to grow they need govt. assistance and protected from superior quality imports. Dont be fooled by the "free trade free market" mantra of the western countries who as you said provide subsidies for their agro-products but ask developing countries to remove their trade barriers and not provide assistance to their industries.

Also, read the article I posted. It has details.

It will absolutely help. In order for local industries to grow they need govt. assistance and protected from superior quality imports. Dont be fooled by the "free trade free market" mantra of the western countries who as you said provide subsidies for their agro-products but ask developing countries to remove their trade barriers and not provide assistance to their industries.

Also, read the article I posted. It has details.
i do understand we live in a world where the strong make the rules nothing we can do about it, mind you the west doesnt force inferior goods upon their citizens

a prime example would be the dhaka film industry they will produce garbage and expect us to watch it out of patriotism and support? why

if the west wants sth from us they can easily get it just look at how the us is playing cards slowly pushing bangladesh away there allowing 0 duty on clothes imported from africa

a prime example would be the dhaka film industry they will produce garbage and expect us to watch it out of patriotism and support? why


Ah I posted an article on the BD film industry in "Spontaneous Discussions" highlingting the issue.

Ah I posted an article on the BD film industry in "Spontaneous Discussions" highlingting the issue.
protectionism will only create stuff like that they were very highly protected and look what they gave us

protectionism will only create stuff like that they were very highly protected and look what they gave us

Read the article. It was posted in the DS weekend magazine abt 4 weeks back. Link is available in the ""Spontaneous Discussions" thread.

Read the article. It was posted in the DS weekend magazine abt 4 weeks back. Link is available in the ""Spontaneous Discussions" thread.
brief me!

the key to industrialization is resource utilization, we have a lot of agri resource why not use it, there is reason you know why agri is highly subsidized in the western world

In which way do you feel that we are using our agri resource? Thanks to the green revolution our productivity went up 3-4 fold whereas population only went up 2.5 fold in same period, thus baffling Malthusian predictions for our country. However, unless another green revolution comes along...I don't see agri yield going up all that much...which is a problem given that the population still continues to expand. We will have to import more and more food...and to do so must find other means to pay for it.

which specific industrial route would u recommend banglaesh to take?

I like a diverse approach. I have no problem with IT, but the primary emphasis for the short-term must be on low-tech physical items. As nations like China and others develop, they will seek to import these items from countries who are doing what they themselves are doing today...manufacturing simple products of reasonably good quality at low prices. Bangladesh must be poised to take advantage of the vacuum that China and others leave, because otherwise this vacuum will be filled by other nations.

In which way do you feel that we are using our agri resource? Thanks to the green revolution our productivity went up 3-4 fold whereas population only went up 2.5 fold in same period, thus baffling Malthusian predictions for our country. However, unless another green revolution comes along...I don't see agri yield going up all that much...which is a problem given that the population still continues to expand. We will have to import more and more food...and to do so must find other means to pay for it.



I like a diverse approach. I have no problem with IT, but the primary emphasis for the short-term must be on low-tech physical items. As nations like China and others develop, they will seek to import these items from countries who are doing what they themselves are doing today...manufacturing simple products of reasonably good quality at low prices. Bangladesh must be poised to take advantage of the vacuum that China and others leave, because otherwise this vacuum will be filled by other nations.
that being said what do we do to pay the extra food bills?

we cant just industrialize like that can we?

In which way do you feel that we are using our agri resource? Thanks to the green revolution our productivity went up 3-4 fold whereas population only went up 2.5 fold in same period, thus baffling Malthusian predictions for our country. However, unless another green revolution comes along...I don't see agri yield going up all that much...which is a problem given that the population still continues to expand. We will have to import more and more food...and to do so must find other means to pay for it.



