India Economy Thread II

[Indiadreams]

Both are UA figures as per census classification.

They have randomly assigned Population and GDP figures , which they had access to. They had to do this for around 200 cities in the world and accuracy would have been their least concern. The central theme of the report is something else. Our media picks up data from the corner of a report, without understanding its relevance. The report is not aimed at giving accurate figures.

[adam_india]

Yes,
Pop of urban agglomerations (from the Economic Survey of MH)
Gr. Mumbai , Mira Bhayndar, Thane, Navi Mumbai, Kalyan-Dombivali, Ulhasnagar, Ambernath, Badalapur : 18.4 million
Pune (M.Corp.), Pune (CB), Kirkee, Pimpri-Chinchwad, Dehu Road (CB), Dehu: 5.1 million

whereas district-wise are
Mumbai city: 3.15 million
Mumbai Suburban: 9.33 million
Thane: 11.05 million
Raigad: 2.63 million

Pune: 9.43 million

[gentem]

Originally Posted by adam_india

One more of these city projections. This one by McKinsey

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...w/14871862.cms

Some surprises there, never expected Pune's GDP (2010 levels) to be higher than Chennai or Hyderabad. How correct is this data?

original report:
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/mgi...onsuming_class

bangalore population was 8.1m in 2010, there is an error.

mckinsey won't post some random figures to spoil their reputation, officially bangalore is no. 3 gdp city in india overtaking kolkata but I don't think delhi will overtake mumbai by 2025.. mckinsey can go wrong about future predictions but present figures are accurate.

[Master of Disguise]

Originally Posted by murlee

Delhites would counter them by saying figures of Delhi doesn't include NCR.

Anyways, that debate would be much more interesting with MoD around..

Dude....Gurgaon Figures are counted in Haryana's and Noida's in UP's count....
Check it if you want....what do you think Delhi can't stand alone??? Delhi has made Gurgaon n Noida...


I am not much into stats though I know few things...

[murlee]

Originally Posted by Master of Disguise

Dude....Gurgaon Figures are counted in Haryana's and Noida's in UP's count....
Check it if you want....what do you think Delhi can't stand alone??? Delhi has made Gurgaon n Noida...


I am not much into stats though I know few things...

Dude.. This is what I have been saying too.. Gurgaon would be included in some Haryana district stats and Noida in some UP district stats when Govt calculates!

U are just reiterating my point.

[tryindiffdrugsngirls]

Are thos per capita incomes of 5000$ etc. nominal or purchasing power?

[murlee]

Originally Posted by tryindiffdrugsngirls

Are thos per capita incomes of 5000$ etc. nominal or purchasing power?

All are nominal.

[Indiadreams]

Originally Posted by gentem

bangalore population was 8.1m in 2010, there is an error.

mckinsey won't post some random figures to spoil their reputation, officially bangalore is no. 3 gdp city in india overtaking kolkata but I don't think delhi will overtake mumbai by 2025.. mckinsey can go wrong about future predictions but present figures are accurate.

When I meant random figures, it means crude estimates. While it had used urban agglomerartion population as per census, there is no source to get the gdp for exactly the same population. GDP is available only district wise

Moreover as I said before the report needed only crude stimates. It is not about accuracy. Reports in research agencies are made such that tht central theme is formed and the data is provided to support the theme. It doesn't vouch for accuracy unless the agency has access to official data or it is the expert in the field. In this case Mckinsey just wanted to prove that the economic centre of the world is shifting towards east and highlighted new econmic centres going forward. Approximation of GDP figures doesn't distort the theme. Less said the better about the prediction of GDP for individual cities in 2025.

[tryindiffdrugsngirls]

So Pune's per capita income is 9,000$ nominal? Hard to believe. Oh nvm I got it. The GDP mentioned is nominal but per capita income is in PPP

[chennaidesi]

True. I am not sure why when they give a GDP in nominal terms per capita should be given in nominal not PPP.
Also pune gdp 19B is for whole district of which only 51 lakh in metro and remaining 4 lakh in rural area and pune rural area produces max Maha agricultural output among all districts so almost 40% of people outside pune metro area will take away at least 5B so leaving pune metro GDP nominal figures at just 12 to 13 Billion.

[MeMumbaikar]

more than agri

its the pimpri chinchwad and the tremendous growth along the MPE

I mean that region laying between navi mumbai and Pune metropolitan area is growing on drugs.