I like a diverse approach. I have no problem with IT, but the primary emphasis for the short-term must be on low-tech physical items. As nations like China and others develop, they will seek to import these items from countries who are doing what they themselves are doing today...manufacturing simple products of reasonably good quality at low prices. Bangladesh must be poised to take advantage of the vacuum that China and others leave, because otherwise this vacuum will be filled by other nations.
that being said what do we do to pay the extra food bills?

we cant just industrialize like that can we?

that being said what do we do to pay the extra food bills?

we cant just industrialize like that can we?

Why not though? Profits from other industry can be used to purchase food... I'm not saying decrease agri production...certainly I would like to see it increase if possible...but fewer people are likely to be employed by agri long term regardless of how much manufacturing we have...since at some point mechanization becomes cheaper than human labor. By the time we reach that point it would be nice to have alternate employment for people with basic skills...and factory manufacturing is easy segway...just as garments were for many girls.

If we are to develop our agro sector, the poor farmer has to get a decent price for his crops. Everyone is up in arms when prices of vegetables go up, but little do they realize if you pay less than 10 taka/kg for potatoes, it basically ruins the potato farmer. If it were not for subsidies on corn and soybean, most American farmers would have been financially bankrupt.

Unido chief suggests more focus on industrial output

Bangladesh needs to focus on more industrial output with higher value addition to come out of poverty and achieve millennium development goals, said Dr Kandeh K. Yumkella, director general of the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation.

The visiting Unido chief further suggested yesterday that the country could gain better market access through improving quality of its products to international standard.

“Without value addition at higher level you cannot succeed in coming out of poverty. And, if you want to fulfill your MDGs, you have to raise industrial output and export more,” Yumkella added.

He was speaking as special guest at the launching of the National Metrology Laboratory of Bangladesh Standard and Testing Institute (BSTI).

Dilip Barua, industries minister, Tofael Ahmed, chairman of the parliamentary standing committee on industries ministry, Arne Haug, charge de affaires of the Royal Norwegian Embassy in Dhaka, Dewan Zakir Hussain, industries secretary, and AK Fazlul Ahad, BSTI director general, also spoke on the occasion.

Yumkella also pointed out that the overall trade for commodity across the world is only ten percent of the commodities produced, so no country can develop its economic base and come out of poverty by concentrating merely on commodity.

He said donors are ready to provide adequate fund in testing, quality control and above all capacity building, but Bangladesh needs to tap potentials.

Dilip Barua sought Unido assistance in human resource development, technology transfer, rise in productivity and knowledge sharing.

He said Bangladesh is working on strengthening BSTI, Bangladesh Accreditation Board and other related bodies to promote standard, metrology, quality and accreditation.

The establishment of the state-of-art National Metrology Laboratory has been a vital part of Unido's efforts in contributing the growth and poverty reduction through strengthening and diversifying Bangladesh's production and export base.

http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=141688

respect to your contributions! then again if experienced people from abroad come here they wouldnt be killing of local competition they would just kill competition for the foreigners since they take up most of the hierarchy in the b\ig corps here

Thats only business people who coulbe be able take the hierarchy in the big corps from the foreigners. What abt ppl who work in other fields?

Thats only business people who coulbe be able take the hierarchy in the big corps from the foreigners. What abt ppl who work in other fields?
for example?

^^

Ppl who have degrees other than business. Medicine, IT, engineering, poli sci, pharmacy, chemistry, geology, music, art, etc.

Here are long term forecasts (upto 2060) from Google Public Data Explorer. I have chosen all the South Asian countries and China & World for comparison:

1. Per capita GDP (at PPP) in year 2000$:
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=n4ff2muj8bh2a_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=GDPPCP#ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=GDPPCP&fdim_y=scenario:1&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=world&idim=world:world&idim=country:BD:IN:CN:PK:NP:LK:BT&ifdim=world&hl=en&dl=en

2. Per capita GDP in year 2000$:
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=n4ff2muj8bh2a_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=GDPPC#ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=GDPPC&fdim_y=scenario:1&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=world&idim=country:BD:BT:CN:IN:NP:PK:LK&idim=world:world&ifdim=world&hl=en&dl=en

Please don't take these forecasts seriously. Most of the time, such long term forecasts turn out to be wrong. However, if they turn out to be true, it seems that Bhutan will do the best out of all the South Asian countries! Also, China will have a per capita GDP (at PPP) of $33,600 in 2060! Amazing for such a populous country, isn't it?

^^ Of course these GDP forecasts are just guesswork, but with regard to the last two points:
1. Bhutan could easily have the highest per capita of the South Asian countries...mainly because it has so few people. It's much easier to bring a small population out of poverty than a big population. Bhutan is focusing on high end tourism and with a beautiful landscape and picturesque culture, it has the right tools.

2. There's no reason why China couldn't have those kinds of per capita numbers, if it doesn't hit any big road bumps. A couple of years ago I heard that one third of the world's total economic growth for that year was in China. That's more than a little impressive.

Besides which, per capita GDP isn't everything. China's clout today comes not from its per capita but its total GDP. Even in the case of Bangladesh, per capita GDP but especially total GDP is significantly different than it was twenty years ago...and if that trend is maintained for the next twenty, that's a pretty decent trajectory...regardless of what the actual numbers end up being.

China's clout today comes not from its per capita but its total GDP.

Clout doesnt mean anything if your citizens dont have a good standard of living. India and China both have a lot of clout but their citizens dont mind moving to a country like New Zealand which prolly has no clout at all. So at the end of the day it is per capita stats (GNP, GDP or GNI) that matters.

Clout doesnt mean anything if your citizens dont have a good standard of living. India and China both have a lot of clout but their citizens dont mind moving to a country like New Zealand which prolly has no clout at all. So at the end of the day it is per capita stats (GNP, GDP or GNI) that matters.

While GDP/GNP stats matter since the impact is at micro level, clout also matters in today's globally connected and inter dependent world. Otherwise countries with clout throw their weight around and boss countries without any [clout]. In fact, they walk all over the the lesser countries with impunity. Bangladesh is a case in point.

^^ Total GDP matters in other ways that cannot be objectively measured but which do have economic impact. With increased total wealth comes increased respect from abroad, which I have seen here in the US in the cases of countries like India that have recently emerged from long term economic stagnation. One of the biggest problems that Bangladesh has is of perception. All many people know about Bangladesh are poverty, population, flooding etc. Such perceptions generate negative assumptions about intelligence, culture, and productivity which can be barriers to investment and can be detrimental to a nation's ability to make its voice heard on international issues of national consequence. Ultimately these factors affect the rate of development of a nation like Bangladesh and thus the per capita of individuals.

@tanzirian, you live a country that's a world of difference from where I live. Where I live in Australia, PNG (Papua New Guinea) is held to a higher accord than india. most Australians think india is a dirty 3rd world poor country struggling of disease. I was at the shop the other day, and this guy walked in an shouted " why do you n@gers come here? go back to your 3rd world, after we're done with iraq, India's next" I was about to tell him I'm not Indian but i don't think he would have cared.

^^ Well Australia has a well known recent racial prejudice vis a vis South Asians. America is certainly not immune in this regard, but I do believe that at some level the perception of India has changed significantly in the two decades or so that I have lived here (irrespective of whether any bigots have changed their behavior). That perception may not currently include Bangladesh, but is an awakening for most people when they hear things like Goldman Sachs predicting Bangladesh to have one of the 25 largest (total) GDPs within a few decades, regardless of the per capita.

^^ Total GDP matters in other ways that cannot be objectively measured but which do have economic impact. With increased total wealth comes increased respect from abroad, which I have seen here in the US in the cases of countries like India that have recently emerged from long term economic stagnation. One of the biggest problems that Bangladesh has is of perception. All many people know about Bangladesh are poverty, population, flooding etc. Such perceptions generate negative assumptions about intelligence, culture, and productivity which can be barriers to investment and can be detrimental to a nation's ability to make its voice heard on international issues of national consequence. Ultimately these factors affect the rate of development of a nation like Bangladesh and thus the per capita of individuals.