Its the same for Nashik and mumbai highway, factory after factory coming up

[MeMumbaikar]

and as far as per capita income goes

nobody comes close to surat. Dont go by the official figures, the diamond trade in surat and associated activities off the book, nobody can compete with.

Officially its chandigragh.

[chennaidesi]

So far the best document for district wise gdp available in India from planning commision

http://planningcommission.nic.in/pla...=ssphdbody.htm

But the document is available only up to 2007.
Bangalore figures are also wrong given on the higher side.

[adam_india]

Originally Posted by chennaidesi

True. I am not sure why when they give a GDP in nominal terms per capita should be given in nominal not PPP.
Also pune gdp 19B is for whole district of which only 51 lakh in metro and remaining 4 lakh in rural area and pune rural area produces max Maha agricultural output among all districts so almost 40% of people outside pune metro area will take away at least 5B so leaving pune metro GDP nominal figures at just 12 to 13 Billion.

Agriculture contributes to only 10.8% of Maharashtra's GDP, contribution of agriculture to Pune district GDDP is probably not higher than that, likely to be much lower is my guess.

In the link of planning commission you posted, in 2006-07 agriculture contributed to only 8% of the districts GDP, as agriculture hasn't been growing as fast as the rest, it should have come down substantially by 2010, possibly to 5%

2010-11:
MH Agriculture 1,15,186cr
MH GDP 10,68,327 cr

I think one can't really classify parts of Pune district outside the main city as rural anymore, they are more semi urban. Excluding the Pimpri Chinchwad MIDC and other much smaller ones, most MIDCs are in semi urban areas like Ranjangaon, Chakan, Talegaon.
One thing in defining the city limits, they have been planning to merge the 'villages' but only a very few have been. The villages aren't really villages any more as they are surrounded by industries. I guess only with the formation of PMRDA aka MMRDA, the whole area will come under one set up.

[AmitavaGhosh]

Originally Posted by surreal75

Your argument is logically flawed:
1. Mathematically, without loss of generality, if you assume that 3 years back Rs100 was the cost of fare and 50% of it was funded by your taxes and 50% was paid by you. Now with inflation the cost of the fare has gone up 25% to Rs 125. With same inflation, your salary and so your tax has gone up by 25%. So now your tax is funding 50+25% = Rs 62.5 of the cost of the fare. You still need to pay up Rs 62.5 to cover the rest. So your part of the fare should also go up 25%. You just can't expect to pay the same in rupees as you were paying 3 years back.
2. Conceptually, as the inflation goes up the value of Rs goes down. So the part of the value that you were paying has gone down by the inflation if you continue to pay the same amount. You need to pay more to make up for the depreciation in the value of Rs due to inflation.
3. Please don't compare NHS with railway service. Both are in completely different domains and many people will argue whether govt should play a role in the latter. If you have to compare NHS with something then compare it with govt hospitals in India. You know how pathetic most govt hospitals in India are. IR is similarly pathetic in its service. May be you like it, who else?

I don't like the Indian railways, that's why the aversion to pay more for the same shitty service.Except probably the Rajdhani, Duronto, and Jan Shatabdi which provide decent services in terms of cleanliness and punctuality, nothing else is at all reliable.But these trains, as it is, charge more. If Dinesh Trivedi has suggested that he would introduce 100 new trains with enhanced facilities I would gladly pay more.But, he said that we raised the fare to curb the deficit between expenditure and revenue plus govt grants.

I am not the person who believe that every buck of inflation should be passed to the common people like us,specially on important sectors like medical, rail, health, education.I would agree to your analysis above if I was paying taxes to the railways alone, but I am paying taxes to the government and your analysis discounts 2 important aspects a)You are growing which is why India is growing b) The more you prosper, you are spending more into the formal sector.

Say for example,let us assume you are a common Indian man, over the past 5 years you have yourself prospered and now have decided to buy a maruti car.Do you have any idea as to how much taxes you pay?
Firstly, your income, which is already income and professional taxed, for your efforts the profits earned by your company is paying corporate taxes.Now for you when Maruti is manufacturing a car, every Indian part used is paying 14 % excise and for every imported part it is paying 100% customs tax.Every operator who handles my car is charging his service tax.When the finished product is made it is being subjected to excise again.The transport operator who is bringing your car to the showroom is charging his service tax and the toll tax it had paid.Now at the showroom the vendor is charging me his sales tax, the insurance company is charging it's tax and we have to pay registration taxes and road taxes before we can take it out.So all these taxes add up to my final bill .So you can guess how much not expenditure taxes you pay apart for your personal income taxes.This is the same cycle that would happen every time you purchase an item in the in the formal sector.I am sure, i have missed a few taxes as well.