Only the ignorant make "negative assumptions about intelligence, culture, and productivity" based on total GDP. And perceptions about a country by ignorant foreigners play a limited role in economic development. Investors are usually more aware than that and know well to study a country in detail before putting their money there...

@tanzirian, you live a country that's a world of difference from where I live. Where I live in Australia, PNG (Papua New Guinea) is held to a higher accord than india. most Australians think india is a dirty 3rd world poor country struggling of disease. I was at the shop the other day, and this guy walked in an shouted " why do you n@gers come here? go back to your 3rd world, after we're done with iraq, India's next" I was about to tell him I'm not Indian but i don't think he would have cared.

Why am I not surprised? Australia and New Zealand have a remarkably high proportion of racists (I'm not trying to stereotype but its true). :ohno: Moreover, the hatred of India and Australia towards each other has only gotten stronger in recent years due to the Harbhajan-Symonds spat. Furthermore, there have been incidents of Indian students getting beaten up in Australia (and Chinese students in New Zealand). In response to this, the Aussie government has recently started giving ads on Indian TV paying Australians of Indian origin to say nice things about Australia! :nuts: As for the "India's next" bit is concerned, I don't think the Aussie forces would dare to do anything even remotely close to that (unless they want all their cities to turn into ash in a few weeks).

P.S. Sorry for the diversion. I am only writing this because it was brought up...

^^ Australian still have colonial mentality, they love their commander in chief the queen of England. It doesn't surprise me, because head of state and commander in chief of the Australian defence force is queen Elizabeth. But I had no idea the Australian govt was running tv ads in india, but their was diffidently drop in indian students coming to Australia to racial attacks estimated loss of US$5 Billion a year, but that was picked up opening up more seats to the Chinese. do you have a youtube link to such ads? i'd love to see them i had no idea.

even if they decided to invade india, Australia's contribution would be smallest as % of thier population due to awesome high quality of australian troops compared to British or American. thier was a nice graph somewhere about australia contribution to iraq invasion. on top of that, australia was initially going to send in fa18 super hornets, but then published a report saying they are too expensive to deploy in iraq and decided to send in some combat aircraft they were about to discontinue. australia runs its military like they run macdonlds. then you may ask if they dont have money to pay for the maintenance costs of the super-hornets what is Australia's doing with its some US$42 Billion dollar department of defence budget? oh yea thats right they spent on breast enlargement for aussie women. here's australian comedy show making fun of it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePnRkws2nGA

^^ Well Australia has a well known recent racial prejudice vis a vis South Asians.

I have been living in Australia for the last 1 year and havent experienced any sort of racism whatsoever. Neither have my friends who have been living here for 6/7 years.

I have been living in Australia for the last 1 year and havent experienced any sort of racism whatsoever. Neither have my friends who have been living here for 6/7 years.

Haven't you seen the KFC ad stereotyping black people in the Caribbean, the "F*ck off, we're full" t-shirts and the video of Australian TV anchor showing a picture of Serena Williams and saying "not long out of the forest"? And thats just the tip of the iceberg... Good to hear that you haven't faced any racism. Obviously most Aussies probably are not racist. But the proportion of racists seem to be very high compared to most countries.

@sudpita.166: Haha. That video was funny. I could not find the Aussie government ads I was referring to on youtube. They were showing it mainly on English news channels in India. One of them showed a South Asian Aussie chef. He owns some fancy restaurant in Aussieland. He was shown cooking and dining with white Aussies. Later he said how Australians have always been friendly to him, etc.

P.S. Why won't the Aussies love the Queen of England? Haven't they prospered under the Monarchy's rule? The British Empire has always given preferential treatment to its 'white colonies'...

Haven't you seen the KFC ad stereotyping black people in the Caribbean, the "F*ck off, we're full" t-shirts and the video of Australian TV anchor showing a picture of Serena Williams and saying "not long out of the forest"? And thats just the tip of the iceberg... Good to hear that you haven't faced any racism. Obviously most Aussies probably are not racist. But the proportion of racists seem to be very high compared to most countries.
this is coming from a dude who hails from a country that still tag millions of people as "untouchables" and is the number one market for fair and lovely

what an irony!

@sudpita.166: Haha. That video was funny. I could not find the Aussie government ads I was referring to on youtube. They were showing it mainly on English news channels in India. One of them showed a South Asian Aussie chef. He owns some fancy restaurant in Aussieland. He was shown cooking and dining with white Aussies. Later he said how Australians have always been friendly to him, etc.

P.S. Why won't the Aussies love the Queen of England? Haven't they prospered under the Monarchy's rule? The British Empire has always given preferential treatment to its 'white colonies'...
like desis dont give preferential treatment, in the desiland unless you have connections you aint going any where!

who you trying to fool?

this is coming from a dude who hails from a country that still tag millions of people as "untouchables" and is the number one market for fair and lovely

what an irony!

i'm sorry but the untouchability bit is a stereotype. its like saying that people in india & bangladesh still have 6 kids on average (when the truth is closer to 2.5)... a dalit (dr. ambedkar) was one of the fathers of our constitution, the current chief minister of uttar pradesh is a dalit and there is a system of affirmative action in india as well. untouchability has been long abolished in india except perhaps in a few backward pockets. so please don't stereotype.

like desis dont give preferential treatment, in the desiland unless you have connections you aint going any where!

who you trying to fool?

the analogy you draw is lousy. i don't know what contacts you are talking about, but even if it is true, it doesn't compare to the british crown being systematically partial towards its white colonies. its funny seeing a south asian come to the british crown and australia's defence. a bit too much ganja yesterday night, dopekhor?

to moderators: i'm afraid the discussion has veered too far from the topic, so feel free to delete all the irrelevant posts...

But I had no idea the Australian govt was running tv ads in india, but their was diffidently drop in indian students coming to Australia to racial attacks estimated loss of US$5 Billion a year, but that was picked up opening up more seats to the Chinese. do you have a youtube link to such ads? i'd love to see them i had no idea.


The fall in Indian students was more due to stricter PR rules than anything. Speaking of racist attacks - why did they happen against Indian students only? How come no attacks on the Bangladeshis, Sri Lankans, Pakistanis, Arabs, Turks, Chinese, Vietnamese, Indonesians?

P.S. Why won't the Aussies love the Queen of England? Haven't they prospered under the Monarchy's rule? The British Empire has always given preferential treatment to its 'white colonies'...

There is a strong movement called the Australian Republican Movement. Most of my friends tend to support. A minority of Aussies are still for the monarchy though.

The fall in Indian students was more due to stricter PR rules than anything. Speaking of racist attacks - why did they happen against Indian students only? How come no attacks on the Bangladeshis, Sri Lankans, Pakistanis, Arabs, Turks, Chinese, Vietnamese, Indonesians?

How can they differentiate between Bangladeshi, Indian and Sri Lankans? Unless they were known to the perpetrators?

^^ It could also be that the sheer number of Indians in Australia means that the chances of a brown person randomly picked out in Australia, will for the most part, turn out to be an Indian.

^^ It could also be that the sheer number of Indians in Australia means that the chances of a brown person randomly picked out in Australia, will for the most part, turn out to be an Indian.

True, just like most folks from the Indian subcontinent get labeled as "paki" in Canada.

OLD ARTICAL 2010

Bangladesh Houses Thousands of Millionaires: Bangladesh Bank Report

Bangladesh houses not few but thousands (23,130) of millionaires, whose wealth is comparable to any other millionaire in the world.

The number of millionaires is on the rise in the country at a higher pace ever. According to Bangladesh Bank the numbers of millionaires are on the rise day by day. Only in the last three years the number of millionaires increased 65% and now the count is 23,130.