An 8% increase in GDP results in about 30-40% increase in the tax revenues in all developed nations.Unfortunately in our country rather than ensuring better tax compliance our govt increases the price for everything.Also it keeps on swelling it's subsidy bills or if giving away unreasonable tax benefits to the rich industrialists.

For work I had to travel to Switzerland in 2006, from Vevey to Geneva then it used to charge me 29 francs, last year when I went there again, I found it surprising that it was same 29 francs only. And, almost all important products are almost the same price, but price of luxury goods has increased.

[MeMumbaikar]

yeah but you assume most of the Indians work in the service sector and are employed.

Firstly majority of Indians work in get pay less than the bands needed to pay tax ie 2 lakhs

Secondly, my neighbour is self employed and earns 12 lakh. He spreads it out in his family in such a way that everybody falls below the 2 lakh income paying limit by making family members "employees"

There are very few people in india whose income at taxed at source. Small business man and their ilk use creative accounting practices and other means to avoid taxes legally.

More than going after those who dodge tax me thinks its time to close the loopholes.



Railways need a fare hike. More than service its safety which needs to be improved. Some of the tracks are 100 years old or more.


I would gladly pay for the railways used for the masses, compared to the money wasted in Air India. Now that is a bottomless pit.


Problem with Mamata didi and the congress is that they want more subsidies without raising revenues in populist measures.

[gentem]

Originally Posted by adam_india

One more of these city projections. This one by McKinsey

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...w/14871862.cms

Some surprises there, never expected Pune's GDP (2010 levels) to be higher than Chennai or Hyderabad. How correct is this data?

original report:
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/mgi...onsuming_class

Originally Posted by Indiadreams

When I meant random figures, it means crude estimates. While it had used urban agglomerartion population as per census, there is no source to get the gdp for exactly the same population. GDP is available only district wise

Moreover as I said before the report needed only crude stimates. It is not about accuracy. Reports in research agencies are made such that tht central theme is formed and the data is provided to support the theme. It doesn't vouch for accuracy unless the agency has access to official data or it is the expert in the field. In this case Mckinsey just wanted to prove that the economic centre of the world is shifting towards east and highlighted new econmic centres going forward. Approximation of GDP figures doesn't distort the theme. Less said the better about the prediction of GDP for individual cities in 2025.

If it is too crude, and say error deviation is more than 10% then mckinskey wont publish such reports at all. They are big corporate, they are not band of forummers posting random and baseless thoughts living in denial If you assume that much deviation is there you can still dispute bangalore might not have overtaken kolkata yet..

[tryindiffdrugsngirls]

Per capita income of Mexico is cool 10 Gs and PPP is about 15 grands. Yet they are considered poor by Americans. Wonder when will we reach "Mexican Poor" level

[MeMumbaikar]

Originally Posted by tryindiffdrugsngirls

Per capita income of Mexico is cool 10 Gs and PPP is about 15 grands. Yet they are considered poor by Americans. Wonder when will we reach "Mexican Poor" level

problem with the likes of brazil and mexico is wealth distribution.

if it was uniformly distributed then i dont think even the americans would consider them that poor.

[Indiadreams]

Originally Posted by gentem

If it is too crude, and say error deviation is more than 10% then mckinskey wont publish such reports at all. They are big corporate, they are not band of forummers posting random and baseless thoughts living in denial If you assume that much deviation is there you can still dispute bangalore might not have overtaken kolkata yet..

I dont have any issues in Bangalore or Kolkata having higher GDP.

Did you go through the Mckinsey report actually? What you are seeing here is ET's presentation which sensationalises things. Mckinsey used the data in an aggregate form and even it has depended on statistics published by Govt (please go through report).

What it did is assigning the district's GDP for the city. Please go through the disucssions on Pune in this thread. It would be ridiculous to say that Pune had higher GDP per capita than Mumbai or Delhi. You can go through MH economic survey for futher details.