There were 47 millionaires in the country in 1975 and the number climbed over 23,000 at the end of 2009, according to a list of the tycoons made by Bangladesh Bank. However, names of many other millionaires remained out of the BB count.

The scenario of the growing number of millionaire during the post-independence Bangladesh showed that the number of the fat cats has doubled and tripled in last four decades with the change in government power. But the trouble is that this unprecedented growth in the number of millionaires in the country could not be justified by its meager economic activities. So, in order to grasp the true situation in Bangladesh, some background information on their source of wealth is necessary.

Till the 1980s, small and mid-level depositors used to enjoy special attention in the banks while after the 1990s depositors who deposited over a million dominated the banking circles.

According to Bangladesh Bank, 23,130 millionaires deposited Tk 1,00,544 crore with the banking sector till December 31, 2009. And only in last year people deposited Tk 23,305 corers extra. Of them, some 1,854 millionaires deposited money with four nationalized and specialized banks, 13,679 with private banks and 1,966 with the foreign banks. Their deposits were worth Tk 31,656 crore with the nationalized commercial banks, Tk 6,997 crore with nationalized and specialized banks, Tk 51,630 crore with private banks and Tk 10,260 crore with the foreign banks.

http://tazakhobor.com/bangladeshi-news-views/1-bangladeshi-news-views/552-dhaka-stocks-exchange-index-record

^

That is a huge pool of wealth. Does it invest in Bangladesh?

Looks like we are already ahead of the game, according to the last government release the per capita GDP is now $600!

But we need to have a growth rate in double digit to make significant progress, with huge population of 150 million, growth of 6-7% is simply not enough to bring majority of the country out of poverty.

Yeh, and if strict controls over population is not adopted then we are unlikely to see any improvement. The rate of slack in this subject and the unwillingness to adopt a strict measure is just simply astonishing. People are just asleep and they just hope it is someone else's problem, oh nothing to do with them, just leave it to chance and hope for the best!

OLD ARTICAL 2010

Bangladesh Houses Thousands of Millionaires: Bangladesh Bank Report

Bangladesh houses not few but thousands (23,130) of millionaires, whose wealth is comparable to any other millionaire in the world.

The number of millionaires is on the rise in the country at a higher pace ever. According to Bangladesh Bank the numbers of millionaires are on the rise day by day. Only in the last three years the number of millionaires increased 65% and now the count is 23,130.

There were 47 millionaires in the country in 1975 and the number climbed over 23,000 at the end of 2009, according to a list of the tycoons made by Bangladesh Bank. However, names of many other millionaires remained out of the BB count.

The scenario of the growing number of millionaire during the post-independence Bangladesh showed that the number of the fat cats has doubled and tripled in last four decades with the change in government power. But the trouble is that this unprecedented growth in the number of millionaires in the country could not be justified by its meager economic activities. So, in order to grasp the true situation in Bangladesh, some background information on their source of wealth is necessary.

Till the 1980s, small and mid-level depositors used to enjoy special attention in the banks while after the 1990s depositors who deposited over a million dominated the banking circles.

According to Bangladesh Bank, 23,130 millionaires deposited Tk 1,00,544 crore with the banking sector till December 31, 2009. And only in last year people deposited Tk 23,305 corers extra. Of them, some 1,854 millionaires deposited money with four nationalized and specialized banks, 13,679 with private banks and 1,966 with the foreign banks. Their deposits were worth Tk 31,656 crore with the nationalized commercial banks, Tk 6,997 crore with nationalized and specialized banks, Tk 51,630 crore with private banks and Tk 10,260 crore with the foreign banks.

http://tazakhobor.com/bangladeshi-news-views/1-bangladeshi-news-views/552-dhaka-stocks-exchange-index-record

Are these millionaires based on $ assets or Tk? If in dollars, that's a huge number.